|
The very design of 3.x allows players ultimate customization, and is designed to permit "specialization" to any degree the player can imagine.I agree that 3.x allows a greater range of cutomization than 4e, but "ultimate customization" is over the top. That would require a classless system like HERO, where every ability or power is purchased individually to match a concept.
Oh sure, find the one word I didn't edit out in my review of what I posted. As a fan of Shadowrun, I can appreciate the difference between a classless and a classed system. What I was trying to say is that for a classed system, it's about as customizable as a system can get. Ultimate was a very poor chose of words.
Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder
|
Conversely, one could say that you seem to be a huge 4E fanboy on general principal; I'd keep the finger pointing to a minimum, it doesn't get anybody anywhere.
I agree. But I think you, in turn, generalized Pete.
You like 3E then play it. I know I will when I want that. Or actually, I'll play PFRPG. :-)
Pete and I feel pretty much the same way here...it's not 3.5 lover vs. 4e fanboy in our case. It's that we love games. And 4e IS a new game. It has strengths. It has weaknesses. Every game does. Not every game is for everyone. What Pete, and myself, are saying is "Yeah! A new game that is pretty cool in concept and play! I'll play that AND continue playing 3.5, PFRPG, and probably several other games! W00T!"
If you don't like 4e...fine. Really, I mean that. Thank the GODS that Paizo has made the decision to give us a way to continue playing 3.5-ish games, along with support, APs, plus giving us some much needed improvements that we were really wanting and expecting from 4e...but didn't get.
And that's the key here...4e isn't your wish for an Improved 3.5. It's never going to be. Sometimes I wish it DIDN'T have the D&D name on it, because then people would stop loading all their expectations and baggage on it, and accept it as a NEW game.
Anyways, my 2 cp. Not looking to argue. Not a 4e fanboy. Just a gamer who loves gaming. And I look forward to playing Pathfinder with you all at an upcoming con or Society meet...like PaizoCon! ;-)
|
|
Conversely, one could say that you seem to be a huge 4E fanboy on general principal; I'd keep the finger pointing to a minimum, it doesn't get anybody anywhere.I agree. But I think you, in turn, generalized Pete.
What I wrote could easily be construed as a generalization on Pete. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to put tone into a messageboard post. I was attempting to illustrate a point and it fell flat, so I apologize if it came across as such.
Pete and I feel pretty much the same way here...it's not 3.5 lover vs. 4e fanboy in our case. It's that we love games. And 4e IS a new game. It has strengths. It has weaknesses. Every game does. Not every game is for everyone. What Pete, and myself, are saying is "Yeah! A new game that is pretty cool in concept and play! I'll play that AND continue playing 3.5, PFRPG, and probably several other games! W00T!"<snip>
And that's the key here...4e isn't your wish for an Improved 3.5. It's never going to be. Sometimes I wish it DIDN'T have the D&D name on it, because then people would stop loading all their expectations and baggage on it, and accept it as a NEW game.
And this is what's wrong with 4E. It's not the game - I hate games all the time and I just don't play them. It's not the people - You're all gamers, I'm sure you're all fine people. It's the fact that 4E has the D&D logo on it, and D&D is really the fantasy role-playing game (yes I know there are more). By putting the D&D logo on a game that is no longer the same game (and so quickly after the last release of the game), by our very nature as humans we've split into groups based on what we like. Rather than make D&D more accessible for everybody, it's now going to be harder than ever for those who really don't like 4E to pull in new players and explain that "yes this is D&D," and that's really the saddest part of the whole 4E launch.
I'm gonna de-lurk for one final post:
I ran the 4E demo at the D&D gameday yesterday. I can finally say with certainty that I am done with 3.x, and that I am now more convinced than ever that Paizo has bet on the wrong horse. Don't get me wrong; I've sure they'll carve out a decent niche with Pathfinder and probably do just fine, much like Green Ronin has done with True 20. But the combination of the strength of the 4E system and WOTC's continuing inability to put out Paizo-quality adventures provided an unprecedented (and probably one-time) opportunity for Paizo to define the next generation of classic adventures. Instead, their hubris led them down the path of marginalization. And make no mistake; they have marginalized themselves. The idea that Pathfinder RPG will mount a meaningful mainstream challenge to D&D 4E is simply delusional.
So for people who prefer 3.x to 4E, congratulations. Pathfinder RPG is a win for you. But in the end it will be a loss for everyone else: Both Paizo, their fanbase, and ultimately the RPG industry as a whole. :-(
I haven't read all the posts here, but I wanted to chime in. On D&D Game Day, I watched a D&D 4e game (to get a better feel for it) and then ran game. I also purchased the PHB.
After the experience, I can say for certain that 4e is not for me for campaign use. It's just a personal preference, mind you. I can see how it might be fun for some folks, but it didn't do it for me. I can't begin to explain the "why" of it at this point. As I said, it's just a personal preference.
I will say that I would play the game again in a one-shot type of situation, but I have no plans to play it on a continual basis; 3.5 & Pathfinder will be my D&D rules of choice.
On another note, I did like the layout of the book, and, from the bits I've read, it seems like they did a better job of trying to explain things. Of course, I've only had a chance to glimpse at it. My opinion may change on that.
