I have to agree with Sebastian.
I cannot think of one example where I have seen pro-4e people repeatedly post on 3.5 or PFRPG boards how great 4e is and how repulisve and abhorrent 3.5/PF is.
For some reason, anti-4e people (some, not all) feel they must keep reminding pro-4e people how horrible their game of choice is. I have even heard some vague arguments about how anti-4e people are justified to gripe on 4e boards because they feel the games stewardship is threatened. That is all fine and well. Send and e-mail to WoTC (I know, I know), but please just that ire out of posts with people who want to discuss the game. Please.
|
You also have Wotc employees openly lamblasting the OGL for it's very irrevocable nature, and you had at one time both Linnae (when she worked for Wotc) and Scott Rouse both quite openly attack on one infamous thread those that were unhappy with the GSL. There is no reason...
Wow.
You know, its funny, because I was there and participating in this discussion and I don't recall a single attack at all. I remember Scott and Linnae trying to assure everyone that there was NOT a poison pill clause, but I can't recall a single attack. Scott and Linnae were the absolute face of courtesy during this time.
I'm going to go grab the links to the comments made so that those who may be curious can look them up, but I gotta call BS on this interpretation.
Regardless, this has nothing to do with the original OP. It has nothing to do with whether or not 4E is D&D, or that 4E is and will be a positive influence in gaming. D&D existed prior to the OGL, it will exist afterwards. Gaming existed prior to the OGL, and it too will exist afterwards. MOST gaming systems out there ARE NOT Open License products, and yet succeed and thrive in their niche markets.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I cannot think of one example where I have seen pro-4e people repeatedly post on 3.5 or PFRPG boards how great 4e is and how repulisve and abhorrent 3.5/PF is.For some reason, anti-4e people (some, not all) feel they must keep reminding pro-4e people how horrible their game of choice is. I have even heard some vague arguments about how anti-4e people are justified to gripe on 4e boards because they feel the games stewardship is threatened. That is all fine and well. Send and e-mail to WoTC (I know, I know), but please just that ire out of posts with people who want to discuss the game. Please.
I don't know that I would go that far. I have seen people on these boards pipe up to say something like "everyone will convert to 4e eventually" in a Pathfinder forum. It's just the height of myopic idiocy to claim that one side of any particular debate started it by being a rotton bastard first. There are rotton bastards on both sides of any debate, and to try to single out which one shot first is an exercise in childish finger-pointing that doesn't do anyone any good.
And if someone honestly believes that this is a debate that was started or became negative because of the actions of only one side, they are so biased and intellectually dishonest it makes me sick.
|
For some reason, anti-4e people (some, not all) feel they must keep reminding pro-4e people how horrible their game of choice is. I have even heard some vague arguments about how anti-4e people are justified to gripe on 4e boards because they feel the games stewardship is threatened. That is all fine and well. Send and e-mail to WoTC (I know, I know), but please just that ire out of posts with people who want to discuss the game. Please.
Is this argument even relevant anymore? Play 4e, play pathfinder - play whatever makes you happy. Do I like 4e? Nope. Do I care that you do? Nope. Have fun with your game du jour, and I'll try to do the same with mine.
For the record there are plenty of us anti-4e crowd who have struck a conciliatory tone on 4e. Try not to assume that the behavior of a few bozos is indicative of the rest of us. Heck, come join one of the design threads to see whats up on the rest of the site. We'll even try to go easy if you slip up and knock our edition a little bit ;)
but no promises.
House rule: Re-clawing the De-clawed. or old skool F--- you up.
Lethality of combat (or eviscerate one another)
all normal damage rolls are open ended.
example: bastard sword 1d10 dmg, if the result of the die is a "10", the die is rolled repeatedly until a "10" is not rolled.
Natural 20's are also open ended. Each result of nat. 20 increases critical multiplier by +1 (x3 , X4 etc.)
Critical hits: multiply all dmg according to crit. multiplier x2, x3 and so on, bleed, poison, sneak etc.
example: bastard sword +2 w/16 str (+3 mod.)
for instance x2 is..2d10+6, remember it's open ended...(the 2d10)
enhancement bonus(+2) so..+2d6 crit dice..open ended..
if one had sneak attack of 3d6...increase to 6d6...also open ended.
poison: 5 dot becomes 10 dot.
