The only problem with Paizo (or anyone else for that matter) going against 4e is the influx of new gamers.
Yes, Paizo may have a solid group of stalwarts who stay 3.5 . . .but in 2-3-4 years they will likely be facing diminishing returns.
Essentially, what I am saying is this:
The danger of hitching your business to the current edition is you have a set # of people (most set in their ways and games) and that number is likely to be much more limited and much less likely to grow as quickly as 4e consumers.
I do not envy Paizo's choice.
I just have to jump in on this thought. IF we were to stay with 3.5, what makes you think that there wouldn't be an influx of new gamers? To wit, take a look at Games Workshop. Their business model is to bring in young kids, around age 14 to 16, and basically they expect to lose them in 4 to 6 years. Companies like Privateer Press make their bucks taking the ex-GW players and making them into Warmachine or Hordes players. Rackham does this also.So why couldn't Paizo, IF we were to stay with 3.5, get a regular influx of younger gamers who got weaned into the industry by 4th edition, but got bored and started looking for a more complicated game, or perhaps heard about this amazing campaign setting called Pathfinder Chronicles? I don't really understand why everyone thinks that IF a company stuck with 3.5, that it was like they were stuck in a hermetically sealed room or something.
Of all the pros and cons everyone mentions about 4e vs. 3.5e, this one drives me the most nuts. :) So, again, I ask, why would sticking with 3.5 mean entering a game of diminishing returns?
-Lisa
DISCLAIMER: This post is entirely a thought exercise and shouldn't be construed as proof either for or against Paizo going to 4e or not. We haven't seen the GSL or the rules yet, so we have no decision to report. I just couldn't resist making this point though. :)
I have copied this from the Chris Pramas thread because some people who might want to comment on it are avoiding 4E threads. Lisa's post was written as a reply to The Last Rogue and I have therefore copied his post as well.
Just did.
|
Ok, once again in this thread: ;)
Correct me, if I am wrong but, what I have seen from 4E is the following:
The new encounter format (Delve Format IIRC), seems to be restricting in itself, as it looks that the complexity of an encounter seems to be shortened, as only two, max. three different creatures could be used to be able to stick to two pages, not talking about traps or whatnot which have to be included.
The whole feeling the 4E previews gave me, make me think that 4E is all about COMBAT not ROLEPLAY! Of course, I could be wrong, but I am sure this is true.
I don't play D&D because of cool combats ('course, I like them), but with a setting like Pathfinder the whole world and scope of D&D (as we all know it) is there for you to explore. 4E looks more like Min/Maxing for me and I am sure, 3.x will remain strong.
People will flock over to 4E, that's sure, but I am also sure, that quite a few of them will come back, because 4E is not what they had expected.
Paizo is strong (with Pathfinder anyway), and they have all the reason (and could be most confident) to believe, heck to know they can hold their base against 4E and are even able (maybe more than any other company presently) to attract new players to the game!
My dream: Paizo recruits Monte Cook and then have ALL the best designers out there in their boat. Imagine what pleasure, JJ, Eric, Jason, Monte, and all the others from Paizo we got to repsect for their talent would bring us if work in one place... ;)
How dare you risk cross-pollinating crosswiredmind!?!
I’ll be teaching my son using 3.5 rules, so there’s one new gamer.
To repeat a point that I and others have raised on the thread Kruelaid linked to above, a concern for Paizo remaining 3.5 will be at what point might they produce their own version of the PHB to support the new players that they hope to bring in?
Edit:
And how much could they [Paizo] legally reproduce of the 3.5 system without coming to an agreement with WotC/Hasbro? I suspect that not quite *everything* in the 3.5 PHB is OGL.
every thing in the srd is indeed ogl that leves out i think xp tables and maybe one or two other small things and there easy fixes i would so buy a pathfinder phb even though i have done houserules most of the classes.
|
every thing in the srd is indeed ogl that leves out i think xp tables and maybe one or two other small things and there easy fixes i would so buy a pathfinder phb even though i have done houserules most of the classes.
I've heard that such things as ability score generation and xp tables are closed content; yet also that one of the reasons for a tighter licence, this time round, is that some publishers created 'stand-alone' rules, which WOTC wanted to restrict.
How did those publishers get around that restriction in the first place? (I'm told Mutants & Masterminds is one, among others.)
