I'm getting the impression there is some kind of line in the sand from the posters here, which I'm not sure is really there
Now I will certainly be playing Pathfinder and don't have much interest in 4th...especially now, but does this announcement mean that no 4th Ed material will come out, ever?
The conversions will currently be done by the fans, but really I'm not sure any other way can exist at the moment can it? Paizo doesn't even have the ability to preview the gaming system even if it wanted to...certainly this kind of means since the two new editions are so blatantly different the game would basically have to be re-written from the ground up which would take a good deal of time...much moreso than converting to something like true20.
I find it a bit strange because a rather small number of posters here and elsewhere said they are dropping their subscription as soon as possible...this makes little sense seeing as the current subscription isn't for 4th, and it looks likely that no 3rd party gaming producer (now 1st I guess for all intents and purposes :P) will be putting out much of anything until well into 2009 at the earliest.
Perhaps since the majority of it's fans love the old system or other systems, it wouldn't be cost-effective but I'm still not sure that's some kind of line in the sand that has been sworn never to be crossed.
Paizo is the publisher for Necromancer Games, who will be putting out 4E products so, in this way, Paizo will have something in that market. Also, whenever WotC decides to pass on the GSL, I'm sure that the great minds at Paizo will have a look at it and start thinking about what they themselves could do with 4E - it just won't be in Pathfinder.
No line has been drawn in the sand. The folks at Paizo are nothing if not excited about the hobby and will make the decision that best serves them and their fans.
I find it a bit strange because a rather small number of posters here and elsewhere said they are dropping their subscription as soon as possible...this makes little sense seeing as the current subscription isn't for 4th,
First, I am not disagreeing with you, nor am I suggesting your wrong.
But the key point here is that it doesn't have to make sense. The species isn't the logical worker-bots some people expect us to be.
More than that, I suspect these people feel they shouldn't spend money on Paizo stuff since Paizo isn't taking their business in the direction they want them too. I can respect that choice, especially since I would have done essentially the same thing had Pathfinder gone 4th Edition.
And finally, in the past couple of months there have been a couple of examples of "threats of withholding purchases" that appeared to influence Paizo into making decisions. So there might be a touch of "if it worked for them..."
But no, there was no definitive line drawn. But a few people are mourning the loss of Pathfinder 4th Edition so much, they see little eles.
I would think many were continuing subs in the hope that Pathfinder would eventually go 4E, and upon hearing that isn't going to be the case decided to take their business elsewhere. Likewise, those who aren't interested in a 3.P (or 3.75, or Pathfinder RPG, or whatever you want to call it) may have canceled for pretty much the same reason.
Me, I canceled a while ago when 4E was first announced, but if I hadn't, I suspect I would have done so at the announcement.
Though it's certainly possible that a separate 4E subscription periodical might come about in the future....
I would think many were continuing subs in the hope that Pathfinder would eventually go 4E, and upon hearing that isn't going to be the case decided to take their business elsewhere. Likewise, those who aren't interested in a 3.P (or 3.75, or Pathfinder RPG, or whatever you want to call it) may have canceled for pretty much the same reason.
Me, I canceled a while ago when 4E was first announced, but if I hadn't, I suspect I would have done so at the announcement.
I stopped back by to say hi and see what's up.
I'm not canceling my subscriptions yet because ... I like Pathfinder. I haven't been able to play any of the other books either, but they're good. And if I don't buy them, how will I help with the 4E conversions? ;-)
Once I have 4E in my grubby little hands and get a good handle on it I'm going to start converting what I can and already have a host of ugly, nasty, dirty, cruel Powers and Abilities for some monsters which I'm calling the "Logue List". Ah, my lovely Encounter ability: The Noose. ;-)
EDIT: Though I MIGHT be forced to cancel my subs for a bit right before 4E because I'm the only guy in my group with easy disposable income so I am buying books for myself and all 6 players, and I've ordered one case of the Dungeons of Dread minis (12 booster packs, or something like that), 4 each of all the Dungeon Tiles (and checking out Paizo's to see how they look), and I don't know what else. I might have to watch my funds for a month or two around the release.