Dying from system shock:
work in progress...essentially,
example: fort. score of 17 would equal a system shock score of 34. if target takes dmg = to this or greater than, from a single attack, basically from one damage roll..then target is is immediately disabled( 0 hp) and begins to die.
add the following to vorpal weapon description:
"if target is slain by a vorpal weapon, it's life force or soul has been obliterated. Death is permanent."
As you can see this puts the sting (and fear) back into the game. Now obviously your not going to roll maximums all the time, but this system does liven things up a bit.
|
|
If more people thought and posted as you did, Underling, then the Paizo boards would be a far more welcoming place. It's a shame that it's not but as much as I appreciate your own approach, that doesn't mean I feel that the 'bozos' should go unchallenged when they post utter tosh.
Hey, I'm far from an angel. if you could look back far enough I got into it quite a bit during the edition wars. But I think enough time has passed that many of us hung up our gloves and retired.
You know, I seem to notice that the anti 4e people who post on the 4ed boards don't stop often on the other boards. It also seems like the anti 3e people who troll over on the other boards seem to hang there more.
Pattern?
|
|
If anyone does NOT think the GSL is a flat out attempt to commercially revoke the OGL, I'd suggest they wake up and smell the proverbial coffee.
-Polaris
Did you also note that this only holds for a company that actually signs the GSL? And since the GSL is quite dead we don't know what the new GSL is going to do.
The GSL does not restrict the OGL for the folks that do not sign it.
|
|
And if someone honestly believes that this is a debate that was started or became negative because of the actions of only one side, they are so biased and intellectually dishonest it makes me sick.
I agree. Both sides had a hand in starting it. However, it is abundantly clear that every time the fires starts to burn low someone invariably comes along to throw anti-4e fuel on the fire.
|
|
I agree. Both sides had a hand in starting it. However, it is abundantly clear that every time the fires starts to burn low someone invariably comes along to throw anti-4e fuel on the fire.
...and because of this, and the rapid way the discussion shot off to left field with some completely random comments that had not been brought up before in this thread, were largely off-topic, and did nothing but fan the rhetoric, I am going to go ahead and drift right on out of the ball park.
See y'all in the other threads.
I agree. Both sides had a hand in starting it. However, it is abundantly clear that every time the fires starts to burn low someone invariably comes along to throw anti-4e fuel on the fire.
I say let them.
No rational argument is going to change the minds of those that don't want to change their minds. Rebutt once, they let it lie -- past thay, we're just clogging Paizo's bandwidth with pointless noise.
And the critics won't quiet down until people stop arguing with them.
|
|
I agree. Both sides had a hand in starting it. However, it is abundantly clear that every time the fires starts to burn low someone invariably comes along to throw anti-4e fuel on the fire.I say let them.
No rational argument is going to change the minds of those that don't want to change their minds. Rebutt once, they let it lie -- past thay, we're just clogging Paizo's bandwidth with pointless noise.
And the critics won't quiet down until people stop arguing with them.
I understand where you are coming from but you do not see people hammering PFRPG on that board or d20/OGL on that board, and it would not be tolerated. Why is it tolerated here?
The issue is there are hard core "I play the one true game and yours sucks" on both sides. Now I dont like 4e just not my game however there are folks here that do. Now I dont mind folks saying well I dont like 3.5 because of x or well I dont play 4e because of x and y and fuzzy ponies.
The real issue is when folks on both sides start defending and fighting over every little thing like little kids. Now I will rant and such over 4E realms any and every day but thats not a 4e issue its a "I think they f%!*ed over my fav setting issue" and people see that as an attack on 4e it isn't just what they did to a great setting. Also alot of the hate of 4e is at wotc's feet really bad PR would have been nice to see some real PR for 4e and alot of this mess would be alot less.
Ok I know this has got long winded but eh thats me.
So 4e people stop acting like we stole all your koolaid when we express a dislike of your system of choice for most of us its not nothing agest you.
3E people stop attacking 4e at every chance if ya dont like it cool lots I dont like 100% about 3e but its still a great system so is 4e for some people.
If ya dont fall into the two camps I am talking to dont worry over it.
I understand where you are coming from but you do not see people hammering PFRPG on that board or d20/OGL on that board, and it would not be tolerated. Why is it tolerated here?