Did they create new systems of their own? I can imagine for a supers game, the ability score range would not be the usual '4d6 & drop lowest'? And the usual xp for 'super-heroic' activities may not need to follow the usual 'bash-the-monster-take-it's-stuff' model from the DMG?
Is the restriction against printing any such rules, or simply against printing the ones specifically from the PHB? I guess I'm just unaware of what 'loophole' they are supposed to have used, that it requires a drastic closure, now?
And if there was such a loophole for those publishers, what would prevent a 3rd-party 'Player's Handbook', 'DM's Guide' and 'Monster Manual' (or similarly named products) remaining in print for years to come?
|
|
What if Paizo frames 3.5 (or its version of it) as the "immersive" edition of D&D, or some such positive term to convey what is does better than 4E, so players feel it is something to graduate to or return to when they tire of 4E.
Yeah; I remember when I was a kid, and I went from the 'Tom Moldvay Edition' Basic/Expert set (the one with the Erol Otus covers), and I got the 'Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players' Handbook'.
I was so chuffed; I thought, "Oh, yeah! I'm Advanced! I'm playing with the Big Boys, now!"
|
What if Paizo frames 3.5 (or its version of it) as the "immersive" edition of D&D, or some such positive term to convey what is does better than 4E, so players feel it is something to graduate to or return to when they tire of 4E.
So why couldn't Paizo, IF we were to stay with 3.5, get a regular influx of younger gamers who got weaned into the industry by 4th edition, but got bored and started looking for a more complicated game, or perhaps heard about this amazing campaign setting called Pathfinder Chronicles? I don't really understand why everyone thinks that IF a company stuck with 3.5, that it was like they were stuck in a hermetically sealed room or something.
I agree. To me 4E seems more appropriate for quick dungeon romps (or river races, urban chases, etc.), good games for a lighthearted off evening or to take a breath with a short number of action packed adventures between longer and more complex/deep campaigns.
If Paizo keeps 3.X for its AP, does rules-free fluff supplements, and goes 4E for single shot or loosely connected adventures, would be a win-win plan, IMHO.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If Paizo keeps 3.X for its AP, does rules-free fluff supplements, and goes 4E for single shot or loosely connected adventures, would be a win-win plan, IMHO.
The other option (again, if the GSL allows) is to make the gazzetters rules free, and then produce 'the big book of rules in system X' either in print or in PDF form. That model seems to be working for Green Ronin. (At least I've bought into it.)
every thing in the srd is indeed ogl that leves out i think xp tables and maybe one or two other small things and there easy fixes i would so buy a pathfinder phb even though i have done houserules most of the classes.I've heard that such things as ability score generation and xp tables are closed content; yet also that one of the reasons for a tighter licence, this time round, is that some publishers created 'stand-alone' rules, which WOTC wanted to restrict.
How did those publishers get around that restriction in the first place? (I'm told Mutants & Masterminds is one, among others.)
Did they create new systems of their own? I can imagine for a supers game, the ability score range would not be the usual '4d6 & drop lowest'? And the usual xp for 'super-heroic' activities may not need to follow the usual 'bash-the-monster-take-it's-stuff' model from the DMG?
Is the restriction against printing any such rules, or simply against printing the ones specifically from the PHB? I guess I'm just unaware of what 'loophole' they are supposed to have used, that it requires a drastic closure, now?
And if there was such a loophole for those publishers, what would prevent a 3rd-party 'Player's Handbook', 'DM's Guide' and 'Monster Manual' (or similarly named products) remaining in print for years to come?
i do not see such a resriction in the srd but im not a lawer im sure one will prob drop in at some point. M&M1E u pretty much pick your stats powers and skill with an allotment of points. state gen be pretty easy make there own point buy or go classic 3d6 or 4d6 dropping the loweist one. same with xp plenty of taalented folk here sure they can whip a nice chart up no prob.
P.S. I'd buy 3.Paizo.
3.Paizo
Cool.
Edit:
Kruelaid. I meant installing a link on the Pramas thread so that people reading the Pramas thread, could follow a link to here if they were interested; if you posted a link on the Pramas thread to this one, it seems to have got lost in a message boards time-warp as far as I can make out, so over on the Pramas thread I have quoted one of your posts, and provided a link to this one, just to be on the safe side. ;-)
I'm just so oblivious sometimes. I miss so much - it's the voices in my head.
