|
With WotC's GSL allowing 3PPs to create and sell a 4E line as long as it's not a rehash of an existing 3.x product, what should Paizo consider for a new line? Personally, I'd love to see either a fantasy steampunk (ala Iron Kingdoms) setting or their take on an Oriental Adventures (that's not Lot5R!).
What would you like Paizo to publish?
Greyhawk. :)
|
|
I'm a little sad because I was hoping they'd be able to do Pathfinder 4e-style somehow too, but oh well.
I love Golarion because it definitely has the "Paizo spin" to it, but it's an instant classic, too. There's something (or rather, somewhere) for everyone.
So I'd rather they continue to flesh out this world, instead of spread themselves thin trying to "do 4e", too. There's a lot more to explore here! (The PaizoCon comment about, "if you like Varisia, you'll really like everything else" has me super excited!)
The nice thing about a setting is that the basic concepts work with any edition. The more I hear about 4e, the more excited I am about it, but I have zero interest in Forgotten Realms. My campaign is staying here.
I may have to come up with the stats myself, but everything else- the organizations, the gods, the maps, the history, and most importantly, the flavor, is universal.
I'd like to see them publish 4e adventures that are setting-neutral enough to place in any campaign. Specifically, I'd like to be able to run them in Golarion. I realize of course that they cannot explicitly set them in the Pathfinder world, but I think if they were generic enough it would be fine.
The main reason I'm bummed is because I love Golarion, but I have absolutely no interest in the Pathfinder RPG. If I can get Paizo quality adventure modules for 4e that I can still run in the Pathfinder campaign setting, I'd be a happy camper.
I'd love to see 4e products set in Golarion. We haven't seen the GSL yet, but it might be possible to have "Golarion Chronicles" adventures that happen to use the same world as the Pathfinder Chronicles, but are unique products that don't merely reprint content.
Maybe 4e could get one of those other continents?
|
What would you like Paizo to publish?
A line of unlinked setting-generic adventure modules starting at level 1 and progessing through level 30 (or whatever).
It wouldn't be an adventure path because they don't share a common story, but it would span the core levels. It would be generic, so GM's could plug it into whatever 4e setting they're using.
-Skeld
What would you like Paizo to publish?
Anything that they want to, since they are darn good at it!
I'd have to dig around a bit, but haven't Lisa, Erik, et. al. stated before that they don't have the staff/time to support both 4e and another system? I think they're looking to the Necromancer connection to provide 4e material linked to Paizo, and so I don't expect any actual direct support.
I'd like to see them publish 4e adventures that are setting-neutral enough to place in any campaign. Specifically, I'd like to be able to run them in Golarion. I realize of course that they cannot explicitly set them in the Pathfinder world, but I think if they were generic enough it would be fine.
I like this idea . . . I've also got the perfect name for the line.
Game Mastery Modules. ::Wink and a Grin::I'd have to dig around a bit, but haven't Lisa, Erik, et. al. stated before that they don't have the staff/time to support both 4e and another system?
Sadly, I think you're right.
|
Contributor
|
I'd have to dig around a bit, but haven't Lisa, Erik, et. al. stated before that they don't have the staff/time to support both 4e and another system? I think they're looking to the Necromancer connection to provide 4e material linked to Paizo, and so I don't expect any actual direct support.
Yes. We can barely do the stuff we're doing for 3.5/PRPG. James and I are at the office today just so we can keep treading water.
Also, the last I heard it sounds like the GSL will prohibit simultaneous 3e/4e support from a company.
It is in Necromancer we must place our trust for 4e stuff. :)
|
I saw the tiefling character sheet that leaked out onto the internet and 4e is a mess, and its not dnd. Its like someone dipped their finger in the frosting without trying a slice of cake. This shallow 4E stuff is not dnd.
As for PAIZO's 4e tagline, how about: 4e - We're happy to sell this crap to those who want it, but true dungeons and dragons is actually called Pathfinder Roleplaying Game."
My gut feeling is that this is a moot point. I think that, if you read what Lescault said, there is still a bit of confusion over what "product lines" are. He pointed out that there will be a "D&D GSL" and a "d20 GSL" in the same place where he mentioned that you can do different product lines.