Good question.
Of course PFRPG, d20, and OGL aren't fundamentally divisive products and/or issues -- 4e is, and will (unfortunately) remain so for some time. Which is not an attempt to excuse the incessant 4e-bashing :/
I'm not saying anyone doesn't have a right to their opinion. Certainly I've spoken out against (and occasionally for) aspects of 4e, and likely will again. But arguing with people that won't change their minds will do nothing except fuel the arguments.
Yes, people keep throwing gasoline on this fire -- if we respond in kind, don't we validate their behavior?
I understand where you are coming from but you do not see people hammering PFRPG on that board or d20/OGL on that board, and it would not be tolerated. Why is it tolerated here?
Maybe there's a lingering vestige of respect for the concept of freedom of speech, even on a privately owned message board. Yes, I understand that "censorship" only applies to governments, yadda yadda yadda. But honestly, don't you see that an inability to withstand harsh criticism is indicative of weakness? If 4E/3.x/whatever is really as good as its proponents believe, it should be able to handle being "hammered" just fine.
Remember, as the great Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, "the cure for allegedly bad speech is not regulation, but more speech."
Of course PFRPG, d20, and OGL aren't fundamentally divisive products and/or issues -- 4e is, and will (unfortunately) remain so for some time.
If you believe that, I guess.
I understand where you are coming from but you do not see people hammering PFRPG on that board or d20/OGL on that board, and it would not be tolerated. Why is it tolerated here?Maybe there's a lingering vestige of respect for the concept of freedom of speech, even on a privately owned message board. Yes, I understand that "censorship" only applies to governments, yadda yadda yadda. But honestly, don't you see that an inability to withstand harsh criticism is indicative of weakness? If 4E/3.x/whatever is really as good as its proponents believe, it should be able to handle being "hammered" just fine.
Remember, as the great Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, "the cure for allegedly bad speech is not regulation, but more speech."
I think you missed the point. Why are attacks tolerated on the 4e boards and not on other boards? Because the company only respects "freedom of speech" on the 4e boards?
Play 4e, play pathfinder - play whatever makes you happy. Do I like 4e? Nope. Do I care that you do? Nope. Have fun with your game du jour, and I'll try to do the same with mine.
For the record there are plenty of us anti-4e crowd who have struck a conciliatory tone on 4e. Try not to assume that the behavior of a few bozos is indicative of the rest of us. Heck, come join one of the design threads to see whats up on the rest of the site. We'll even try to go easy if you slip up and knock our edition a little bit ;)
but no promises.
I agree with your sentiments, and if you re-read my post you will notice I said that only some of the anti-4e crowd perpetrates this.
I understand and agree with your sentiment that we should all be allowed to play what we want without grief.
As for my retort to Sebastian's scathing . . .uh . . .retort -- Obviously there is a bit of idiocy and both sides of this argument; all I intended to highlight is that more often than not, anti-4e people feel the need to intrude on 4e threads (or create new threads in 4e forums) that lambaste the game, whereas that is much less common in reverse. NOW, let it not be said that I am not for an earnest discussion of the game's merits and flaws -- those have a proper home in the 4e threads. I just grow weary of coming to Paizo (my favorite gaming company and site) and reading 4e threads of interest only to have them derailed a significant amount of the time. Yes, I know frequent thread derailment is a symptom of message boards in general, but I hope you get my gist.
Here is a question I've always had.
If a company no longer is working under the GSL, due to either their own decision to abandon it or WotC pulling it out back. Why couldn't the company return to using the OGL at that point? They wouldn't be under the requirements of the GSL since for them the contract is no longer active. So what would be stopping them from pulping all their 4e GSL product and then making OGL versions of them all (minus the benefits of the GSL, no D&D logo for example)? Am I missing something fundamental here?
Here is a question I've always had.
If a company no longer is working under the GSL, due to either their own decision to abandon it or WotC pulling it out back. Why couldn't the company return to using the OGL at that point? They wouldn't be under the requirements of the GSL since for them the contract is no longer active. So what would be stopping them from pulping all their 4e GSL product and then making OGL versions of them all (minus the benefits of the GSL, no D&D logo for example)? Am I missing something fundamental here?