Anyway, this is really an interesting take on the whole matter.
The offering relies on the strength of the Pathfinder brand and not on the OGL. Just offering 3.5 because it's a more complex or more developed RPG system doesn't do it.
What's funny is that Paizo seems to be tightening up the brand with their recent subscription and labeling changes, which would seem to herald something like sticking with 3.5. Of course they haven't seen 4E yet, but it's good to get everything in order before you take a big step, isn't it - no matter which way you step.
If Paizo keeps 3.X for its AP, does rules-free fluff supplements, and goes 4E for single shot or loosely connected adventures, would be a win-win plan, IMHO.
This is interesting! I had always thought of it as an all-or-nothing decision...doing a bit of each might be more difficult, but could be really rewarding if they could pull it off.
Also, making 3.Paizo something to which younger players could "graduate" might be a solid plan. I, too, remember the days when I "graduated" from BECMI D&D to "Advanced." It was certainly similar enough that the transition was fairly painless.
And Lisa makes a very interesting point that makes me challenge my own assumptions: I had assumed that they would switch to 4.0 because I assumed it would make the most financial sense. I hadn't really thought through a scenario where they could build on the momentum of those who don't want to switch and also exploit the weaknesses* of the new rules. (*I understand that what one person sees as a "weakness" of one particular ruleset, another person may view as a "feature"). I'm no business wizard, so I'll leave those difficult decisions where they belong. And I don't envy Paizo for having to make those decisions. I do think it would have to be done very well. But maybe it *could* be done. And as someone who isn't particularly excited about what the previews for 4th edition have revealed, I find this idea very exciting. Even if it is just a "thought exercise."
|
|
To me 4E seems more appropriate for quick dungeon romps (or river races, urban chases, etc.), good games for a lighthearted off evening or to take a breath with a short number of action packed adventures between longer and more complex/deep campaigns.
That may be true; and it may even be very suited for that purpose. Unfortunately, I already own Heroquest, Advanced Heroquest, Warhammer Quest, Dungeonquest, Necromunda, Mordheim, and the D&D boardgame.
If I feel like having a light-hearted blast, I'm already well-served.If Paizo keeps 3.X for its AP, does rules-free fluff supplements, and goes 4E for single shot or loosely connected adventures, would be a win-win plan, IMHO.
I agree; those who want the more involved storyline and are happy with the longer prep-time can enjoy the 3.5 version. Those who want to short-cut to the battles can have a stripped-down version for 4E.
Or would it make sense to keep the two lines in separate settings, to avoid confusion?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I'm just so oblivious sometimes. I miss so much - it's the voices in my head.Edit:
Kruelaid. I meant installing a link on the Pramas thread so that people reading the Pramas thread, could follow a link to here if they were interested; if you posted a link on the Pramas thread to this one, it seems to have got lost in a message boards time-warp as far as I can make out, so over on the Pramas thread I have quoted one of your posts, and provided a link to this one, just to be on the safe side. ;-)
i'm jealous that the voices in your head won't talk to me.
In response to the thought exercise, I think this amazing world of Golarion will attract more customers. There are different ways that this could happen.
Help me with this one ...
(1) The artwork. Paizo gives away a lot of amazing work. I put the art on my desktop after adding a calendar in one of the corners for easy reference. Some of the amazing, world-specific artwork oughta bring in new customers.
(2) The giveaways. Some of the freebies available on this site can be circulated widely attracting new players.
...
|
|
The other option (again, if the GSL allows) is to make the gazzetters rules free, and then produce 'the big book of rules in system X' either in print or in PDF form. That model seems to be working for Green Ronin. (At least I've bought into it.)
The restrictions imposed by the GSL (IF there will be restrictions) is one problem I didn't think of, to tell the truth. I guess that this is one big point we all have just to wait and see.
Regarding the rules free gazetters that was just the thing I was thinking in the "fluff supplements" part.
That may be true; and it may even be very suited for that purpose. Unfortunately, I already own Heroquest, Advanced Heroquest, Warhammer Quest, Dungeonquest, Necromunda, Mordheim, and the D&D boardgame.
If I feel like having a light-hearted blast, I'm already well-served.