Other than that, Paizo has my respect and I enjoy their products. They may have chosen not to support the edition I'm going to play, but the stories they write will still be the same. I'm looking forward, in a way, to using 4E's Exception-Based Design to really capture the flavor of a few of the adventure paths.
Although I'm admittedly thrilled with the direction Paizo is taking. I do hope that they are able (through the GSL) and willing do to some 4th Edition products. I'm personally not switching editions, but I do see how 4th edition will be a fun game, and I'd be thrilled if Paizo was able to throw some adventures and other products that way.
This is from Lisa Stevens' message on the main paizo.com page, where they announced the upcoming Pathfinder RPG, the playtest, etc...
"We're sure that lots of roleplayers are going to be thrilled with Wizards of the Coast's upcoming 4th Edition, and we're also looking forward to the 4th Edition products that our partner Necromancer Games will be creating. Paizo may also publish 4th Edition products in the future, but if we do, they won't cross over with our Pathfinder products."
Bolding by me. =)
Pathfinder will stay true to 3.5, or rather will merge into the Pathfinder RPG rules (which are a kind of 3.75, in a sense).
But given that Necromancer will be doing 4E things, and from what they have above in that quote, they've made a very smart business decision by leaving it completely open for 4E products in the future. It's only Pathfinder that they've said won't be 4E.
Creative Director
|
Yes, to confirm: Anything that has the Pathfinder logo on it (Adventure Path, Companion, Modules, Gazeteers, etc.) will be 3.5 until August of 2009, at which point all of those products will transition to the Pathfinder RPG.
We absolutely haven't closed the door on 4th Edition, though. We are certainly planning on publishing a lot of 4th stuff with Necromancer, and once we see the GSL and the rules and find out what we can and cannot do with those rules, and once we're familiar enough with the rules to edit game material, we'll probably look into launching some new lines or something. We don't know what those are yet because we haven't seen the GSL and don't have the rules.
Yes, to confirm: Anything that has the Pathfinder logo on it (Adventure Path, Companion, Modules, Gazeteers, etc.) will be 3.5 until August of 2009, at which point all of those products will transition to the Pathfinder RPG.
We absolutely haven't closed the door on 4th Edition, though. We are certainly planning on publishing a lot of 4th stuff with Necromancer, and once we see the GSL and the rules and find out what we can and cannot do with those rules, and once we're familiar enough with the rules to edit game material, we'll probably look into launching some new lines or something. We don't know what those are yet because we haven't seen the GSL and don't have the rules.
You're kind of sexy when you say stuff like that.
|
Yes, to confirm: Anything that has the Pathfinder logo on it (Adventure Path, Companion, Modules, Gazeteers, etc.) will be 3.5 until August of 2009, at which point all of those products will transition to the Pathfinder RPG.
We absolutely haven't closed the door on 4th Edition, though. We are certainly planning on publishing a lot of 4th stuff with Necromancer, and once we see the GSL and the rules and find out what we can and cannot do with those rules, and once we're familiar enough with the rules to edit game material, we'll probably look into launching some new lines or something. We don't know what those are yet because we haven't seen the GSL and don't have the rules.
James,
Has there been any thought given to Pathfinder dual system products? The current WotC adventure layout, with adventure text up front and encounters in the back, might be of use here. Flip to appendix A for 3.5 monster stats, flip to appendix B for 4E monster stats. I would be willing to pay a little extra for the additional page count.
This would assume a properly worded GSL of course.
I've been excited about Pathfinder since it was announced. I'm a charter superscriber! I really want to set my 4E campaign in Golarion! I want to give you guys my money! C'mon! Just give me a reason to stick around a while longer! :-)
TTF
Tarm, due to the additional resources (both in people and money) that a dual-stat product would require, we'll be unable to produce one. We're also of the opinion that a very small percentage of either fan base would be interested in a dual-stat product as a large portion of the page count would be re-printed stat blocks rather than just adventure material.
Never mind whether or not the yet-to-be-seen GSL would allow such a thing.
Can anyone help me understand what part of your stories can not be told with fourth edition?
It was my understanding Paizo hadn't seen the GSL yet, so that is a fairly big claim (unless there is something fairly big that has been announced with 4E that I missed).
I am also very curious to hear how working on the Pathfinder RPG since last October lines up with us being repeatedly told you were waiting to see the GSL before making your minds up.