Christina
|
I'm gonna de-lurk for one final post:
I ran the 4E demo at the D&D gameday yesterday. I can finally say with certainty that I am done with 3.x, and that I am now more convinced than ever that Paizo has bet on the wrong horse. Don't get me wrong; I've sure they'll carve out a decent niche with Pathfinder and probably do just fine, much like Green Ronin has done with True 20. But the combination of the strength of the 4E system and WOTC's continuing inability to put out Paizo-quality adventures provided an unprecedented (and probably one-time) opportunity for Paizo to define the next generation of classic adventures. Instead, their hubris led them down the path of marginalization. And make no mistake; they have marginalized themselves. The idea that Pathfinder RPG will mount a meaningful mainstream challenge to D&D 4E is simply delusional.
So for people who prefer 3.x to 4E, congratulations. Pathfinder RPG is a win for you. But in the end it will be a loss for everyone else: Both Paizo, their fanbase, and ultimately the RPG industry as a whole. :-(
That's funny because no one but the most enthusiastic are saying it will. The Paizoans themselves aren't making any such sort of grandiose claim. So that little rant is a prime example of a straw man argument.
However, given that WotC STILL haven't produced GSL, the actual rules for third parties, 6 months after they were originally due, makes it rather hard for a third party publisher like Paizo to rely on them for their long term business plans. After all, they don't know what they'd be getting themselves into at this point.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I played 4e and had a good time. It was nice. It wasn't terrible. It wasn't amazing. I've been kind of sitting on the fence during the last few months saying I'd wait and see.
I've waited; I've seen.
I saw nothing that made me feel like investing in a new edition.
Pathfinder, however, blows my friggin' head back!
So, I guess that answers that for me.
So for people who prefer 3.x to 4E, congratulations. Pathfinder RPG is a win for you. But in the end it will be a loss for everyone else: Both Paizo, their fanbase, and ultimately the RPG industry as a whole. :-(
That's your opinion, and you, like me and every other sentient being on the planet, is entitled to it. I imagine that you are not the only person who feels that way. Some people really like what they see in 4th Edition, and enthusiasic about the move. If you like 4th Edition, I hope you and your playgroup have a great time with the system.
I imagine that for Paizo, and the industry as a whole, there is a lot going on behind the scenes that we don't see. We don't know (as a community) yet how much support 4th Edition will garner from third party publishers. The fact that there is a rumoured clause in the GSL which allows Wizards to effectively yank the licence away if they choose to would make me think twice if I was a publisher. From a business perspective, the prospect of someone else being able to effectively shut down one of your product lines is one hell of a strong argument for looking at alternatives. The OGL is there already and can't be revoked.
I may pick up 4th Edition at some point, but am in no rush. Conversely, I'm looking forward to Pathfinder. My playgroup have had a look at the Pathfinder Alpha 3, and can see some good things in it. 4th Edition, on the other hand, has turned them cold. Simple economics is one of the main reasons - we've invested a fair bit in 3.5 resources and even though Pathfinder will require a bit of conversion those resources are still usable.
So, I'll be buying Pathfinder. No question. 4th Edition, at some point.
Chobbly
|
|
And this is what's wrong with 4E. It's not the game - I hate games all the time and I just don't play them. It's not the people - You're all gamers, I'm sure you're all fine people. It's the fact that 4E has the D&D logo on it, and D&D is really the fantasy role-playing game (yes I know there are more). By putting the D&D logo on a game that is no longer the same game (and so quickly after the last release of the game), by our very nature as humans we've split into groups based on what we like. Rather than make D&D more accessible for everybody, it's now going to be harder than ever for those who really don't like 4E to pull in new players and explain that "yes this is D&D," and that's really the saddest part of the whole 4E launch.
Mister, (may I call you Mister?)
I totally am ok with 4E "fanboy". And Pathfinder "fanboy". And Feng Shui "fanboy". And a multitude of other "fanboy" labels you want to slap on me. I took no offense. I am a big fanboy! Woo-Hoo!
What you say here strikes home with me and I'm sure with a number of people. And I'm with you on it to a certain degree. 4E is not "dnd". Of course, I started out playing the original 3 books back in the 70's, so I've had to chomp through new rules many times before. Keep on the Borderlands is "dnd". Tomb of Horrors is "dnd". Greyhawk and Blackmoor and the Known World is "dnd". I hated Dragonlance when it came out. (kender? wtf?) Forgotten Realms (emo drow? wtf?) Eberron (ROBOTS?? wtf???)
But! As you get older you're able to back away a bit and say "you know what, I bet other people might like that". And once you get even a bit older you start looking at all the different game systems and trying to recognize what they are, and what they aren't, and to try to promote games in general, because it helps the hobby overall. We're all more alike then different on these boards.
So, yes, I wish it wasn't called "dnd". Cause it's not. But marketing is marketing. And it looks like it's fun, if you accept it for what it is, not what it isn't.
I downloaded the PDFs illegally. I read them. I cancelled my preorder with Amazon. It is not the money they would cost me. I just do not want to purchase the books because I don't want Wizards of the coast to include me in their calculations. I am also stopping Magic the Gathering purchases. I think Shadowmoor is a good expansion, but I want to channel that money into more support for the third party publishers that are being marginalised and threatened by the change. I do not like 4e for a slew of reasons, and am delighted to throw my lot in wholeheartedy with Pathfinder and other excellent lines.
The discontinuity is too complete for me to want to do more with fourth edition than read it once. When I switched from AD&D to 3.0, I found almost every rule an improvement, but there was a commonality with all that had gone before. That is not the case with this jump.