I know this situation, as I'm more or less in the same boat. I have Dungeoneer, Anima, Pirates of the Spanish Main, Starquest, a large selection of the D&D minis, and others too.
I also have a number of old Chaousium and Pagan Publishing CoC supplements I never played, a couple of d100 Basic expansions, some FuZion based games, and some more Elric stuff.But having both "complex D&D" and "Fast&Furious D&D" in the same catalogue seems a good move too.
Not everyone has a large selection of alternative games or the desire to learn some wildly different kind of games.
Also, the opportunity to play an action module and find all the hints from the deeper, complex game that's in the same setting (played more or less often, basing on personal tastes) is somewhat appealing.
Just saw this posted on ENWorld news page:
Living Arcanis will not be moving to 4ed and in fact is to break its connections from D&D altogether. In an open letter to the Living Arcanis Yahoo Group, PCI president Henry Lopez wrote:
"Hello everyone,
I was given a head's up about this hotly talked about topic and I think its important to let you guys know a decision we at PCI made a short bit ago: After this current story-arc, Arcanis will not be going 4E (or remaining 3.5E for that matter).
Why?
A few reasons: The two main ones are that the 4E rule set is not a good fit for what our vision of Arcanis is. Marrying Arcanis to D&D in the first place was like shoving a square peg in a round hole, but with enough shoving and Vaseline, we made it work. Now with 4E and its focus on it being more of a tactical wargame as well as some Core Arcanis classes like the Druid.
Secondly (and in my opinion most importantly) if we have to go through a 4.5E or 5E switch over (and don't kid yourself, one of those two or both will occur) it will kill us as a company. Ever since 4E was announced sales of 3.5 books have plummeted across the industry. The fact that we're going to produce a few 3.5 Arcanis books for the Summer is a huge gamble for us as well as our faith in you, the Arcaniac, that you will continue to support us regardless that the book is using 3.5 mechanics.
As far as I'm concerned, the D&D horse is no longer one which PCI can hitch its wagon to. It just doesn't make business sense to us to do so. So unless something drastic occurs, we will instead be going for a PCI owned system that accentuates an Epic Fantasy setting and play.
Does that mean we may lose some of the player base? Yep, I fully expect a certain percentage of players who only play Arcanis because its another D&D world and that we give away lots of free adventures to leave us. Others may just be done after playing for 6-7 years and want to try something new.
I'm banking on those of you who love the story and want to find out what happens at the end as well as discovering new and unknown lands of Dar Zhan Vor and beyond. It may be a smaller player base, but it will be wholly Arcanis players and from there we'll steadily grow like we did before.
Some of you may find this a disappointment and for that I'm sorry. However, this is the best decision to make for the company and, at the end of the day, I need to care more about PCI than about WotC. I'll stand by and monitor the group for the inevitable "You're wrong", "You're going to kill LA" and other assorted and creative expletives. ;-)
Best,
Henry Lopez
President
Paradigm Concepts, Inc."Thanks to dm4hire for the scoop.
Interesting little tidbit. I'm not sure if this will start an avalanche of "no 4e'ers", but still noteworthy.
|
Just saw this posted on ENWorld news page:
Think Paizo are damned if they do / damned if they don't, losing either 3.5 or 4E customers by making the switch or not? Consider Paradigm Concepts losing BOTH 3.5 AND 4E customers by their decision to break away from D&D entirely :(
I'm a HUGE Arcanis fan. I thought they were another company that did 3.5 well. I can understand them not wanting to go down the 4E route. However, abandoning 3.5 too? Without even seeing what independent system they have to offer, they've lost me as a customer - I have no interest in learning a different game system for every campaign I play, let alone introducing new players to each system. Same as when L5R dropped D20 and published their new edition.
I'm really saddened to see one campaign setting after another abandon their fanbase.
I'm a HUGE Arcanis fan. I thought they were another company that did 3.5 well. I can understand them not wanting to go down the 4E route. However, abandoning 3.5 too? Without even seeing what independent system they have to offer, they've lost me as a customer. Same as when L5R dropped D20 and published their new edition.
There is a new L5R edition?
Squeee!
*dances jig.*
Now let's try and pry CoC away from the d20 opiates.
3.Paizo
Cool.