I guess I owe the people who felt that WOTC was lying to them while working on a new edition an apology... it does feel like being lied to.
Sean
I guess I owe the people who felt that WOTC was lying to them while working on a new edition an apology... it does feel like being lied to.
Sean
This is all I am going to risk commenting on.
Apology accepted. ;-)
I'm not going to try and convince you that you weren't lied to. That is your own opinion. But, I feel the situation is a bit different. Paizo didn't claim that the Pathfinder RPG is still a ways off or anything like that. The only thing that any staff member ever claimed was that they didn't have enough information to make a decision, and that they were keeping their options open.
True, that isn't the same as saying that they have a rough draft for the Pathfinder RPG kicking around the office... But I don't consider it in the same league as "we aren't even working on 4th Edition yet."
If you do, then accept my sympathies - for what ever they are worth.
This is from Lisa Stevens' message on the main paizo.com page, where they announced the upcoming Pathfinder RPG, the playtest, etc...
"We're sure that lots of roleplayers are going to be thrilled with Wizards of the Coast's upcoming 4th Edition, and we're also looking forward to the 4th Edition products that our partner Necromancer Games will be creating. Paizo may also publish 4th Edition products in the future, but if we do, they won't cross over with our Pathfinder products."
Bolding by me. =)
Pathfinder will stay true to 3.5, or rather will merge into the Pathfinder RPG rules (which are a kind of 3.75, in a sense).
But given that Necromancer will be doing 4E things, and from what they have above in that quote, they've made a very smart business decision by leaving it completely open for 4E products in the future. It's only Pathfinder that they've said won't be 4E.
"We're sure that lots of roleplayers are going to be thrilled with Wizards of the Coast's upcoming 4th Edition, and we're also looking forward to the 4th Edition products that our partner Necromancer Games will be creating. Paizo may also publish 4th Edition products in the future, but if we do, they won't cross over with our Pathfinder products. We know our fans are a creative bunch, though, so we fully expect to see our community create 4th Edition conversion notes for our Pathfinder products—in fact, some of our fans have already started working on 4E conversions of the Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path, as well as one of our first standalone modules."
Bolding by me.
This is a line in the sand. This says that there will never be Pathfinder 4e material published by Paizo. Not only will there never be any Pathfinder material with 4e rules, there will never be any official conversion notes; this is a big (albeit diplomatically worded) "f&&% you" to anybody who likes both Pathfinder and 4e. I don't care if Necromancer Games is putting out 4e material; a lot of companies will be putting out 4e material, but the only company with material I actually care about is Paizo, and the entirety of Paizo's material is in the Pathfinder line. Without reneging on this statement, the only circumstances in which Paizo would ever publish anything with 4e rules would be if they sat down and came up with an entirely new setting.
So, to answer the OP question, Paizo didn't say that they'd never do anything with 4th, but they did say that they'd never do anything with any with 4th that would be in any way tied to the Pathfinder material which is the entirety of their currently published or announced or hinted-at material. The implicit answer is that, barring a runaway success of 4e and a total failure of the Pathfinder RPG, they won't touch 4e with a fifteen foot pole.
All I wanted to do was run a Pathfinder AP in 4e for a bunch of people who don't want to learn a system as complicated as 3e. Was that so much to ask?
all I wanted to do was run a Pathfinder AP in 4e for a bunch of people who don't want to learn a system as complicated as 3e. Was that so much to ask?
Yeah I hear that. It would be nice to have our cake and eat it too! That being said, I'm confident that the enthusiastic folks on this board will produce plenty of conversions and/or being willing to help out with conversions.
This is a line in the sand. This says that there will never be Pathfinder 4e material published by Paizo. Not only will there never be any Pathfinder material with 4e rules, there will never be any official conversion notes; this is a big (albeit diplomatically worded) "f*!~ you" to anybody who likes both Pathfinder and 4e. I don't care if Necromancer Games is putting out 4e material; a lot of...
You can't please everyone all the time.
all I wanted to do was run a Pathfinder AP in 4e for a bunch of people who don't want to learn a system as complicated as 3e. Was that so much to ask?Yeah I hear that. It would be nice to have our cake and eat it too! That being said, I'm confident that the enthusiastic folks on this board will produce plenty of conversions and/or being willing to help out with conversions.