I know that one of the aims of fourth edition seems to be a desire to get young players into the hobby again. Third edition has a large barrier for entry, as a mature system. I think that what they have produced is equally complex and fiddly. I furthermore feel that the tone of the mechanics, as presented in the 4e core set, does not enable any pretense at verisimillitude. Pathfinder and Golarion have more consistent, and plausible links between system and story.
It is clear to me that Wizards of the Coast are deliberately distancing themselves from the heritage of the game to add value to the IP and position the Dungeons and Dragons brand as an entrant in the MMO space sometime in the future. The failure of DDO notwithstanding, I expect a fully digital online D&D will be positioned against WoW in the future, and many of the changes to the game are being made to facilitate that direction.
Looked at 4E. Pathfinder it is.
CEO
|
I'm gonna de-lurk for one final post:
I ran the 4E demo at the D&D gameday yesterday. I can finally say with certainty that I am done with 3.x, and that I am now more convinced than ever that Paizo has bet on the wrong horse. Don't get me wrong; I've sure they'll carve out a decent niche with Pathfinder and probably do just fine, much like Green Ronin has done with True 20. But the combination of the strength of the 4E system and WOTC's continuing inability to put out Paizo-quality adventures provided an unprecedented (and probably one-time) opportunity for Paizo to define the next generation of classic adventures. Instead, their hubris led them down the path of marginalization. And make no mistake; they have marginalized themselves. The idea that Pathfinder RPG will mount a meaningful mainstream challenge to D&D 4E is simply delusional.
So for people who prefer 3.x to 4E, congratulations. Pathfinder RPG is a win for you. But in the end it will be a loss for everyone else: Both Paizo, their fanbase, and ultimately the RPG industry as a whole. :-(
Well, I am glad to report that your conviction is entirely wrong. Ever since the announcement of 4th edition, and especially since we announced the PFRPG, our sales have grown by leaps and bounds. The rate of customers signing up on paizo.com has tripled and the downloads of the PFRPG have been steady, with a huge increase in the last few days (hmmm, I wonder what spurred that?). While I am not delusional enough to think that our sales will rival those of Wizards and D&D, I'll take this "niche" that we have and happily make products for a long time to come. It isn't as small as you make it out to be and I truly believe that it will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. You don't stay in business in this industry for over 20 years without knowing what you are doing, and I have to say that Paizo is doing just fine. I understand that 4e is what drives your engine and that is awesome. But there are quite a few people for whom 4e isn't the answer and Paizo will be here making great product for them and doing very well for ourselves in the process. And if you ever want to come back, we'll be here.
Here's to good gaming, whatever the edition!
-Lisa
|
|
The idea that Pathfinder RPG will mount a meaningful mainstream challenge to D&D 4E is simply delusional.
So for people who prefer 3.x to 4E, congratulations. Pathfinder RPG is a win for you. But in the end it will be a loss for everyone else: Both Paizo, their fanbase, and ultimately the RPG industry as a whole. :-(
Yah, so mr. 4E fanboy (I love that by the way, i'm running with it now) thinks you're completely wrong here. Paizo isn't attempting to mount a "mainstream challenge" to D&D 4E. Are you crazy? They're 23 folks. I think they've played their situation *very* well and are positioned fabulously to scoop up the anti-4E market wholesale. Their sales are going to go up, if they haven't already. And hopefully when the GSL comes out it has adequate provisions for them to do some 4E stuff when it makes sense for them so they can ride that pony for all it's worth. I was *very* impressed with their production and market sense when I got to meet them in person. And Erik's recent podcast over on Green Ronin was an excellent analysis of the current rpg market conditions. They're smart cookies. If they had stock I'd be putting in a buy order.
|
|
It is clear to me that Wizards of the Coast are deliberately distancing themselves from the heritage of the game to add value to the IP and position the Dungeons and Dragons brand as an entrant in the MMO space sometime in the future. The failure of DDO notwithstanding, I expect a fully digital online D&D will be positioned against WoW in the future, and many of the changes to the game are being made to facilitate that direction.
You know what the sad part is? DDO was not inherently a "bad" game. In fact, there were some things about DDO that I absolutely adored (a word I do not often use when describing MMO mechanics). When I first entered a quest, I felt like an adventurer, when my rogue found and disarmed traps (for the first time), I actually felt like I was playing D&D. Hearing the stories behind what we were doing and adventuring with friends was an absolute blast and in general they did a fairly faithful adaptation of the 3.x rules (to the best of their extent in a real-time computer environment). But...when I did the same "quest" the twentieth time in order to get the experience needed to finally go up to level 8 (yes eight!) and just kept finding the traps and avoiding the monsters in the same exact method I had before, I canceled my subscription.
I agree wholeheartedly that the development of 4E was not meant as a nod to the fans of the game. It was built with one goal in mind, the eventual translation and dissemination as a MMORPG. You may disagree with me if you wish, but from my little hill, watching how 4E reads and plays, I think the development of a game that translates well into an MMO absolutely was one of the primary development goals. Unfortunately, if they just release an MMO with the same exactly problem I mentioned in DDO above (something they will do due to the method to which MMOs absolutely must be played), it'll be just as much a failure as the original.
I'd say you're dead on, the value of the IP outstripped the usefulness of the old system.