There is a clause in the GSL contract that says that the 'No OGL - ever" aspect of the contract survives termination of the contract.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Until the GSL is changed, the GSL I've referred to is very much alive and well. Also unless the GSL is radically changed in ways I frankly don't expect, my criticism of it and Wotc stands.I have already aknowledged that a company can't be held accountable to the GSL unless they are a party to it. However, you seem to ignore the part where I said commercially revoke the OGL. The idea is that a 3PP either signs the GSL or sees his product consigned to gaming oblivion. Once enough companies have signed the GSL, Wotc revokes it thereby killing the OGL...and yes the GSL is written in precisely the sort of way that enables this possibility.
-Polaris
Neh. Your criticism rests on the incorrect assumption that commercial pressures will force third parties to adopt the GSL. There's no evidence for this, and paranoid ramblings are insufficient as such evidence. Paizo shows no interest in becoming party to the GSL, and I can't imagine them ever doing so unless it became as reliable as the OGL (and even then, I have my doubts that they would switch). Given that Paizo has been having robust sales of its PFRPG (exceeding expectations by all reports), the claim that is not commercially viable to continue producing under the OGL is just wrong.
This analysis might have been relevant months ago, before we understood whether a company could continue to produce under the OGL and survive (or better yet, thrive). Given that Paizo is doing just that, the analysis is stale and fails to take into account the elephant in the room - a commercially viable OGL company.
Regardless of WotC's intent, OGL gaming is doing just fine. Your predictions of its demise need to somehow include a discussion of Paizo's success. Right now, all you've managed to produce is a great deal of hyperbole about WotC and the state of the market, which is supported by neither the terms of the OGL or the facts as they stand today. The sky is not falling.
So no, your criticism does not stand. There are no signs that the only route to commercial viability is the GSL, and in fact, there is a substantial amount of evidence that a company can produce under the OGL and be successful. If WotC were to revoke the GSL, companies such as Paizo would still exist. This time last year, when there was a possibility Paizo would convert to 4e, your argument had some heft. These days it is out of date with reality and should be revised accordingly.
|
|
Given that Paizo has been having robust sales of its PFRPG (exceeding expectations by all reports), the claim that is not commercially viable to continue producing under the OGL is just wrong.
This analysis might have been relevant months ago, before we understood whether a company could continue to produce under the OGL and survive (or better yet, thrive). Given that Paizo is doing just that, the analysis is stale and fails to take into account the elephant in the room - a commercially viable OGL company.
you know Sebastion, this section I quoted above made me come to a realization. The issue is that Paizo's success does not in fact prove that companies can thrive under the OGL in the era of 4e. It proves the market is big enough to support SOME publishers. Necromancer is on Hiatus, and Green Ronin/Mongoose have chosen to pursue D20 variants or their own systems (conan, traveler, Runequest, True 20, etc...). I guess I'm starting to think that the OGL market won't allow too many 3PPs, and Paizo may have already grabbed the lion share of the potential market.
If that is the case, 3PP may face a zero sum game. any gain for Paizo could be a loss for other 3PPs and vice versa. With Paizo's already strong sales and visibility to those sticking with 3.x, what chance do the other guys have? Anyone able to comment on this?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
you know Sebastion, this section I quoted above made me come to a realization. The issue is that Paizo's success does not in fact prove that companies can thrive under the OGL in the era of 4e. It proves the market is big enough to support SOME publishers. Necromancer is on Hiatus, and Green Ronin/Mongoose have chosen to pursue D20 variants or their own systems (conan, traveler, Runequest, True 20, etc...). I guess I'm starting to think that the OGL market won't allow too many 3PPs, and Paizo may have already grabbed the lion share of the potential market.
I think it will really depend on how many OGL gamers there are in the population. My expectation is that Paizo will be the big dog in terms of OGL publishing, but I don't know if the market will be big enough to support secondary companies on the OGL. That being said, having a publisher like Paizo around to continue to support 3e type games is a far better scenario than people who did not convert from 2e to 3e faced. So, even if it is the case that there won't be that many OGL companies, I expect that OGL gaming will probably have about the same proportion (if not a greater proportion) of the gaming market as other non-OGL companies currently do. In other words, think of Paizo as being about the size of White Wolf, but, unlike White Wolf, with the possibility of having cheap pdf based publishers (and some print publishers, like KQ) supporting Paizo.