In other words, I really think that what might have been meant by this is that you can do something that is OGL, but not "D&D", and still use the OGL for that product line, but not something that would be "D&D" and use the OGL and the 4e GSL.
For example, if Green Ronin wanted to use the 4e GSL for Freeport, they could, but they couldn't do any OGL fantasy based material, even in another line, since that falls under the D&D GSL. Or at least, if they did, it would have to be divorced of any terms that the OGL made open. On the other hand, the "d20 GSL" would be what Mutants and Masterminds fell under, and they could still do a "product line" that publishes M&M under OGL, and another separate line that uses the 4th edition GSL.
I think part of this falls under the idea that they are less worried about competitors using OGL to create things like Mutants and Masterminds or Spycraft, but they don't want D&D style competition.
I could be completely misreading this, and Clark Peterson didn't seem to read it this way, so maybe I'm off, but it seems like every answer from WOTC is intentionally not clearly answering things by throwing in a lot of extra legal speak.
In other words, "can a company publish an OGL line of products and still publish a separate line of 4th edition GSL products?"
"A company can publish under the OGL as long as this falls under this line, which is meant to cover this, and this line can be used to publish this, so that multiple lines can be used as long as both are maintained separately."
huh?
I still think it boils down to, "if it looks like D&D from any edition, we don't want you using it with and the 4e GSL . . . if its modern or future level based RPGs, yeah, well get a GSL out for that, but do what you want to, because its not that threatening to us at this point."
Long story short, I'm not really sure that, while they are doing Pathfinder, that Paizo could do a 4e line, even if they had the staff and energy to try it.
Again, I could be completely off, and Clark is obviously more well versed in these things than I am by a long shot, and he doesn't seem to think this is what I think it is, although much of his previous analysis was based on actually talking with WOTC over the phone. I could be way off, but I can help but have a nagging feeling its not as simple as a lot of people are reading it.
I saw the tiefling character sheet that leaked out onto the internet and 4e is a mess, and its not dnd. Its like someone dipped their finger in the frosting without trying a slice of cake. This shallow 4E stuff is not dnd.
Yes, the Tiefling character sheet reveals the mess that is the 4e game system. Uh-huh.
I've played an awfully large number of D&D systems. D&D, AD&D, BECMI, AD&D2e, 2e 'Player's Option,' D&D3e, and D&D3.5e. (Never did play OD&D.) They've all felt like D&D, and they've all brought out some interesting new storytelling opportunities.
But this new edition, this is the one that will no longer be D&D. Based on the Tiefling character sheet. Right.
|
|
Also, the last I heard it sounds like the GSL will prohibit simultaneous 3e/4e support from a company.
Recent news about the GSL on Wizards site and Enworld respectively.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080502
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=225232
It sounds like any company can do both OGL and GSL products now but each line must be seperate. So no 4e DL stat blocks ect. But Paizo could if they wanted do Pathfinder OGL and then do Monkey Adventures 4e. Least that was my understanding of how it is written.
Not saying Paizo should or should not, just passing along recent info.
|
As for PAIZO's 4e tagline, how about: 4e - We're happy to sell this crap to those who want it, but true dungeons and dragons is actually called Pathfinder Roleplaying Game."
Now, now, play nice. This is the sort of post that makes pro-4E folk say this whole site is showing favouritism.
To Joela;
Unless I've missed something, the GSL does not allow 3rd-party publishers to produce 4E materials.
Unless they cease to publish every other product line, and recall all existing product to be pulped and burned.
EDIT: beaten to the post three times!
|
Contributor
|
Also, the last I heard it sounds like the GSL will prohibit simultaneous 3e/4e support from a company.Recent news about the GSL on Wizards site and Enworld respectively.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080502
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=225232
It sounds like any company can do both OGL and GSL products now but each line must be seperate. So no 4e DL stat blocks ect. But Paizo could if they wanted do Pathfinder OGL and then do Monkey Adventures 4e. Least that was my understanding of how it is written.
Not saying Paizo should or should not, just passing along recent info.