Lisa that is great news. I know after are last playtest I have another player that plans to know own the beta and the core rules come 09
Yah, so mr. 4E fanboy (I love that by the way, i'm running with it now)You should totally make an alias before someone else gets it. ;)
Have you tried 4E yet? It's a RPG... and a dessert topping! Woo-Hoo!
|
|
Well, I am glad to report that your conviction is entirely wrong. Ever since the announcement of 4th edition, and especially since we announced the PFRPG, our sales have grown by leaps and bounds.
Whoohoo! This is awesome to hear. I'll freely admit, after discovering how much I disliked 4E I went and threw my hat in the Paizo ring by purchasing several products to show support for their method of business. In fact, the entertainment budget dollars that I spent on Paizo products came from the cancellation of my 4E preorder. I'm glad to hear that the combined effort of people who have done so actually seems to have had an effect.
What are the odds that two people would post at the same time, and one end with the word the other starts with?
Woohoo!
Well, I am glad to report that your conviction is entirely wrong. Ever since the announcement of 4th edition, and especially since we announced the PFRPG, our sales have grown by leaps and bounds. The rate of customers signing up on paizo.com has tripled and the downloads of the PFRPG have been steady, with a huge increase in the last few days (hmmm, I wonder what spurred that?). While I am not delusional enough to think that our sales will rival those of Wizards and D&D, I'll take this "niche" that we have and happily make products for a long time to come. It isn't as small as you make it out to be and I truly believe that it will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. You don't stay in business in this industry for over 20 years without knowing what you are doing, and I have to say that Paizo is doing just fine. I understand that 4e is what drives your engine and that is awesome. But there are quite a few...
You go girl!
I'm happy to read that Paizo is going strong... especially because of the hubris of WotC.
I posted this over on Knights and Knaves (Osric forum).
I want to post it here, because Paizo is my home.
I think part of the break from "traditional" D&D is to appeal to this new younger audience who expects to see certain things in their fantasy games (and to have characters who don't die, have kewl powerz, etc.) , but there is one other reason that IMHO shouldn't be discounted. WotC would love to hijack a time machine and go back to club Ryan Dancey over the head, because he made a LOT of what makes D&D D&D open game content under the OGL, and that can't be taken back. In my mind there is no doubt that a great deal of the aesthetic changes happening in 4e are a way to redefine D&D and make it IP that is unique again. They don't want D&D to be what it was, because they don't have a tight reign on it anymore and they'd have to compete with everyone else on nothing more than the brand name.
The brand is definitely being re-defined. There was a D&D based MMO, which failed to capture a significant market share. It was based entirely in an Eberron city, and it made solo play impossible. Both the tedium of the environments, and the lack of user friendliness for solo players were factors in the demise of the DDMMO as a market force.
The game took what is worst about the new D&D, in my opinion, and none of what is best. Partly because classic D&D deals with some very Jungian archetypes. In the seventies and eighties, before the game was commodetised, It tapped directly into what a lot of people thought of as fantasy. An eight year old, like myself at the time, could jump in and start imagining the world because the scaffolding was cloaked in universal themes and images. The problem with that, from a business standpoint, is that universals are not anyones IP. The contents of the SRD are mostly the universal, western mythos. Pathfinder (The paizo grognard 3.5) is closer to my early days of D&D than fourth will be, because it uses the classic mythical heritage and base of D&D, but cannot use many of the creatures that are WoTC property. They are using the Cthulhu mythos, Asian folklore, Pulp masterworks, and real world myth to populate Golarion, like was done in the earliest days of D&D. The beholder, mind flayers and a few other creatures are fiercely defended properties, because they are distinctive. WoTC and Hasbro are definitely called by their best interests to differentiate their new edition from the edition before it, but also from everything in D&D that is universal or hard to own. The OGL allows the companies that use it to build their own I.Ps on top of a base that can support many different visions.
To answer the point that old school D&D had a finger on the pulse of a common mythology seems very accurate to me. In order to monetise the brand, Hasbro need to strip that soul out and paste a clearly defined alternative on top of it.
As an aside: I think that the fourth edition of the game is partly done to make it easier to make computer games out of the I.P. The success of the gaming brands so far compels the owners of the game to move in the direction of marketing the digital rights to the D&D brand, and the pen and paper heritage of the game is not really a concern. Many of the designers seem to wish the game to be accessable and relevant to the MMO crowd. They are importing ideas from WoW and MtG, which are often very elegant mechanics, but are simply not D&D in anything but name. fifty feet of rope, a bullseye lantern and a 10" pole are artifacts of a very different style of gaming. Modern instant gratification zero attention span media saturated kids will look on the paradigm that demanded realism and verisimmilitude in gaming as quaint and outre. They are not likely to buy into the demands of DMing an old school simulationist game, any more than they are likely to read Ashton Smith or Leiber.
Paizo is gonna do just fine. You see they 're playing their cards right. They offer top quality products at reasonable prices, their service is great and most importantly, they make you feel like you and your opinion actually matter.
I have been playing DnD since 1996. And these last twelve years I 've spent thousands of dollars (in Greek Drachmas back then, in Euros now) to fund my hobby and support the industry.
WotC has been a huge disappointment lately. Their cancellation of Dragon and Dungeon (I have every single issue since Dragon 250 and Dungeon 68) indicated that something very wrong was going on. Their brand new 4th edition (along with everything that comes with it) has just completed the picture.
