|
True, and I personally am convinced that once Paizo has had enough time they will develope all those setting neutral books you would like to see.
Yep, I totally agree, my first post suggested they would have got there by the time a 2nd ed comes out, though they will likely get therefore before then - perhaps another year or two.
the market for settings neutral 3.5 material collapsed even before 4.0 hit the shelves. People lost interest in buying material for an unsupported system even if they themselves had not bought a WOTC book in years.
The market for setting neutral material for the Pathfinder RPG does appear to be there, hence the APG, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat etc. However I agree that maybe Paizo feel the demand is not that great and as such those setting neutral books may be being produced in smaller numbers than Golarion setting books (compare the number of RPG line releases versus Adventure Path and Companion releases this year).
However, I don't feel that invalidates any of my assertions (perhaps you weren't suggesting that anyway).
If Paizo feel they need to produce predominately setting specific material to survive as a business because there is not the demand for setting neutral stuff - that doesn't negate the fact that the choice to use the Pathfinder name for both may make the RPG seem tied to the Golarion setting (my point a) or that using the same name and logo may make it more difficult for some people to distinguish between what setting neutral stuff there is from the setting stuff (my point b).
Also, if Paizo had stuck with the 3.5 ruleset rather than altering it (my point c) they could still have followed the path they have taken now in regards to proportion of setting neutral versus Golarion setting books. So they could still have been serving the needs of the markets as they perceive them.
Paizo already reprinted/updated rules from the setting books in the GMGuide and the APG (for example haunts and traits). I guess they will continue to do so
I hope so, then if I do want to play a 3.x game in the future and am having trouble finding players for 3.5 I may feel I could buy into the PF RPG even if I am not interested in Golarion. Maybe I could pursue the Freeport setting as that will be having a Pathfinder Companion (I have the 3.5 and Savage Worlds companions and the M&M "companion too).
Either way you will probably have to make a choice on Pathfinder or 4E and live with it, as both are distinct from 3.5, and as new or even old players are drawn to these systems 3.5 will become less relevant.
I have made that choice and 4e has won out.
I am assuming you want to play Ebberon versus DM. Because from a DM perspective, most players wouldn't care if it was Pathfinder or 4E Ebberon, depending on what system they preferred.
Actually I am wanting to GM, but from my experience player system preference can determine whether they will play or not. My old group who have switched to Pathfinder would likely have played in a 3.5 game, but they definately wouldn't have played in a 4e game. Equally, my current campaign I offered to run as 3.5 or 4e and the choice was for 4e as one player (who ironically had to drop out) was already playing 3.5 and wanted to get some use out of his 4e stuff.
|
|
The market for setting neutral material for the Pathfinder RPG does appear to be there, hence the APG, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat etc.I never said that the market was not there.
Apologies, I should have phrased my response as "A market for setting neutral material [but] maybe Paizo feel the demand is not that great".
In otherwords - I agree with you in that the market may not exist to the extent that a company producing solely setting neutral material may be able to survive. But as stated, I don't think that invalidates my other assertions.
Here's the real deal. Ultimately Pathfinder is not going to survive as "The Heir to 3.5." or "3.75" It will survive as "Pathfinder", a game of it's own creation, it's own genesis, and it's own community.
Definately and I have been said that myself before now. I hope that Paizo will step out of the shadow of 3.5 and make Pathfinder its own game - unfortunately for me at least, the lack of fundamental changes means it has some way to go to do that; when it gives up on trying to be backwards compatible maybe it can get there for me (perhaps with 2nd ed, going back to my first post in this thread).
In short, if you're totally right on your points, Paizo may lose the odd customer here and there, including you. However from Paizo's point of view their very survival as a company is contingent on developing a world that keeps them interested in products from THEM. And I think it's the right call on thier part.
Hopefully Paizo and you are correct, and that the gains outweigh the losses.
As the cynic I am, I believe that game producers do not worry if there is some confusion in their products. They know that if the typical gamer buys a product only to find out that it wasn't exactly relevant to their interests, that the gamer is more likely to put it on the shelf and forget about it rather than try to return the product. And if some of those actually get interested in the product and what it relates to when they weren't originally, all the better. Sometimes people have to be "fooled" into trying something they might like.