Ah, thanks for the update. I hadn't heard they had changed their minds. :)
Creative Director
|
Nevertheless... at this point, as Mike has said, we don't have the staff to launch a totally new 4th Edition line. Nor are we interested in converting Pathfinder to 4th Edition (from what I've seen, that would require too intrusive a rebuild of the world, and I like it the way it is). More to the point, we'd not only have to edit and develop such a line, but we'd also have to become experts in the rules. From what I've seen, 4th edition is a VERY different game, and simultaneously publishing 3rd edition stuff at the same time would be madness in the same way that trying to learn French and Spanish at the same time would be. They share several words and rules, sure, but the sentences and pronunciation and punctuation are VERY different.
And again: We still actually haven't SEEN the GSL. And until we do, we can't make any decisions anyway.
From what I've seen, 4th edition is a VERY different game, and simultaneously publishing 3rd edition stuff at the same time would be madness in the same way that trying to learn French and Spanish at the same time would be. They share several words and rules, sure, but the sentences and pronunciation and punctuation are VERY different.
Oh, that's easy. Just make your modules louder and have them gesticulate a lot.
Yeah, the name of the 4E Paizo brand/line will be "Necromancer Games".
|
Creative Director
|
Oh, that's easy. Just make your modules louder and have them gesticulate a lot.From what I've seen, 4th edition is a VERY different game, and simultaneously publishing 3rd edition stuff at the same time would be madness in the same way that trying to learn French and Spanish at the same time would be. They share several words and rules, sure, but the sentences and pronunciation and punctuation are VERY different.
Like a scary homeless man who's the only one who knows the Space Vampires are coming?
Edit:
I would have naturally preferred to have seen a thread with the heading: 'What should Wizards of the Coast's PFRPG Brand/line be?'I can go my whole life without ever seeing a thread with that title, thank you very much.
(Is a little possessive/protective of Golarion...)
I could so sense the tangible shudder that you had, that I sprayed soda on the monitor laughing aloud.
Like a scary homeless man who's the only one who knows the Space Vampires are coming?Oh, that's easy. Just make your modules louder and have them gesticulate a lot.From what I've seen, 4th edition is a VERY different game, and simultaneously publishing 3rd edition stuff at the same time would be madness in the same way that trying to learn French and Spanish at the same time would be. They share several words and rules, sure, but the sentences and pronunciation and punctuation are VERY different.
Nah, Logue's company already has a lock on that.
Nevertheless... at this point, as Mike has said, we don't have the staff to launch a totally new 4th Edition line. Nor are we interested in converting Pathfinder to 4th Edition (from what I've seen, that would require too intrusive a rebuild of the world, and I like it the way it is) ... We still actually haven't SEEN the GSL. And until we do, we can't make any decisions anyway.
There has been mention by Paizo staff of the possibility of doing 4e products (and not just through Necromancer) in the future.
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 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.
Now that we know the GSL applies on a product-line by product-line basis rather than by company, I think it is certainly reasonable to have a discussion over what kinds of 4e products we'd like to see. I'm also not sure what the point is of rehashing that it would take extra effort and money to develop another line. All that seems to do is say "Don't bother telling us what you'd like to see, we aren't gonna do it anyway."
Obviously it will take extra effort, money, time, staff, etc. So perhaps if Paizo sees that there are customers out there who would like to see these products, then maybe some day they will try to acquire the resources to make it happen. Is it really necessary to discourage discussion over the kinds of products we'd like to see? I really thought customer feedback was one of the things Paizo held in high regard.
I'm not sure anyone in this thread was looking for Paizo to confirm any 4e products or to suggest converting Pathfinder (we realized that wouldn't happen when the PFRG was announced). We just want to voice the types of products we'd like to see, since there is stronger evidence now for a GSL that will allow it.
No offense, James, but sometimes your posts come off as a bit alienating toward us Paizo fans looking forward to 4e.
|
Creative Director
|
Now that we know the GSL applies on a product-line by product-line basis rather than by company, I think it is certainly reasonable to have a discussion over what kinds of 4e products we'd like to see. I'm also not sure what the point is of rehashing that it would take extra effort and money to develop another line. All that seems to do is say "Don't bother telling us what you'd like to see, we aren't gonna do it anyway."
Obviously it will take extra effort, money, time, staff, etc. So perhaps if Paizo sees that there are customers out there who would like to see these products, then maybe some day they will try to acquire the resources to make it happen. Is it really necessary to discourage discussion over the kinds of products we'd like to see? I really thought customer feedback was one of the things Paizo held in high regard.