They won't be getting a cent from me. They have shown a complete disregard for the feelings and investment of a large portion of their loyal fanbase. They will reap their reward.
I support Paizo and PRPG wholeheartedly and many many other people obviously feel this way too. This August I relocate to Delaware to do my PhD. Thankfully I will be able to get my paizo products easily without customs officers putting their grubby little paws all over them.
Long live Paizo! Thanks to you we do have a choice!
An archer (ranger)
A two-handed swordsman (fighter)
A two-weapon fighter (ranger)
A sword & boarder (fighter)
A highly-mobile skirmisher (ranger or rogue)
A generalist warrior who has a smattering of all of the above (fighter)
And there's the big turnoff for me: Classes are much more narrow than before. In 3e, all the stuff you mention - and a lot more - can be done with the same class. Or, actually, with several classes. All options with all the classes.
So 4e apparently forces me to play a ranger if I want archery. In 3e, I can go with cleric, archer, fighter, rogue, just to mention the 4 prime choices - each an archer, but with different strengths, from divine archer, over sniper over stalker over plain marksman.
And it's not just the fighter. Everything's that way: Rogues, for exmaple, are forced to get stealth and (*gag*) thievery. You can be a "brawny rogue" or a "trickster rouge" (as opposed to easily over a dozen different concepts in 3e). Sneak attack only works with a couple of weapons (and stuff like a blackjack is not among them), and their powers also often dictate what sort of weapon you can use.
Yep! The rules are streamlined. That's a design trade-off.
They went on a frikkin genocide against options and concepts. That's a major turn-off
I am now more convinced than ever that Paizo has bet on the wrong horse.
No, they didn't. They bet on the horse that lets them do the bets they want. With the 4e-horse (mor a mechanical racing machine that is horse-shaped), they'd hav to change their adventuring style, they'd have to abandon a lot of great ideas (sin magic like in Rise of the Runelords is just one example), and always be afraid that wizards would pull the license.
But the combination of the strength of the 4E system and WOTC's continuing inability to put out Paizo-quality adventures provided an unprecedented (and probably one-time) opportunity for Paizo to define the next generation of classic adventures.
I think they can still do it. The next generation of classic adventures doesn't have to be in 4e.
Instead, their hubris
Hubris. You expect people to respect anything you say if you talk like that? Want to see hubris? Find a mirror.
QUOTE="bugleyman"] The idea that Pathfinder RPG will mount a meaningful mainstream challenge to D&D 4E is simply delusional.
They don't have to challenge 4e. They don't have the Mouse God breething down their neck to go for some profit margin. By all accounts, they're more successful than before. Seems that there are more than enough people who won't play 4e, preferring 3e's freedom to 4e's gloss. And enough who will buy Paizo over wizards any day of the week.
So for people who prefer 3.x to 4E, congratulations. Pathfinder RPG is a win for you. But in the end it will be a loss for everyone else:
Can't all win. If 4e fanboys can't get the creative Paizo adventures, I won't cry a tear. They have their rulebooks and their new (or old) favourite company. Let them make adventures they like. Or get someone else to do it for them. (Maybe they all feel their creativity stifled too much by 4e's restrictions to pull off a proper killer adventure? :D)
Both Paizo, their fanbase, and ultimately the RPG industry as a whole. :-(
Not true. Paizo seems to do better than before. Their fanbase (that is us sticking to Pathfinder in all its forms) seems to do pretty well, and the RPG industry as a whole can only benefit from a generous helping of options for players. Not everyone likes 4e. Some might have picked it up for lack of better options if there wasn't PF the RPG, but others would just have stopped buying new stuff.
Now tell me how that benefits the RPG industry as a whole.
Well, I am glad to report that your conviction is entirely wrong. Ever since the announcement of 4th edition, and especially since we announced the PFRPG, our sales have grown by leaps and bounds. The rate of customers signing up on paizo.com has tripled and the downloads of the PFRPG have been steady,
Well, what can I say? Ah:
Hooray for Paizo!
Hooray for the PRG Industry!
Hooray for us!
May the leaps and bounce continue.
with a huge increase in the last few days (hmmm, I wonder what spurred that?).
Yes, it does seem that 4e's domination and unconditional 4wsomeness isn't as total as they want to make us think.
|
|
Not true. Paizo seems to do better than before. Their fanbase (that is us sticking to Pathfinder in all its forms) seems to do pretty well, and the RPG industry as a whole can only benefit from a generous helping of options for players. Not everyone likes 4e. Some might have picked it up for lack of better options if there wasn't PF the RPG, but others would just have stopped buying new stuff.
Now tell me how that benefits the RPG industry as a whole.
QFT, KaeYoss. I knew we agreed on a lot of things.
In hindsight I'm really glad WotC botched the GSL. If it had been available early on in a friendly form many third parties might have supported it simply because big gorilla say go "this way".
Now there are options - and options are good. It's going to be really intersting to see that GSL and what folks decide to do.
I'm a fan of 4th edition GURPS, does that count?