I don't think that's "eating my cake and having it too". I think that's just eating my cake. To have your cake and eat it too is to have the best of both worlds; I don't mean to say I deserve to have the best of both worlds, but of those two worlds the one I get isn't the one I wanted.
This is a line in the sand. This says that there will never be Pathfinder 4e material published by Paizo. Not only will there never be any Pathfinder material with 4e rules, there will never be any official conversion notes; this is a big (albeit diplomatically worded) "f*!~ you" to anybody who likes both Pathfinder and 4e. I don't care if Necromancer Games is putting out 4e material; a lot of...You can't please everyone all the time.
No, but it doesn't mean you can't please everybody some of the time. "No 4e Pathfinder, ever" means that there can never be a day when everybody is pleased.
I honestly can't see how anybody benefits from such a definite statement that something will never, ever exist for a system that (still) nobody's seen yet. "At this time we have no plans for 4e Pathfinder products" would be totally fine and perfectly understandable. "For all eternity to come there shall be no 4e Pathfinder" is somewhere between "shortsighted" and "petulant".
Don't discount paizo community members. Remember that the community includes many of the authors of the pathfinder adventures. Paizo is being honest... they don't have the manpower to officially produce 4e conversions. I don't doubt that interested community members will do so. Rumor is that converting adventures is a lot easier than converting PCs (no I'm not digging through the 40 pages of enworld posts I read today to find the link), and that several of the designers for 4e have been using paizo adventures converted to 4e "on the fly" in their playtests. If that's true (I'm hopeful that it is) we may yet see some very solid 4e conversions for Pathfinder.
- Ashavan
No, but it doesn't mean you can't please everybody some of the time. "No 4e Pathfinder, ever" means that there can never be a day when everybody is pleased. (...)
That's because it's impossible to make sure that everyone's happy.
It's neither shortsighted nor petulant to accept that there are finite resources available to people (whether in a company or not). The fact that there are finite resources doesn't mean that a business decision should be perceived as a slight. It's just life.
In any case, it's very likely that if 4E is "stunningly awesome" then people in this community will create conversion notes for Pathfinder.
So honestly, I'd just... relax a little. Have a nice cold one. =)
I CAN'T RELAX
PEOPLE ARE WRONG
ON THE INTERNET
I CAN'T RELAX
PEOPLE ARE WRONG
ON THE INTERNET
Passes Burrito Al Pastor a virtual beer, cold and frosty. =)
I really do think that now that Paizo has made the decision to move forward with their own line of 3.X material it would be foolish of them to work on 4E conversions as well.
As others have stated they have only a limited number of resources to produce work and it is wise to choose your niche and fill it well. Paizo has set themselves up to be the premiere provider of 3.x material moving forward and actually given those resistant to change a choice other than having to consider a new system (and they don't even need to wait for anything silly like trying the new system before making up their minds!).
This will likely result in them getting a fairly sizeable influx of new business from those disaffected by WotC's change. My only worry is that after about 2 years this will be a self limited population that will slowly shrink after the first few years of success (I think Paizo provides the best material out there, but doesn't currently have a good strategy for bringing people into the hobby).
Anyway... the decision that they made back in October means that those of us who really meant it when we said we were waiting to see 4E before making a decision are left hoping that it is a flop. I only have so much time to play and can't spend time converting or implementing conversions spread across the boards so unless I stay with Paizo, the monthly money I spend on books will have to go elsewhere...
One other note for Paizo to consider... you provide great materials for DMs, but little to nothing for players. While in many groups only the DM is spending money on books, mine all spend in the hundreds on a monthly basis on gaming stuff and would have nothing to buy from you if we stayed with your new game.
Anyway... here is to hoping 4E sucks despite what I have heard...
Sean Mahoney
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Can anyone help me understand what part of your stories can not be told with fourth edition?
That's not what we said. We said that "we believe that the 3.5 core will continue to be the best system to tell the stories we've got planned for Pathfinder."
I am also very curious to hear how working on the Pathfinder RPG since last October lines up with us being repeatedly told you were waiting to see the GSL before making your minds up.