I'm not sure anyone in this thread was looking for Paizo to confirm any 4e products or to suggest converting Pathfinder (we realized that wouldn't happen when the PFRG was announced). We just want to voice the types of products we'd like to see, since there is stronger evidence now for a GSL that will allow it.
I certainly don't intend to alienate Paizo fans who are looking forward to 4th edition. But honestly... at this point right now (I'm writing this post from work on a Saturday at 5:23 in the afternoon), the RPG team here at Paizo has their hands full with Pathfinder. It's our core competency, and if we were to start producing a 4th edition line at this time (or in the immediately foreseeable future), the Pathfinder line would suffer, either by having less product, or product that's poorly edited or designed. I'm not interested in doing that to Pathfinder.
If things work out the way I hope, though, we'll be publishing a quite healthy line of 4th edition product; the Necromancer Games stuff. That's the best-case scenario, in my mind.
And keep in mind that until we see the 4th edition rules, and until we see the GSL (neither of these have happened yet, remember), we can't even BEGIN to honestly think about launching a new line of RPG products.
|
Creative Director
|
No offense, James, but sometimes your posts come off as a bit alienating toward us Paizo fans looking forward to 4e.
This line has been vexing me, and I think I need to say something about it...
From what I've seen of 4th edition, it's NOT the game that I've been playing for the past 25 years. It may well be a very fun game, but to me, it feels different enough that I wouldn't be able to run or play the kinds of RPG games I prefer, and that's likely where the vibe that my posts might be alienating toward 4th edition comes off. But honestly? That's the way I, personally, have felt that much of the flavor changes in 4th edition have been treating me, personally. It's hard to get excited about a game that goes out of its way to invalidate years of writing/editing I've produced on demons and the outer planes via the adventures in Dungeon, the Demonomicon articles in Dragon, and the Fiendish Codex. And then, when you stop to consider that my favorite two classes in the game are the druid and the paladin, and one of my favorite races is the gnome, well, it's easy to put two and two together to see why I might feel alienated by the 4th edition design, and therefore why my posts might sound alienating themselves toward the new game.
I'll try harder to avoid that in the future, but the best way for me to do that, honestly, is probably for me to simply not post in threads that talk about 4th edition.
These are, of course, my own feelings; they don't represent Paizo's stance on this touchy subject necessarily, nor should they be taken as an indication of Paizo's future plans for 3rd/4th edition content. I also reserve the right to flip-flop once I do see the 4th edition rules; if they're awesome (which they very well could be; the guys at WotC are brilliant designers, after all!), sweet! But until then, I suppose I should stay out of 4th edition threads entirely and go back to ordering art of our gods for the upcoming "Gods and Magic" book.
James:
I, for one, hope you don't feel your opinions are unwelcome. For what it's worth, your sentiment is very close to mine -- and that of many others.
I've seen dramatic change in quite a few games I've played -- D&D since (almost) the beginning, Traveller, Call of Cthulhu, World of Darkness, Star Trek, and others.
This is the only time I've wanted to walk away from a company and their game. That it's D&D, of all games, and that so many people feel the same way -- WotC should find some lesson in all this.
Everybody has their own expectations and desires -- for me, WotC seems to be wiping away too much of the established fabric of the game, and too much of what I've enjoyed in the game.
Regards,
Jack
James:
One more thing -- real people don't use the word 'vexing' :P
|
|
I use the word vexing upon occassion and vexes as well. But then again I was told today that I was not a real person, just a digit in the electronic wilderness so,... there you are.
On a more serious note, the trashing of lore and gaming material that I have spent the last 25 years learning is something that has really vexed me about 4e, as it seems to a lot of people. But until today I had not thought about it from the perspective of one who had written extensively for the game. Thanks James for the insight.
But until then, I suppose I should stay out of 4th edition threads entirely and go back to ordering art of our gods for the upcoming "Gods and Magic" book.
Hm. I kind of have mixed feelings about that prospect. I definitely feel the frustration of people trying to bring the 4e section of the Paizo boards to life in the face of a whole lot of "meh." But I'm not sure James's absence is such a hot option either.
|
|
I always felt the closet example of 3e to 4e was what White Wolf did with World of Darkness. yes the rules where closer it seems than DnD will be. But the totally scrapped the flavor and fluff text and built a whole new world. Making all the previous stuff worthless to try and use with it other than the mechanical part or would take a lot of tweaking and work to make it work.