Well, I am glad to report that your conviction is entirely wrong. Ever since the announcement of 4th edition, and especially since we announced the PFRPG, our sales have grown by leaps and bounds. The rate of customers signing up on paizo.com has tripled and the downloads of the PFRPG have been steady, with a huge increase in the last few days (hmmm, I wonder what spurred that?). While I am not delusional enough to think that our sales will rival those of Wizards and D&D, I'll take this "niche" that we have and happily make products for a long time to come. It isn't as small as you make it out to be and I truly believe that it will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. You don't stay in business in this industry for over 20 years without knowing what you are doing, and I have to say that Paizo is doing just fine. I understand that 4e is what drives your engine and that is awesome. But there are quite a few...I'm gonna de-lurk for one final post:
I ran the 4E demo at the D&D gameday yesterday. I can finally say with certainty that I am done with 3.x, and that I am now more convinced than ever that Paizo has bet on the wrong horse. Don't get me wrong; I've sure they'll carve out a decent niche with Pathfinder and probably do just fine, much like Green Ronin has done with True 20. But the combination of the strength of the 4E system and WOTC's continuing inability to put out Paizo-quality adventures provided an unprecedented (and probably one-time) opportunity for Paizo to define the next generation of classic adventures. Instead, their hubris led them down the path of marginalization. And make no mistake; they have marginalized themselves. The idea that Pathfinder RPG will mount a meaningful mainstream challenge to D&D 4E is simply delusional.
So for people who prefer 3.x to 4E, congratulations. Pathfinder RPG is a win for you. But in the end it will be a loss for everyone else: Both Paizo, their fanbase, and ultimately the RPG industry as a whole. :-(
I am glad to hear that Lisa!
|
And this is what's wrong with 4E. It's not the game - I hate games all the time and I just don't play them. It's not the people - You're all gamers, I'm sure you're all fine people. It's the fact that 4E has the D&D logo on it <snip>
<snip>
So, yes, I wish it wasn't called "dnd". Cause it's not. But marketing is marketing. And it...
You know what I wish wasn't called D&D? Those two movies. Holy smokes. So it's not like they haven't misused the name before. And even TSR did weird marketing things. I remember D&D candy: hard chewable things shaped like wizards and warriors.
But back to the purpose of the thread: I vote for Pathfinder.
|
|
Well, I am glad to report that your conviction is entirely wrong. Ever since the announcement of 4th edition, and especially since we announced the PFRPG, our sales have grown by leaps and bounds. The rate of customers signing up on paizo.com has tripled and the downloads of the PFRPG have been steady, with a huge increase in the last few days (hmmm, I wonder what spurred that?). While I am not delusional enough to think that our sales will rival those of Wizards and D&D, I'll take this "niche" that we have and happily make products for a long time to come. It isn't as small as you make it out to be and I truly believe that it will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. You don't stay in business in this industry for over 20 years without knowing what you are doing, and I have to say that Paizo is doing just fine.
RAWK! *bangs head*
I'd be SERIOUSLY bummed if 3.5/Pathfinder dried up and blew away in the face of something so radically different as 4e. I hope you guys stick around for a VERY long time. Will WotC sell more units? Almost certainly. Will they realize their mistake? Maybe. If they do, will they acknowledge it? Hell no. But it won't matter, because those of us who like third edition won't have to worry about it. Incidentally, I returned my 4e PHB yesterday, and bought a copy of the Dragonlance campaign setting instead. I don't think I'd ever run Dragonlance, but I can crunch-farm the book, something I absolutely could not have done with the 4e PHB. (3.5 Death knights, Solamnic Knights, Knights of Neraka, Dragonspawn, High Ogres, etc. Good stuff.) With the d20 license going away at year's end, it's going to get harder to find the "old stuff" so I figured I'd better move quickly.
|
|
You know what I wish wasn't called D&D? Those two movies. Holy smokes. So it's not like they haven't misused the name before. And even TSR did weird marketing things. I remember D&D candy: hard chewable things shaped like wizards and warriors.But back to the purpose of the thread: I vote for Pathfinder.
Hey, love it or hate it, the second movie actually DID scream D&D and no, the first one in all of its magic dust didn't. Wait, thats it! We've been trying to figure out where the hell all this magic dust that disenchanted items comes from! 4E is set in the D&D Movie! I get it now.
Wow, thanks.
Well, I am glad to report that your conviction is entirely wrong.
Sorry Lisa, but the matter isn't settled yet (note my use of the word "ultimate"). I maintain that you will *ultimately* not see the success you would have had you made the switch. Frankly, the condition of your business right now isn't terribly useful in predicting what will happen in five years (which I suspect you understand quite well). We could debate forever; you've placed your bet. Was it a wise one? Only time will tell. In the meantime, I *know* as a 4E player I'll miss your content. :(
On the bright side, you'll know if I come crawling back in a few years, and you can bust out an extra big "I told you so". ;-)
I have noticed that the sales for 4e do not reflect the enthusiasm for 4e I am seeing around the boards. A lot of people are buying it but only a few seem truly enthused for it.
I will be curious to see how soon copies of used 4e rulebooks start showing up on Ebay.
The other point that seems to get overlooked here is that initial sales of the core books are emphatically NOT indicative of the success or failure of 4E. There are going to be people who buy the core books just to take a look, and then drop it like a bad habit.
Wait 6 months and look at sales of subsequent products - adventures, expansions, campaign settings, etc. Then, and only then, can we really see how 4E is doing.
Also keep in mind most of the sold books are in wherehouses some where or in back of store on shelves...there not sold yet there just not in wotc or hasbro wherehouses is all.