Working on the Pathfinder RPG was a contingency plan. And we laid out that contingency publicly on October 23, 2007.
Also, during the months that we said we were waiting for the GSL, that was because we had been told by Wizards that we'd see the GSL within a couple of weeks, and because we thus expected to see the GSL before we saw enough of the rules to make our decision. As it turns out, Wizards delayed so long with the GSL (which we still don't have, by the way) that they'd exposed enough of the rules (through previews on the web and—not least of all—through actual play at the D&D Experience) that it had become clear to us that the best system for Pathfinder is built on 3.5.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Without reneging on this statement, the only circumstances in which Paizo would ever publish anything with 4e rules would be if they sat down and came up with an entirely new setting.
While it is true that we could come up with a new setting for our 4E material, it's even more likely—especially at first—that any 4E products would be setting-independent.
We do believe that the best system for Pathfinder is 3.5, but we'd also really like to be able to produce interesting material for 4th Edition. Hopefully the GSL will allow us to do so.
That's not what we said. We said that "we believe that the 3.5 core will continue to be the best system to tell the stories we've got planned for Pathfinder."
Also, during the months that we said we were waiting for the GSL, that was because we had been told by Wizards that we'd see the GSL within a couple of weeks, and because we thus expected to see the GSL before we saw enough of the rules to make our decision. As it turns out, Wizards delayed so long with the GSL (which we still don't have, by the way) that they'd exposed enough of the rules (through previews on the web and—not least of all—through actual play at the D&D Experience) that it had become clear to us that the best system for Pathfinder is built on 3.5.
Vic, I respect you guys and the work you do, but what is it that you've guys have seen about 4E that gives you this conclusion? Very little outside of the combat system has been released, and I'm not sure what kind of impact that would have on any stories told.
Does the next module feature a story about running out of spells?
In the end, you can give whatever reason you want, but saying you think 3.5 will be better for Pathfinder (especially when you've only seen a small smattering of 4E's rules) seems especially preemptive.
Cheers! :)
|
I thought I remember seeing one of the editors mention the scrapping of the Vancian magic system and the alignments(there were more, I don't remember the rest offhand) as roadblocks for 4E working with Golarion. That, coupled with the mysterious rules that are months late, doesn't seem preemptive to me, just sensible.
I thought I remember seeing one of the editors mention the scrapping of the Vancian magic system and the alignments(there were more, I don't remember the rest offhand) as roadblocks for 4E working with Golarion. That, coupled with the mysterious rules that are months late, doesn't seem preemptive to me, just sensible.
Don't misunderstand. I 100% agree that the lateness of the liscense is a good reason to make their choice. I'm just saying that isn't what the official line was. Saying "the GSL is just too late, we're doing 3.75 instead" makes sense. Saying "3E is the best place for Pathfinder stories" seems like they're making their choice before they have all the information.
If they really have a story coming about vancian magic, then yeah, I guess I could see why 3E is a better system to stick with. But on the whole, the official line rings hollow to me. I'm just not sure how anyone can say 3E is the best place for Pathfinder without seeing all of 4E.
Cheers! :)
Edit: Forgot a how ... doh!
|
Vic, I respect you guys and the work you do, but what is it that you've guys have seen about 4E that gives you this conclusion? Very little outside of the combat system has been released, and I'm not sure what kind of impact that would have on any stories told.
As Wertz said, Paizo attended the DnD Experience and, if I remember correctly, the results were mixed.
IMO, I don't think the company was preemptive in making its decision. Players and DMs in my groups, who have been playing DnD since 3.0, have misgivings after downloading -- and playing -- the released 4e rules lite. Why shouldn't Paizo be allowed the same option? Entire businesses have been developed on flimsier presumptions (remember Java appliances?).
For business reasons? For -- gasp! -- making money? As Paizo has stated again and again, the company's linked with Necromancer Games which will be released 4e stuff. Cha-ching for both of them. And it can always form another product line to support 4e if 1) they find the complete rules viable and 2) most importantly, they can tell the stories they want under GSL. Even more Cha-Ching!