3.Pi
Awesome!
|
|
every thing in the srd is indeed ogl that leves out i think xp tables and maybe one or two other small things and there easy fixes i would so buy a pathfinder phb even though i have done houserules most of the classes.I've heard that such things as ability score generation and xp tables are closed content; yet also that one of the reasons for a tighter licence, this time round, is that some publishers created 'stand-alone' rules, which WOTC wanted to restrict.
How did those publishers get around that restriction in the first place? (I'm told Mutants & Masterminds is one, among others.)
Did they create new systems of their own? I can imagine for a supers game, the ability score range would not be the usual '4d6 & drop lowest'? And the usual xp for 'super-heroic' activities may not need to follow the usual 'bash-the-monster-take-it's-stuff' model from the DMG?
Is the restriction against printing any such rules, or simply against printing the ones specifically from the PHB? I guess I'm just unaware of what 'loophole' they are supposed to have used, that it requires a drastic closure, now?
And if there was such a loophole for those publishers, what would prevent a 3rd-party 'Player's Handbook', 'DM's Guide' and 'Monster Manual' (or similarly named products) remaining in print for years to come?
The XP table thing would likely be very easy to get around. Either use the same progression but have everyone's XP set to zero at each new level (plus any excess) so it looks like 1000 xp, 2000 xp, 3000 xp, etc. to advance, or, use a slightly different set of numbers. You could also just make it so encounters are static based off of EL vs ECL no matter WHAT level you are and you need some arbitrary number to move up each time.
|
|
I agree. To me 4E seems more appropriate for quick dungeon romps (or river races, urban chases, etc.), good games for a lighthearted off evening or to take a breath with a short number of action packed adventures between longer and more complex/deep campaigns.
If Paizo keeps 3.X for its AP, does rules-free fluff supplements, and goes 4E for single shot or loosely connected adventures, would be a win-win plan, IMHO.
I have been thinking exactly the same thing lately. Talking with my family they also seem to feel that 4.0 seems like it might be fun for a good solid dungeon romp but they like starting characters up from being nobodies into being somebodies. Which it looks like 3.e does better.
My thoughts (and I wondered when Paizo tightened the Gamemastery brand into a Pathfinder brand) was whether or not Paizo might keep Golarion 3.e and produce 4.0 modules based in another world.
Some random points that may be relevant.
Monte and Sue Cook are not reprinting their wildly successful Arcana Evolved alternate PH with the advent of 4E. Read into that what you will. (Nor do they have plans to convert it to 4E.)
Green Ronin produces True20, a standalone d20-derived ruleset that uses the Open Game License.
Mutants and Masterminds, a superhero game, is based on the OGL rules. (As another poster mentioned, they have their own stat and experience tables, but also a big selection of powers.) However, it in no way competes with D&D. Wizards has tried and failed to put out a supers game (okay TSR did and it was modestly successful) after d20 Modern. It isn't their core business. Why they fear competition which actually extends and enhances recognition of the core d20 system is beyond me. GURPS tried to be a "universally recognized" and played system. They are the #5 seller all-time of RPGs (or they were as of a few years ago.) They never came close to D&Ds popularity or recognition.
The GSL is still forthcoming and will be more restrictive. I liken what Wizards is doing with access to their format as Kodak-inspired. In the grips of corporate directives to increase control* of the product and "protect" it, the game design is going in a similar direction to the Kodak proprietary photo software where you must use their program and you must access it only through them. Well, some consumers (I number myself amongst them) hate that approach. Historically, pretty much every attempt by Kodak to "control" the market led to a loss of control. We'll see if my analogy holds in 2-5 years for D&D. Kodak is still successful, but not as much as they used to be or want to be.
*"The more you tighten your grip Lord Vader, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
What about the static XP charts from Unearthed Arcana? Are those OGL? I don't see them in the SRD, but that seems strange to me...
If they are usable, presto! 3.Paizo uses static XP for each CR, and the correspondingly larger XP progression chart.
The XP table thing would likely be very easy to get around. Either use the same progression but have everyone's XP set to zero at each new level (plus any excess) so it looks like 1000 xp, 2000 xp, 3000 xp, etc. to advance, or, use a slightly different set of numbers. You could also just make it so encounters are static based off of EL vs ECL no matter WHAT level you are and you need some arbitrary number to move up each time.every thing in the srd is indeed ogl that leves out i think xp tables and maybe one or two other small things and there easy fixes i would so buy a pathfinder phb even though i have done houserules most of the classes.I've heard that such things as ability score generation and xp tables are closed content; yet also that one of the reasons for a tighter licence, this time round, is that some publishers created 'stand-alone' rules, which WOTC wanted to restrict.