That's funny because no one but the most enthusiastic are saying it will. The Paizoans themselves aren't making any such sort of grandiose claim. So that little rant is a prime example of a straw man argument.However, given that WotC STILL haven't produced GSL, the actual rules for third parties, 6 months after they were originally due, makes it rather hard for a third party publisher like Paizo to rely on them for their long term business plans. After all, they don't know what they'd be getting themselves into at this point.
Close. It *would* be a straw man if my ultimate point was that they were mistaken if they thought that they'd "beat" WOTC. I think Paizo knows better than that. My point was that I think they've limited their own potential by failing to move to the newest edition of the rules. If they don't have as large a market share as WOTC (which almost everyone agrees they won't), then they by definition have a smaller potential customer base for adventures. Nowhere do I say I think they'll go out of business. Clearly, Paizo has a lot more at stake than I do, so they at least should be commended for putting their money where their mouth is. Ultimately only time will tell for sure. Or maybe not even that, since we'll never know what would have happened had Paizo chosen another path.
I also mentioned the "challenge WOTC" part because there seems to be a chunk of folks here on these boards that actually think that is going to happen. In fairness, as far as I can tell none of these people work for Paizo.
One thing I do know for sure: Once my current game is done, I'm through running 3.5/Pathfinder. I am signed up for _playing_ 3 or 4 Pathfinder slots at Gencon, and will attend each, largely because (1) I'm DM'ing 4E there already, (2) all the 4E RPGA slots for *players* slots sold out almost immediately (and consequently led me to sign up to run a few games), and (3) most of my biggest beefs with 3.X come from the DM side of the screen.
So I'll probably end up sitting at a table with some of you in August. So you can save up all your rotten fruit for then. :P
|
|
But there are quite a few people for whom 4e isn't the answer and Paizo will be here making great product for them
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I will continue to support Paizo as long as I am financially able.
They've supported me in the past and are promising to continue to support me in the future.
I mean to return the favor.
FP
|
Note: all the following numbers are conjecture and in no way reflect reality at all, except perhaps in terms of general ratios.
Selling 30,000 books with rules that they may have massive mechanical quibbles with, under a license that can be revoked at any time, from a company already proved willing to revoke licenses (and only potential fan outrage at an incomplete adventure path stopping them from doing so even sooner than they did)
OR
Selling 20,000 books, under an irrevocable license, under rules that they themselves have developed and nurtured to the point where any faults are theirs and theirs alone. Control of their own destinies, or simply floating along in a boat where the weather report can change at a moment's notice/new whim of a Hasbro executive.
Not a hard choice to me. One that takes a bit of courage and can very well blow up in their faces, sure, but not a hard one.
Note: all the following numbers are conjecture and in no way reflect reality at all, except perhaps in terms of general ratios.
Selling 30,000 books with rules that they may have massive mechanical quibbles with, under a license that can be revoked at any time, from a company already proved willing to revoke licenses (and only potential fan outrage at an incomplete adventure path stopping them from doing so even sooner than they did)
OR
Selling 20,000 books, under an irrevocable license, under rules that they themselves have developed and nurtured to the point where any faults are theirs and theirs alone. Control of their own destinies, or simply floating along in a boat where the weather report can change at a moment's notice/new whim of a Hasbro executive.
Not a hard choice to me. One that takes a bit of courage and can very well blow up in their faces, sure, but not a hard one.
I would agree, but I doubt the ratio is anyplace near 1.5:1. I would put my money on something closer to 5:1 twelve months down the line when things have settled down. And frankly, I think even that might be very generous compared to the numbers Paizo will end up facing.
To me, it is equally simple on the other side: Paizo can either choose to sell their (superior) adventures to the largest # of people (4E) or some smaller # (Pathfinder, 3.5, etc.). Seems like the definition of a no-brainer to me, though admittedly I'm biased because I want Paizo to produce 4E content.
And before someone goes there, I'm not completely clueless. I have a business degree and I work for a rather larger publisher. By no stretch of the imagination am I the CEO or in any way involved in marketing (thank god; I work in IT, in fact), but I do tend to have some idea of how things work in the field. And in my experience, Marketing + Brand trump quality _EVERY_ time. That isn't to say 4E isn't a good product; I think it is, especially for the DM. Rather, I bring it up to point out that, even if 4E were marginal, it would win anyway, and I think Paizo is making a mistake by not hitching themselves to that train.
I freely admit I could be wrong. It happens, but frankly not very often.
Good lord, I'm starting to sound like Sebastian (just poking fun, Sebastian). ;-)
|
|
Also keep in mind most of the sold books are in wherehouses some where or in back of store on shelves...there not sold yet there just not in wotc or hasbro wherehouses is all.
Or sitting on the shelves in the middle of the FLGS the day after "Worldwide D&D Day". From my own anecdotal evidence (and please take it as anecdotal), 4E was not the blowout sell I think WotC and the gaming stores thought it would be. Sales were lackluster (at least according to the people at my game store) and they had easily 150+ of each sourcebook sitting in various displays in store (rough estimate of 30 books per stack with five displays). I remember after 3.5 the shelves were barren, and this time they were barren too - all the 3.x books were gone, sold out, we couldn't get the copy of the Spell Compendium they had four copies of last week.
I think sales were good, but I'm not sure they were as spectacular as WotC was implying they would be.
You know what I wish wasn't called D&D? Those two movies.
While I agree that the second one wasn't the greatest movie I ever saw, I thought it was Okay. And it defenetly was D&D. I guess it helped a lot if you were a D&D fan.