But the latter relies on receiving the GSL and, until then, it's effectively bound, which is the death knell to many companies today. Would you wait months (remember, Paizo was promised the GSL at the beginning of the year) to possibly be given permission to possibly create products that you should have been able to release months ago? Remember that Paizo wanted to bring product to Gencon which is in, what?, August? Gaming companies usually plan a year in advance.
Switching to the Pathfinder RPG, though, gave it another option which, rightly or wrongly, it decided to pursue. Paizo can continue to support its current lineup of 3.x products now and in the future and 4e once it receives the GSL.
I see what you're saying but don't forget, Bulmahn went and experienced the rules for himself which may have been the proverbial straw.
As Wertz said, Paizo attended the DnD Experience and, if I remember correctly, the results were mixed.
IMO, I don't think the company was preemptive in making their decision. Players and DMs in my groups, who have been playing DnD since 3.0, have misgivings after downloading -- and playing -- the released 4e rules lite. Why shouldn't Paizo be allowed the same option? Entire businesses have been developed (remember Java appliances?) on flimsier presumptions.
For business reasons? As Paizo has stated again and again, the company's linked with Necromancer Games which will be released 4e stuff. Cha-ching for both of them. And it can always form another product line to support 4e if 1) they find the complete rules viable and 2) most importantly, they can tell the stories they want under GSL. But until it receives said GSL, it's effectively bound, which is the death knell to many companies today. Switching to the Pathfinder RPG, though, gave it another option which, rightly or wrongly, it decided to pursue.
Whether or not they like the new rules doesn't seem like it has a bearing on whether or not they can tell the stories they want to tell. For the most part, I'd say the rules don't really affect what kind of story you want to tell at all.
I can imagine numerous reasons why Paizo might feel that going to a 3.75 is the best answer here; I just think the reason they're giving is a little unfair. "We just couldn't wait any longer; We didn't want to chance WotC changing everything on us sometime in the future; We think we can make an even better game than 4E; etc, etc" are all justifiable reasons to go the route they did.
I just don't think that anything released so far gives enough justification to say "We believe that the 3.5 core will continue to be the best system to tell the stories we've got planned for Pathfinder."
It isn't a very big issue in the end, just something that was bothering me from the initial announcement.
Cheers! :)
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
It's more that we _know_ we can tell our stories with 3.5, whereas 4e is somewhat murky. Some things we've seen point to "no" (for example, it looks like we'd need to disinclude bards, monks, druids, etc. for at least a year if we go with 4e, or come up with some year-long kludge).
4e: Uncertain details, a generous dollop of changes to things we like, mysterious publishing paradigm, information more than 6 months later than we expected.
3e: A system we all like, a system fundamentally based on the original D&D engine, a system millions of players are familiar with, a system that we've been working with professionally for 5-8 years, (and most importantly) a system we know we can publish under right now.
--Erik
|
|
I just don't think that anything released so far gives enough justification to say "We believe that the 3.5 core will continue to be the best system to tell the stories we've got planned for...
Apparently Paizo thought otherwise. Again, it can always change its mind. IMO, it not only has nothing to lose from its decision, but has kept renewed interest in its products, which is always good for business.
Whether or not they like the new rules doesn't seem like it has a bearing on whether or not they can tell the stories they want to tell. For the most part, I'd say the rules don't really affect what kind of story you want to tell at all....I just don't think that anything released so far gives enough justification to say "We believe that the 3.5 core will continue to be the best system to tell the stories we've got planned for...
The only thing I'd say is that the design team for 4e have said that the rules are going to be a lot more tied into the 'fluff' of the settings so if they didn't like what was being done with the fluff it would make it harder to do their own thing with the rules.
The only example I can really thing of to support this is the change with the metallic dragons going from nice to scheming manipulators. Paizo already has pathfinder fluff for metallic dragons. They can either a) Change the fluff or b) change the rules. Paizo already said they don't want to change the fluff so they will have to adapt the rules. The problem is the rules are closely tied in to the fluff (this is pure speculation but is based on what I've found out about 4e) so the metallic will all have abilities tied in to their roles as manipulating schemers (think the 4e term is controllers). It will be a huge hassle to alter Metallics so that they don't have these abilities and to get them back to the creature Paizo wants. It may even be easier to rewrite them all together. This seems like an unnecessary hassle when there is all ready a games system which already suits your needs, 3.5e. I can see why they'd say this suits their storytelling needs more even though they haven't got all the facts yet. Already it seems as if 3.5 will suit their world with far less modification than 4e.