How did those publishers get around that restriction in the first place? (I'm told Mutants & Masterminds is one, among others.)
Did they create new systems of their own? I can imagine for a supers game, the ability score range would not be the usual '4d6 & drop lowest'? And the usual xp for 'super-heroic' activities may not need to follow the usual 'bash-the-monster-take-it's-stuff' model from the DMG?
Is the restriction against printing any such rules, or simply against printing the ones specifically from the PHB? I guess I'm just unaware of what 'loophole' they are supposed to have used, that it requires a drastic closure, now?
And if there was such a loophole for those publishers, what would prevent a 3rd-party 'Player's Handbook', 'DM's Guide' and 'Monster Manual' (or similarly named products) remaining in print for years to come?
Guys,
First off.. I think the support for Paizo is wonderful. I wouldn't want to discourage that in the slightest.
But, and I might be wrong, I think Lisa is asking "why would someone think not staying with 3.5 is viable?" Or as stated, "Why would staying lead to diminishing returns?"
Now I'm perfectly willing to stay with Paizo and not upgrade to this new edition. And I'm not special in that regard, a great many of us are willing to stick with Paizo. And we're all heroes for that level of loyalty. But let's explore the question. Let's play Devil's Advocate. Even though we don't think it's a matter of diminishing returns, let's ask ourselves why someone else would think that.
Because when we explore those hypotheticals, we're helping Lisa and the Gang understand how to combat those misconceptions, if that is what it comes down to...
*******************
I think one of the problems is the subconscious notion that "new is better." And there is some cause for that! 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Edition were all built on the same "Core" with varying degrees of modification. Each one is recognizable in relation to the other. You can clearly see the evolution and ancestry. Thus comes this idea (and before someone has to point this out, this is a generalization), that the next Edition must be better than the one before. There tends to be an assumption that "bugs have been found", "better systems have been put in place", it's frickan "NEW AND IMPROVED!"
Because as many reviewers, including Jason, Massawyrm, and Chris Pramas seem to be showing that "new is not necessarily improved, it's actually just different." Improved suggests that it's the same product, and it's not. It might be a good product, but it's a not an improvement upon a previous work. It's something totally new. That could be a doubled edged sword for WOTC, but it might also have to be pointed out. Consumers will have to be educated.
WOTC will capitalize upon this is if they can. That's why they haven't changed the name. This way they get to have their cake and eat it too, claiming it's a new game for a new generation, plus pointing out to the old generation how they have now fixed everything.. when the reality is they've sort of abandoned the game and rebuilt from scratch. The similarities are only in the fluff, and as much as I prize fluff over crunch, it is cosmetic.
One potential for diminishing returns is not educating consumers that these are now two different animals. One Edition later in response to the other, but became so different in the process that equal comparison is now stretched.
But people won't know that if they're not educated.
Lisa, that is one of your challenges.
Now anybody else have a potential challenge for her- whether it would affect you personally or not?
I’ll be teaching my son using 3.5 rules, so there’s one new gamer.
True, but when his friends are playing the latest version of D&D, who is he gonna stick with?
We all want to believe that our kids will follow all our examples, but we know from growing up ourselves that peer pressure is much stronger than parental pressure.
Greg
In response to Lisa's original post:
Lisa,
I think the potential fault in your argument is assuming that new players who play D&D for the first time in 4e will "fall back" to 3.5e if they don't enjoy it. I would wager that there are few people that started on 3.5e and "regressed" to 2e because they were dissatisfied with 3.5e. (There are 2e players out there but they were 2e grognards from before :-)
I suspect most people that are dissatisfied with 4e won't look at the version number, they will look at the brand name. They will be dissatisfied with D&D not 4e D&D. They'll go looking for other RPG brands to give them the game they need.
I suspect the only 3.5e "converts" from 4e will be those that made the original transition to 4e from 3.5, didn't like it, and moved back.