But the first one just wasn't any good, and it wasn't D&D. It was just crap. It didn't help to be a D&D fan. It didn't help to be absolutely clueless. It just stank. And it was nowhere near D&D's facts.
Maybe they based 4e off that movie?
In hindsight I'm really glad WotC botched the GSL. If it had been available early on in a friendly form many third parties might have supported it simply because big gorilla say go "this way".Now there are options - and options are good. It's going to be really intersting to see that GSL and what folks decide to do.
I'd have been gladder if they didn't put in that stupid "My way or the highway" clause. That way, game choice and setting/module choice woudln't be linked like they are now.
And I'm sure wizards, too, will lose sales over that choice, as people ignore what they might have otherwise preferred as game choice because of their setting/module choice.
I mean, even more so than otherwise. Face it, stuff like the Midnight Campaign Setting can't really work with 4e.
|
|
I'd have been gladder if they didn't put in that stupid "My way or the highway" clause. That way, game choice and setting/module choice woudln't be linked like they are now.
.
OGL is like 3.5 you can multiclass and customize your product as you wish.
GSL is like 4E when you get a class for your product (4E or another), you can only select a few powers. No way to mix or change.
Ever since the announcement of 4th edition, and especially since we announced the PFRPG, our sales have grown by leaps and bounds. The rate of customers signing up on paizo.com has tripled and the downloads of the PFRPG have been steady, with a huge increase in the last few days (hmmm, I wonder what spurred that?).
::does happy dance::
|
|
You know what I love, having played at the D&D experience, the people claiming how great 4e was based off of that, things I heard said
They used 2 fighters to show that fighters don't suck anymore...
Yeah fighters at first level don't suck anymore *rolls eyes* fighters don't start to suck until at least 10th level, in fact in 3.5 you could make the argument that at 1st level a human fighter was the most powerful class available DURING 1st level play, so that claim has yet to be proven, were the experience running 25th level characters then you could make that claim.
Combat is much quicker...
Well the experience had four fights and it took us 4.5 hours to run which means every combat took 1 hour at first level.
There are no options that suck anymore...
Actually when looking through that book and having played at the experience I've already found a few ways that you could have a character that sucks when compared to other builds. and I'm betting in 2 months time there will be a class that is determined to be weaksauce compared to other classes.
Oh, and if one more person tells me I can play a two-weapon fighter by playing a ranger I'm going to shove their head through a brick wall. I didn't want to play a ranger that fights with two weapons, I wanted to play a fighter that fights with two weapons and actually uses them like a two weapon fighter would. And saying you can you just have to choose which weapon you hit with each round doesn't count.
|
|
Oh, and if one more person tells me I can play a two-weapon fighter by playing a ranger I'm going to shove their head through a brick wall. I didn't want to play a ranger that fights with two weapons, I wanted to play a fighter that fights with two weapons and actually uses them like a two weapon fighter would. And saying you can you just have to choose which weapon you hit with each round doesn't count.
Quoted for the ever-loving truth!
How they totally managed to butcher the TWF mechanics that badly and still think it was a good idea is beyond me. Streamlined indeed.
|
|
because characters getting two attack rolls slows the game down sooooo much.
Oy vey, if your combat is going so slow introduce a combat timer, you'd be amazed how well it works to cut a players turn down to 30 seconds (of course pausing for rules concerns). While some of the things done in 4e i can agree with, this unfounded belief amongst some gamers that 4e fixed everything and is perfectly balanced is just ludicrous.
And just out of curiosity has anyone else been told by 4e fans that WotC learned its lesson with 3.5 and don't intend to splat book 4e to heck and rather release campaign settings instead of splat books, only to see that the scheduled releases from WotC includes, sure enough, a martial powers splat book. but I'm sure they won't follow it up with an arcane and divine splatbook and that it will have been thouroughly playtested to ensure balance.
Just wait until the GSL comes out in a few days. If it comes out the way WotC has indicated it will, third party publishers will think twice before supporting 4th edition. According to WotC it will be more restrictive and it could be revoked at any time. Surely this makes for a pretty solid foundation for your business. ;-)
|
|
Just wait until the GSL comes out in a few days. If it comes out the way WotC has indicated it will, third party publishers will think twice before supporting 4th edition. According to WotC it will be more restrictive and it could be revoked at any time. Surely this makes for a pretty solid foundation for your business. ;-)
Doesn't it thought? :p
|
Well some time ago, I purchased the World of Warcraft RPG and was horribly disappointed they used straight d20 with no adjustments for Warcraft.
Apparently someone at WOTC noticed that as well and have fixed the problem. I am pretty sure 4e was designed specificlly for the World of Warcraft setting. I fully expect the "Great Announcement" within a month or two that Warcraft will be the official and only setting for D&D, and that Blizard has bought WOTC from Hasbro.
Actually now that I think of it, if Paizo does not buy the D&D label when 4e tanks, then either Blizzard or Microsoft will.
*shudder*
*flips to page 822 of D&D PHB v5.76.983.09 patch 6.09.63.9 to find the Blue Page of Death!* Nuts, now I have to buy new dice and a character not to mention buy a new book all because my warranty just ran out! But on the bright side I get to upgrade from D&D Home edition to the D&D Deluxe edition unless I prefer the D&D Pro edition. But maybe I will go with the D&D Family edition- at least the Blue Page of Death is Family Friendly I just hope my new dice are compatable with the D&D Family edition!