Just my 2cp.
Edit: Beaten to the punch by Eric Mona who put it in a far better, more succinct manner too. Ohh well.
|
It's more that we _know_ we can tell our stories with 3.5, whereas 4e is somewhat murky. Some things we've seen point to "no" (for example, it looks like we'd need to disinclude bards, monks, druids, etc. for at least a year if we go with 4e, or come up with some year-long kludge).
4e: Uncertain details, a generous dollop of changes to things we like, mysterious publishing paradigm, information more than 6 months later than we expected.
3e: A system we all like, a system fundamentally based on the original D&D engine, a system millions of players are familiar with, a system that we've been working with professionally for 5-8 years, (and most importantly) a system we know we can publish under right now.
--Erik
-Clap, clap, clap.
18D
It's more that we _know_ we can tell our stories with 3.5, whereas 4e is somewhat murky. Some things we've seen point to "no" (for example, it looks like we'd need to disinclude bards, monks, druids, etc. for at least a year if we go with 4e, or come up with some year-long kludge).
4e: Uncertain details, a generous dollop of changes to things we like, mysterious publishing paradigm, information more than 6 months later than we expected.
3e: A system we all like, a system fundamentally based on the original D&D engine, a system millions of players are familiar with, a system that we've been working with professionally for 5-8 years, (and most importantly) a system we know we can publish under right now.
--Erik
Hey Erik! Excellent summation of Paizo's position, and there really isn't anything I can find to fault with it. Its pretty unfortunate how roughed up 3rd party publishers have gotten with the development of 4E, and you lay out some pretty good reasons to stick where you are.
At the end of the day, my main objection was more with how Vic worded your (as in Paizo's) reasoning, not with your choice itself. It isn't what I would have chosen, but I do understand why you did.
Glad to see you wandering through this section of the boards though. Lots of digital tumbleweeds about nowadays.
Cheers! :)
um did you pay to see the GSL early?
and did you get a refund!!
um did you pay to see the GSL early?
No one paid the $5000, as there was nothing to see...
The only thing I'd say is that the design team for 4e have said that the rules are going to be a lot more tied into the 'fluff' of the settings so if they didn't like what was being done with the fluff it would make it harder to do their own thing with the rules.
The only example I can really thing of to support this is the change with the metallic dragons going from nice to scheming manipulators. Paizo already has pathfinder fluff for metallic dragons. They can either a) Change the fluff or b) change the rules. Paizo already said they don't want to change the fluff so they will have to adapt the rules. The problem is the rules are closely tied in to the fluff (this is pure speculation but is based on what I've found out about 4e) so the metallic will all have abilities tied in to their roles as manipulating schemers (think the 4e term is controllers). It will be a huge hassle to alter Metallics so that they don't have these abilities and to get them back to the creature Paizo wants. It may even be easier to rewrite them all together. This seems like an unnecessary hassle when there is all ready a games system which already suits your needs, 3.5e. I can see why they'd say this suits their storytelling needs more even though they haven't got all the facts yet. Already it seems as if 3.5 will suit their world with far less modification than 4e.
Just my 2cp.
Edit: Beaten to the punch by Eric Mona who put it in a far better, more succinct manner too. Ohh well.
I'm not sure that I've seen the designers say that anywhere. Do you have a source? (Not calling you a liar or anything; I'd just like to see them say that too!)
As for your example (the metallic dragon thing), I'm not sure how a change in their baseline fluff would make much difference. I could make a game world, for example, where the chromatics were all good and the metallics all evil and besides changing out the domain access for a few of them I'm not sure that anything would have to change in terms of their in game mechanics.
Whether they're paragons of good or evil really only comes out in how they've played, not in their stats.
Apparently Paizo thought otherwise. Again, it can always change its mind. IMO, it not only has nothing to lose from its decision, but has kept renewed interest in its products, which is always good for business.
Of course there is something to lose (support from customers that go to 4E). They're simply banking on the fact that the gain will be greater, and I hope it is for them.
Cheers! :)