In other words, OGL gamers may not have the buffet of choices they currently do, but they won't be a dying/dead breed anymore than WoD players are a dying/dead breed because there are significantly fewer WoD players than there are OGL/4e players.
If that is the case, 3PP may face a zero sum game. any gain for Paizo could be a loss for other 3PPs and vice versa. With Paizo's already strong sales and visibility to those sticking with 3.x, what chance do the other guys have? Anyone able to comment on this?
It depends on the buying habits of the consumer. It could easily be that every dollar previously spent on WotC products now moves to Paizo as the "core" producer of the edition. So, if the OGL market consisted largely of people that bought most WotC products and bought 3PP products as supplements thereto, they could easily migrate their primary purchases to Paizo and still continue to patronize 3PPs. Granted, a large number of the people that did buy everything WotC put out will most likely continue to do so, so the question is whether this pool of people is large enough to support secondary publishers. I would guess that it is, but they will probably be on the pdf scale with maybe one or two OGL leaders also doing fairly well (Green Ronin comes to mind).
I can see a number of niches out there for OGL products, not the least of which would be a hybrid product that takes a lot of 4e assumptions and backs them into 3e. That could serve as a tool to recruit 4e gamers back into the OGL fold if they find the game does not suit their needs. Should the GSL ever become worth using, I could also see a 4.3 version of D&D - basically something using the 4e rules, but with a bit more 3e flavor/crunch. In fact, I think such a product would be my ideal version.
Those are my thoughts, but I have no idea what I'm talking about.
|
|
I think it will really depend on how many OGL gamers there are in the population. My expectation is that Paizo will be the big dog in terms of OGL publishing, but I don't know if the market will be big enough to support secondary companies on the OGL. That being said, having a publisher like Paizo around to continue to support 3e type games is a far better scenario than people who did not convert from 2e to 3e faced. So, even if it is the case that there won't be that many OGL companies, I expect that OGL gaming will probably have about the same proportion (if not a greater proportion) of the gaming market as other non-OGL companies currently do. In other words, think of Paizo as being about the size of White Wolf, but, unlike White Wolf, with the possibility of having cheap pdf based publishers (and some print publishers, like KQ) supporting Paizo...
I think you're probably right here. The market likely will have room for some supporting companies. I don't know if there will be room for full print products, but PDF would probably fly. I like KQ alot, but it will likely stay 3.5 unless Pathfinder is a wild success.
My best hope is that Logue's venture gets back on schedule (what's up with Razor Coast anyway?). He's in an ideal situation to compliment Paizo's offerings & already knows alot of our favorite authors.
Anyway, I hope things do work out. Paizo make great products but I'd like to see some more edgy fringe products connected to the system. Supporting publishers tend to do that best.
EDIT: to make this post at least marginally on topic. 4ed is D&D just a different flavor. Not to everyone's taste, but that's why baskin Robbins has 33 flavors.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
No. My anlysis stands on the reasonable assumption that commercial pressures would force third parties to adopt the GSL. Given the history of gaming, it's a very reasonable assumption when the GSL was written and one that not only Wotc but many 3PPs were making (such as Clark Peterson's Necromancer games for one). Also outside of Paizo there doesn't seem to be much of a viable market for 3E at the moment further enhancing my point.
Reasonable assumptions are based on facts. The facts are that Paizo is doing well. The evidence can be found in numerous threads on this board. There's not much of a viable market for WoD outside of White Wolf, and yet WW and WotC (and TSR before that) have peacefully co-existed for years.
Yeah, it might have been a reasonable assumption when the GSL was being written, but that time has passed. The facts are that a successful OGL company does exist. While such a company is unlikely to have the same level of support as WotC received from 3PPS, that does not mean that OGL gamers are without support.
Your analysis based on outdated facts and does not reflect reality.
You don't have any evidence of this. The fact is that Pathfinder is not yet a finished product and as such isn't generating a dime towards Paizo. Perhaps Paizo will be a commericial success or perhaps it won't although I think it would come as a suprise to no one that Paizo's scale would be necessarily much smaller than Wotc's. This means that even if Pathfinder is a tremendous commercial success, it still wouldn't generate enough market to support the OGL as a whole necessarily. At any rate that seems to be the safe way to bet, i.e. the 4E system will supplant the 3E/OGL system even now. Certainly when the GSL was written this was the overwhelmingly safe bet.