Now White Wolf is still in business and still doing fine other than being bought out, but I do know their sales dropped far more than they expected from it. Not saying this will happen to WotC, was just saying of all the example I have seen people use like microsoft, open software, coke and new coke ect. Never seen anyone point to the above as a example, which I found ironic as it is the best example in the same industry.
but ok enough derail of the real topic.
I think that there is indeed, a major similarity between the Storyteller system change and 4th edition D&D. There is also one telling difference.
This is a bit long, so I have placed it in a spoiler, to save wear and tear on your mouse wheels later.
Second edition storyteller had such an overbearing metaplot that the game foundered in a morass, and the original intent of the game was lost. The gamey bloodlines, and the cheese on everything, made it hard to cut down to the essences. There was also a marked difference in quality from one book to the next, and a lot of poorly thought out additions for the sake of additions. There were great things there, but you had to wade through a lot of shoddy stuff to get it.
Third edition cut to the core of what the game wanted to achieve, and became more of a toolkit. Those who want to play the original games still have them, and enough sourcebooks to last a long time. The new games really cleaned up and fixed the game. They are more mature, better written, mechanically clear, and a lot more suitable. The books deserve their hardcovers. People talk about the 'points of light' concept in 4th edition. New World of Darkness has used that concept successfully. Each city is its own thing, and you can use as many, or as few, of their organisations in your story as you want. They are all suggestions, and they are clearly there as a scaffold, and not a coat of paint.
This is obviously an opinion post, and I know that others will feel diffently about the change.
About 4th edition. I haven't played it yet. I expect that some of the changes will be obvious in hindsight, and I have full faith that the designers have made a lot of their changes with the best of intentions. It seems though, from the outside, that some of the changes were made because of a new business model. Content being withheld so that it could be sold in future books. 4th edition will have druids and bards and paladins, in future players handbooks. The white wolf crew cut out some clans, sects and bloodlines, because they needed to be cut to refine the core of the game, and they gave tools to create the bloodlines and clans again, if you want to. They are not going to roll out the Sabbat again, or sell the new guide to the inconnu. That stuff was cut for a reason. In 4th edition, to their credit, they have a vision too. It sounds like it takes a lot of pages to write down everything needed for a character class now, with powers and abilities as plentiful as they are. They could not include everything at launch, or the book would be unweildy. That said, to anyone who has played D&D longterm, It is not the same game with the changes that have been made. For someone new to the game however, it will be hard to explain what is missing, and why it matters, and we may all see ideas in the new edition that make us slap our foreheads and say, "of course! this is so much better now."
I suspect that a large part of the pressure for a new edition is financial. MtG is the top earner for Hasbro. D&D is somewhere below neopets and Mr. Potato head. There are obviously suits in the mix urging the designers to make previous stuff obsolete, and hold back some of the content for later sale. I am just saying that there are some very bright, very talented people at Wizards who are pulling out the stops to make this game a masterpiece. Even with corporate meddling, they will still have a few gems to display.
The game has split. We are lucky to live through this. We have two versions of the game again. We have the 4th ed 'basic' and the Pathfinder 'AD&D' to choose from. I will happily play both. I am grateful to Paizo for giving us a chance to honour the 30 years that have gone by. Golarion is a worthy successor to Greyhawk. I am grateful to Wizards for making a new game for me and my friends to enjoy. A game that seems to have been rebuilt completely, like the changes to Storyteller. If the changes are as well thought out as the nWoD changes were, I will enjoy myself tremendously.
I'm sorry my line was vexing you, James. I only meant to explain how your words were perceived. Let me further say that your personal feelings toward 4e are completely valid, and you are certainly entitled to them. You can and ought to express your personal opinions on the new edition as much as you want.
However, in this case, my objection is not to your personal opinion. I realize that personal opinion will color everything you say on a subject. Mine certainly does, everyone's does. In this case, I'm simply asking that when you post regarding something Paizo is/has/will do, that you check that.