This is assuming that there is no-one to "coax" them back to 3.5. Obviously, anyone who starts in 4e but knows someone who plays/likes 3.5 has to potential to play it.
But if you are talking about "new" gamers in a new demographic, I don't they are going to go back to 3.5.
But that's just my speculation.
Greg
Pathfinder already isn't branded with the D&D label. Just market it as Pathfinder Chronicles, a d20 roleplaying game.
|
|
This is assuming that there is no-one to "coax" them back to 3.5. Obviously, anyone who starts in 4e but knows someone who plays/likes 3.5 has to potential to play it.
This is, I think the fault in your assumptions. Dungeons and Dragons has always, it appears to me, grown best through proselytizing. How many of us on this board picked up the game cold and learned it on our own. I was introduced to it by another and though I learned most of the rules on my own, I might not have if not shown the game.
As long as there are solid 3.e players willing to teach the system, the 3.e market has the potential to grow.
I suspect most people that are dissatisfied with 4e won't look at the version number, they will look at the brand name. They will be dissatisfied with D&D not 4e D&D. They'll go looking for other RPG brands to give them the game they need.
Perhaps it would be a wise move for paizo to produce their own pathfinder game after all? "Similar to D&D, but better in this and that regard." If you aim at dissatisfied customers, offering something similar (as the idea of the product had appeal to them in first place), and pointing out where the product is better might do the trick.
Just an idea.
Stefan
This is, I think the fault in your assumptions. Dungeons and Dragons has always, it appears to me, grown best through proselytizing. How many of us on this board picked up the game cold and learned it on our own. I was introduced to it by another and though I learned most of the rules on my own, I might not have if not shown the game.
As long as there are solid 3.e players willing to teach the system, the 3.e market has the potential to grow.
Bingo! I started playing 2ed. then went to 3rd. I knew some guys that still played 1st, so I switched to 1st and played a campaign with with them.
Fizz
Also did the same with warmachine and hordes
This is assuming that there is no-one to "coax" them back to 3.5. Obviously, anyone who starts in 4e but knows someone who plays/likes 3.5 has to potential to play it.This is, I think the fault in your assumptions. Dungeons and Dragons has always, it appears to me, grown best through proselytizing. How many of us on this board picked up the game cold and learned it on our own. I was introduced to it by another and though I learned most of the rules on my own, I might not have if not shown the game.
As long as there are solid 3.e players willing to teach the system, the 3.e market has the potential to grow.
Absolutely.
There is no more powerful marketing tool than a GM. If you will run, they will play.
That coincidentally is WOTC's initial hope for the first 6 to 8 months, encouraging established GMs to try the new game. They're not planning to start the 'new player' advertising campaign till after that first 6 to 8 months (unless they change their mind).
If you want to make Pathfinder strong, you volunteer to run Pathfinder for people.. and show them a good time.
True, but when his friends are playing the latest version of D&D, who is he gonna stick with?
As if. They’ll all be coming over to the cool dad’s house...
I suspect most people that are dissatisfied with 4e won't look at the version number, they will look at the brand name. They will be dissatisfied with D&D not 4e D&D. They'll go looking for other RPG brands to give them the game they need.Perhaps it would be a wise move for paizo to produce their own pathfinder game after all? "Similar to D&D, but better in this and that regard." If you aim at dissatisfied customers, offering something similar (as the idea of the product had appeal to them in first place), and pointing out where the product is better might do the trick.
Just an idea.
Stefan
That would definitely be my preference. I would also caution about getting too different from the 3.5 OGL (SRD). One of reasons I won't play True d20 is that it is not enough like SRD. I can't just open it up knowing those rules and start running it. I first need to look at how things changed. To me that is a turn off, even it is just minor changes. Too many minor changes = a really big change.
So, if they do make their own, sure make some changes, but make it easy enough that a D&D 3.5 DM can run it without having to look up new rules to understand how things are set up.
This is, I think the fault in your assumptions.
Possibly.
Dungeons and Dragons has always, it appears to me, grown best through proselytizing. How many of us on this board picked up the game cold and learned it on our own.
Me.
My Mom bought my brother the original D&D rules for Xmas back in the late 70s not knowing what it was, and me and my brothers learned it from the rule books.
I was introduced to it by another and though I learned most of the rules on my own, I might not have if not shown the game.