I have plenty of evidence. The PFRPG beta has sold out its entire print run. There have been an astonishing number of downloads of the free pdfs. The other Pathfinder lines are selling like gangbusters, and they're still 3.5 compatible. Paizo has even stated that their sales have gone up since the 4e announcement, not down.
Do I think Paizo will have as much of the market as 4e? No, but I think they will have enough to succeed and all indicators support that thought. I'm not sure what level of support you're looking for - if your benchmark is that anything less than the market share the OGL had when WotC produced 3.5 means OGL gaming is dying, then obviously, it will not be at that level. Will it be at a survival level? All signs point to yes.
Outside of Paizo (and that has yet to be shown), I don't think the OGL community is doing fine. I get tired of people sitting singing "kumbaya" around the campfire and saying that Pathfinder and 4E can peacefully co-exist. They can not. They might in fact co-exist but unforunately...and I do think it's unfortunate...the relationship will necessarily be hostile. It will be hostile because Pathfinder's existance and (possible) success will keep the GSL from working for precisly the reasons you've stated earlier. It will give 3PPs a place to go and keep Wotc from cornering it's own IP. If you don't think that wasn't the intent with the GSL, you're dreaming. Some have wondered why Wotc put forth a GSL given it's restrictions and the realities of US Copyright law as it applies to games. I've given a perfectly valid (from a corportate PoV) reason. Few like to believe it, however.
Huh. How have WW and WotC peacefully co-existed for all this time? What exactly can WotC do to force people to turn to the GSL if Paizo is successful under the OGL?
The intent of WotC is irrelevant. The facts are that OGL gaming cannot be revoked, that it is successful under Paizo, and that 3PP companies can continue publishing under the OGL even in the face of the GSL. WotC may have intended to lay claim to the arctic circle with the GSL - that doesn't mean that it is capable of such a feat.
The sky is not falling; Paizo and WotC can co-exist; the GSL does nothing to change this. The only thing WotC can do is produce a product that is so great that there are no OGL gamers and Paizo no longer has a customer base. At that point, the market will have spoken, and any hand-wringing over the loss of OGL will be besides the point. There's no reason to publish a product no one wants to buy.
But that isn't reality. The reality is that OGL gaming remains viable. WotC can't do anything directly to kill the OGL and barring some insane scenario in which they capture the entire market (a feat they have been unable to perform in the face of White Wolf, Hero Games, Atlas Games, etc.) it will continue to survive.
It's August 2008, but your argument speaks as of August 2007.
|
Is this argument even relevant anymore?
This is still highly relevant. Still very important. There is a heightened sense of community when we're playing and discussing a game that is "supported." There have been hundreds of accessories, bits of software, statblocks and companion books to help 3.5 flourish. Cutting off support would have been devestating had Pathfinder not come along. Because of this community's vocal support of 3.5, we now benefit from PRPG that makes use of our abundant collections of books and accessories, still in one coherent dnd-style game. In many ways, much of this community was hearbroken when wotc pulled the license for dungeon and dragon magazines - because we loved PAIZONIAN quality! I am happy to report this very relevant topic lives on, by advocating for the continued support of PAIZO's PRPG and any other 3PP company that is willing to avoid the knee-jerk reaction to follow Wizards. After years of conditioning, this seemed the likely thing to happen, until many of us voiced our opinion that the 3.5 with all its warts is a sophisticated system, and with some tweaks, would be the game we would continue to want to play.
I say Huzzah! Cheers to PAIZO, and encourage everyone to continue the discussion that places a company with high integrity, high quality, and high transparency as the better stewards for our dungeons and dragons game. So, yes, imho the issue is very relevant.
|
|
Is this argument even relevant anymore?This is still highly relevant. Still very important. There is a heightened sense of community when we're playing and discussing a game that is "supported." There have been hundreds of accessories, bits of software, statblocks and companion books to help 3.5 flourish. Cutting off support would have been devestating had Pathfinder not come along. Because of this community's vocal support of 3.5, we now benefit from PRPG that makes use of our abundant collections of books and accessories, still in one coherent dnd-style game. In many ways, much of this community was hearbroken when wotc pulled the license for dungeon and dragon magazines - because we loved PAIZONIAN quality! I am happy to report this very relevant topic lives on, by advocating for the continued support of PAIZO's PRPG and any other 3PP company that is willing to avoid the knee-jerk reaction to follow Wizards. After years of conditioning, this seemed the likely thing to happen, until many of us voiced our opinion that the 3.5 with all its warts is a sophisticated system, and with some tweaks, would be the game we would continue to want to play.