Here we had a thread where Paizo fans could express what they'd like to see as far as Paizo 4e products -- a perfect opportunity to get customer feedback. I thought it was a pretty upbeat topic, and so I posted (something I really don't do much) my own hopes for the products I'd like. The 9th post in, someone brings up the claim that Paizo has said they are too busy to take on more products. The only response from actual Paizo staff in the thread was to reinforce that one negative post. When the staff only comes in to rain on an otherwise positive parade, that seems to say that the parade isn't wanted and/or needed. This is the alienation to which I was referring.
Please don't think that I believe you shouldn't get to have your own opinions. I'm sorry that so far 4e has been a disappointment to you, and I really feel bad that your own work has essentially been invalidated. Once again, though, your own opinions are not the issue here. It is that you (and to a lesser extent Mike) seemed to be telling us that we shouldn't bother voicing what we'd like to see, because Paizo isn't going to do it anyway.
To contribute discussion actually relevant to the original topic:
I'd really like to see quality adventures that I can run in 4th edition. I'm not confident at all that WotC can give me that, given their past work. I am, however, confident that Paizo can. I really have no idea what Necromancer Games can do, as I haven't ever used any of their products.
If Paizo can't/won't do 4e products themselves, then my hope is that the Necromancer stuff will be along the same lines as far as quality and feel. I also would love to see more Pathfinder stuff that is edition-neutral. I would be very interested in buying material about Golarion that I can use in any system. If Paizo can't/won't do a 4e line, then my hope is that their OGL line will contain more products I can use without the PFRPG.
That's what I would pay for.
|
|
I don't want to speak for them Paolo, but I think. Least my take was that. Currently Paizo has no plans to do 4e, they lack the staff and work force to do it to the level they feel it would need to be done and still do what they are doing with Pathfinder and until they see the GSL and 4e rules it is a moot point regardless. As that will determine if they even want to consider it down the road.
As for the White Wolf, yeah I was just pointing out it was a closer example than most used by most people. Though I am in the other camp, i am one of those that stopped buying White Wolf stuff, i was never a fan of the system. While they did fix parts of the system it wasn't a great system anyways, the parts I liked most was the indepth story and larger than life feel to things. The fluff and story is what made me like WoD, so when they basically killed it off and rebooted it all for scratch and taking it in a direction I didn't care for I stopped buying it. Not cause i thought it was a bad game, but cause what I liked about it was removed.
My only point was WW under estimated the amount of people that cared about that and the number that wouldn't follow the new edition. I know their sales took a hit when they switched and vampire stopped being their flag ship and exalted outsold it. Though to my knowledge exalted sales didn't increase. I then and now wish White Wolf the best, despite me not being a fan any longer. I just thought the similarities was far closer to the 3e, 4e goings on than other examples that get used is all.
yes I tend to be long winded and over explain myself. i find it less likely people will misunderstand me that way and avoid some of those interent issues that seem to crop up when body language and tone of voice is removed. Not to mention much people speak far better than they write, especially me. :)
Currently Paizo has no plans to do 4e, they lack the staff and work force to do it to the level they feel it would need to be done and still do what they are doing with Pathfinder and until they see the GSL and 4e rules it is a moot point regardless. As that will determine if they even want to consider it down the road.
But what is NOT a moot point is the types of products fans would like to see if Paizo ends up doing anything 4e. I don't disagree with you (or anyone) that creating a new 4e product line would be a huge undertaking, and that currently they likely do not have the resources for it. However, this has absolutely no bearing on whether or not fans should be encouraged to voice the types of products they would like to see if they were to develop a new line. This seems like unnecessary negativity which only serves to discourage discussion. That is my point.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
If Paizo can't/won't do 4e products themselves, then my hope is that the Necromancer stuff will be along the same lines as far as quality and feel.
There's no reason (that I know of, anyway), that the writers we all love on Paizo staff or the freelancers who work with them frequently can't write an adventure of supplemental product for Necromancer or any other publisher. I know that Necromancer is planning on releasing their OGL stuff through Paizo, so why can't it work the other way?
Perhaps Necromancer can run their own RPG Superstar for a 4e contest. Clark was a judge for Paizo's. I'd just personally hate to see something which draws so much attention to the site and involves so much time on both the entrants' and Paizo staff's ends not go toward building support and enthusiasm for the core products Paizo is basing their business plan on.