As long as there are solid 3.e players willing to teach the system, the 3.e market has the potential to grow.
So I guess the moral of the story is that none of us really knows anything. We are all sources of anecdotal evidence and no-one really knows what will happen.
So Lisa, I think its a crap shoot. Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances...
Greg
Pathfinder already isn't branded with the D&D label. Just market it as Pathfinder Chronicles, a d20 roleplaying game.
But the PHB, MM and DMG (all of which are referenced in Pathfinder and required fro play) are.
D&D is the game. Pathfinder is "just" an accessory to the game.
Greg
True, but when his friends are playing the latest version of D&D, who is he gonna stick with?As if. They’ll all be coming over to the cool dad’s house...
:-)
I think the potential fault in your argument is assuming that new players who play D&D for the first time in 4e will "fall back" to 3.5e if they don't enjoy it.
Like I said above, and in the other thread, it has to rely on the strength of Pathfinder brand, not 3.5 OGL.
People won't fall back to 3.5. I agree with you.
They might move to Pathfinder from 4E. I think that is possible. But then how many are we talking about?
And of this of course leads to the need for a Pathfinder PHB.
Like I said above, and in the other thread, it has to rely on the strength of Pathfinder brand, not 3.5 OGL.
People won't fall back to 3.5. I agree with you.
They might move to Pathfinder from 4E. I think that is possible. But then how many are we talking about?
And of this of course leads to the need for a Pathfinder PHB.
Sure, if it's branded as a completely new game, then they have a chance. Is it better or worse than sticking with D&D? I sure don't know. But I think staying with 3.5e D&D will probably lead to stagnant sales.
And I say this not happily as a 4e player, but actually rather sadly because I plan on sticking with 3.5e and am enjoying Pathfinder. I'd love to think that I could run APs in 3.5e until I'm 80. But that ain't gonna happen. The writing is on the wall.
Greg
CEO
|
I am reposting a response I had in the other thread because it is relevant here:
Would Paizo be prepared (in the hypothetical situation of Paizo remaining 3.5) to either print their own PHBs or make a pact with WotC to ensure a continuing supply of them to make sure that 4E players wanting to convert wouldn't have to look too far if they didn't have second hand bookstores in town, or regular access to online second-hand stores? That might one reason why people are seeing such a decision as being equivalent to entering a game of diminishing returns.
It seems to me that IF a company were to stick with supporting 3.5 that they would need to find a way to keep the rulebooks for that system available and relevant. It would be like printing CCG expansions but not keeping the core set in print. Or making miniatures for a miniatures game that doesn't have the core rulebook in print. One thing I have learned in my years in the gaming industry is that if there isn't a core rulebook available at retail, then that game and all its supplements are dead to the retailer. Nothing can get them griping more than having your core rulebook out of print. So, yes, I think anybody, including Paizo, who is serious about sticking with 3.5, would have to find a way to keep a core rulebook in print.
-Lisa
Pathfinder already isn't branded with the D&D label. Just market it as Pathfinder Chronicles, a d20 roleplaying game.But the PHB, MM and DMG (all of which are referenced in Pathfinder and required fro play) are.
D&D is the game. Pathfinder is "just" an accessory to the game.
Greg
The SRD, which contains all the same information as the PHB, DMG, and MM (or at least the parts of it Pathfinder is allowed to reference), isn't branded. Heck, Paizo isn't actually allowed to say 'Dungeon Master's Guide'. They have to say 'DMG'.
And Pathfinder isn't an accessory to the game. It's 'Compatible with the world's most popular roleplaying game.'
The SRD, which contains all the same information as the PHB, DMG, and MM (or at least the parts of it Pathfinder is allowed to reference), isn't branded. Heck, Paizo isn't actually allowed to say 'Dungeon Master's Guide'. They have to say 'DMG'.
Well, we all know the SRD isn't complete. And really, does anyone identify the game as "SRD" or "d20"? C'mon, we all call it D&D. Isn't that the big hoopla now? That 4e isn't D&D?
And Pathfinder isn't an accessory to the game. It's 'Compatible with the world's most popular roleplaying game.'
Is this really a nit worth picking? Pathfinder is not a rules set. The PHB is. (OK, the SRD is). Therefore it's an accessory to a rules set. Let's not get into a war of semantics, k?
Greg