I say Huzzah! Cheers to PAIZO, and encourage everyone to continue the discussion that places a company with high integrity, high quality, and high transparency as the better stewards for our dungeons and dragons game. So, yes, imho the issue is very relevant.
Pax, I'm with you about PFRPG. I checked out 4e and will likely never play it (unless its a sit in with others - I won't be a jerk about my dislike of it). The question I made referred to the fact that the subject of this thread is whether of not 4e is D&D. If the argument has mutated since then. I wouldn't know as I have no desire to read the full 5 pages of debate.
I already weighed in on the 3PP issue, and we are essentially in agreement, even if i don't see the need for evangelism. I want to see 3.P supported. what I question at this point, while obviously able to accommodate Paizo, is if the market can support others. We'll have to see what happens with that issue. i guess now that Paizo has sales figures to show them that the market is there (and therefore our 3.x is secure) i question the value of storming the barricades and waving the flag of revolution on a site where basically everyone is at least neutral to our 3.x
Maybe this struggle is more appropriate for RPG.net, Enworld and other non-Paizo boards where people may not know the facts or have heard the message.
If that is the case, 3PP may face a zero sum game. any gain for Paizo could be a loss for other 3PPs and vice versa. With Paizo's already strong sales and visibility to those sticking with 3.x, what chance do the other guys have? Anyone able to comment on this?
I don't think other 3PPs will necessarily face a loss. On the contrary, they might very well support each other. Actually it has already started, as there are now available conversions of the first 2 Pathfinder Adventure modules to True20. And I understood that more are to come.
In other words, OGL gamers may not have the buffet of choices they currently do, but they won't be a dying/dead breed anymore than WoD players are a dying/dead breed because there are significantly fewer WoD players than there are OGL/4e players.
Hmm, this is debatable. What makes the ultimate success of a game is its ability to answer the gaming community expectations (= the customers). If 3PPs, freed from WOTC's common basis, start to develop high quality, original and memorable OGL products, even though they are not fully compatible, it can create even more demand.
I can see a number of niches out there for OGL products, not the least of which would be a hybrid product that takes a lot of 4e assumptions and backs them into 3e
This is very likely I think. By the way, True20 is power-based, and can easily re-absorb the 4E power with some rework. This is probably not a coincidence, but in the extension "True Sorcery", GR also gives a simple and balanced method to re-integrate a spell-based magic system into T20 power-based framework.
|
|
4.0 is D&D except for the magic system, the new races, lack of an old race, missing classes and the absence of any Tolkien influences.C- fails to truly show any depth of comprehension of the subject and his troll skills are notably lacking.
Thank you? Do I get a cookie or would you rather I just bend over so you can show your virulence.
By the way, True20 is power-based, and can easily re-absorb the 4E power with some rework.
Hero could do 4e and 3.5. Just sayin’.
All hail THAC0.
Hell, I could probably model THAC0 with Hero.
Limited Power, Must Use D20 and THAC0 Charts -2
It'd be fun to see what the spells would look like.
May I suggest Killer Shrike’s site?
Spells ‘cause I find it a little difficult to navigate his layout.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It'd be fun to see what the spells would look like.May I suggest Killer Shrike’s site?
Sweet. Nice work.
|
I can't believe that anyone bothered to post after this comment:
I can't BELIEVE it's not butter.
If you can't see how PurinaDragonChow wins the thread, then you must truly be blind. The only way it could be better is if he had provided a link.
That out of the way... Yes, brand name aside, to some of us 4e isn't D&D. From different play to changes to IP, and beyond, 4e doesn't feel like a spiritual successor to the D&D line to us. You can disagree, and that's cool--because it's entirely subjective. Now if we can all just agree to disagree and move on to playing the games we like instead trying to debate a point that's all a matter of opinion, we'll all see the wisdom that PurinaDragonChow and Fabio has shown us.