I wanted to come out of the wordwork and say something as both a 4e D&D and Paizo fan who has been somewhat "alienated" by recent turn of events (its why I've pretty much restricted myself to being a lurker since the PRPG announcement). I fully understand and sympathize with the logistical problems of trying to launch a new game system, as well as the challenge of supporting multiple systems with limited resources. I also realize that 4e is not going to be everyone's cup of tea. However, I did expect some measure of support, no matter how limited, because of statements that Paizo was going to basically rely on its community for 4e support, which is a fine strategy, especially when coupled with the Necromancer partnership.
That said, where's the community building? Rightly or wrongly, the Paizo boards are perceived as strongly hostile towards 4e and I see little effort to combat that perception. While a couple of pro-4e posters continue to soldier on, many others, including myself, have all but abandoned the Paizo 4e boards for greener (or at least more welcoming) pastures, and the nascent conversion threads have grown stagnant. IMO, those threads could have been better supported by Paizo staff, if only to give words of encouragement or suggestions. I checked the threads on Golarion in 4e, Conversions to 4e, and the Burnt Offerings conversion thread (all of which had last posts a month ago or longer), and no one from Paizo chimed in, not even with a "That's cool, keep it up!" or "I like what you're doing, but I would do this..." Something short and sweet; we're all pretty much operating with the same amount of information here.
Also, while I said that I fully realize and understand that 4e is not everyone's cup of tea, I find it hard to believe that everyone at Paizo dislikes everything released so far about it. I don't expect everyone to have the enthusiasm of Clark Peterson, but where's the friendly banter about mechanics or even the dreaded fluff changes. I first came to the Paizo boards a couple of years ago because of Dungeon, and one of the primary reasons why I kept coming back was the friendly and knowledgeable interaction with the staff, who were more than game designers, they were RPG fans and geeks like me! The 4e forums are all but devoid of this kind of positive interaction (official, if nicely put, hedging is not what I mean). I understood the problems pre-PRPG, since anything you would have said would have been parsed mercilessly by both camps, but now... Again, I have a hard time thinking that you guys believe that everything having been released by WoTC so far is a big, steaming pile of excrement.
Basically, I sometimes think that the pro-4e fans are treated by Paizo as something of an afterthought, which I realize we kind of are. However, if the shoe was on the other foot, I doubt the equivalent 3.5e/OGL forum would be like this.
So I'm asking, why should I come to this board to discuss 4e? What benefits do I receive for having to tolerate certain posters whose behavior would not be found acceptable anywhere else? How will you convince me to keep buying products for a game system I don't plan on regularly using in the very near future, especially on a limited gaming budget? I mean, I can easily discuss Paizo products on other boards (just this evening, someone started a 4e STAP thread over on EN World); there's a higher concentration of 4e enthusiasm over on other boards like WoTC, EN World, and RPG. Net; I can go over the Necromancer boards if I want to discuss their products; hell, I can even talk to anti-4e posters I like and respect, like Dave Mage and DmMcCoy (to name a few) on other boards, like EN World.
I don't want to be "alienated" from Paizo, but here I am...
I wanted to come out of the wordwork and say something as both a 4e D&D and Paizo fan who has been somewhat "alienated" by recent turn of events (its why I've pretty much restricted myself to being a lurker since the PRPG announcement).
To be fair, I have seen the 4th edition reflexive attacks die down a lot compared to a few months ago, and I've really restricted how much I make comments in 4e threads, since I'm not going that direction. I agree that there were (and still are, from time to time) completely over the top attacks on 4e, rather than simple resignation that "its not for me."
I suspect the reason you don't see more people discussing 4e positively in recent weeks though is the same reason I the people at Candlekeep don't discuss Greyhawk very much. Its not that most people don't like Greyhawk there, or that they don't see good points to the setting. Its that, well, they use the Realms, and are on a site dedicated to the Realms, so there isn't much point in talking about Greyhawk.
Similarly, since the Pathfinder RPG announcement, its pretty clear that Paizo is not, for the near future, going to focus on doing 4th edition products, so there isn't much point in many of the threads for designers to mention that they like this bit or that.
That having been said, did you listen to Erik's interview on the Fear the Boot podcast? He said that there are elements of 4e he is eager to try, and that he fully expects it to be a great game, and one that he will likely enjoy playing. That's a separate thing from putting Paizo's plans on hold hoping that they can support it and still not change how their products work for them.