And none of that had anything to do with Wizards' decision to publish Magic: The Gathering. In fact, the Palladium lawsuit *lessened* Wizards' ability to get Magic published, as it forced Wizards to lay off the entire staff, who then had to launch Magic—which was already in the works—on a strictly volunteer basis.
That's actually fairly fascinating. Thanks for the knowledge bomb, Vic! :D
They either didn't realize that they had created this requirement for themselves, or they were confident that they could meet it. Either way, backing yourself into a corner like that is a terrible business move.
It might have been a terrible business move from the viewpoint of WotC, but then WotC is a corporation, not a person -- despite certain prevalent legal fictions, the two are not the same. Most of the actual human beings involved in the decision to create the irrevocable OGL don't work at WotC any more, and many of them have published material with various 3PP's (Monte Cook actually founded a fairly successful 3PP). So for them, it was a brilliant business decision.
Its was never strictly true mainly because class and race can add some powers and then feats may or may not have powers associated with them depending on the feat. Where it is true its like many things with 4E in that this kind of uniformity is much more apparent at low levels. By 7th there are so many other things factoring in here that any similarity tends to vanish.
That's about a quarter of a character's life cycle, and that's assuming that you'll go all the way up to 30.And, for me at least, far too late. If the game doesn't allow me a character that isn't a clone for several levels, I won't even find out if it changes later, because I'll have stopped gaming several levels ago.
Its not an exact clone of course but your point is valid depending on what your looking for in a campaign. 3.x is a better system for bring more fully realized characters in from level 1. It famously rewards careful character design from the get go so its particularly good at being about realizing your characters design goals through the course of a campaign. 4Es characters are much less set in stone and tend to be about reacting to the story of the campaign itself since its in game events and not a preconceived build that tend to drive character development.
This is not strictly accurate - what your actually thinking of is the fact that there is no such thing as a low level magic ring.
No, what I'm actually thinking of seems to have been changed. I'm pretty sure I read something about the character's level determining magic item abilities, setting a minimum level at which you can use the stuff, and so on. Might be misinformed, or they talked about it at first but changed it again.
Possibly in an early blog but changed when the rules finally came out.
That said there is some obvious gamism in the choices here - there is no real explanation why there are no weak magic rings and the intent is clearly about game play and not about simulation.
For me at least, this is a major turn-off. I don't want a board-game that can be used as an RPG in a pinch, I want an RPG that maybe has board-game like elements when they can be a useful tool.I already dislike some of the stuff Pathfinder did (and houseruled them), especially how channel doesn't affect everything, and Pathfinder really has very little stuff like that.
This is not about a board gamism but RPG gamism. The reason why class based systems remain more popular then point based systems. In both styles of RPG you get more stuff when you level but a class based system can also open up whole new vista's at certain levels increasing the players psychological sense of reward when they achieve them. That is whats going on here - make Paragon and all of a sudden these awesome rings start appearing in the treasure cache and the players are getting all excited about the new kinds of magic loot.
What 4E has done here is say that in the name of simplicity whats being simulated is closer to what one sees in sports then to a raw physics example of moving from the centre of square A to square B and from there to the centre of square C. If you arc around some one your actually moving in a pattern that is more half a circle not half a diamond.
Uh, what? It has nothing to do with "raw physics". If one moves "6 squares vertically" and the other moves "6 squares diagonally", the diagonal guy has travelled almost half again as much as the vertical guy. If they're the same speed, the diagonal guy should take a lot longer.If we're talking about 5-foot squares (like they are in Pathfinder), vertical guy will travel 30', while diagonal guy will travel 42.43' (rounded).
For me, that is a big deal, especially since the 1-2-1 rule is no problem at all.
I understand the math but we are dealing with perceptions of what a high fantasy combat might look like and how to simulate that. The focus is on interactions between the opposing sides and how that plays out.
They either didn't realize that they had created this requirement for themselves, or they were confident that they could meet it. Either way, backing yourself into a corner like that is a terrible business move.It might have been a terrible business move from the viewpoint of WotC, but then WotC is a corporation, not a person -- despite certain prevalent legal fictions, the two are not the same. Most of the actual human beings involved in the decision to create the irrevocable OGL don't work at WotC any more, and many of them have published material with various 3PP's (Monte Cook actually founded a fairly successful 3PP). So for them, it was a brilliant business decision.
I can't argue with that.
Yes.A-buh?
I am with Scott on this one. There is nothing more inherently 2 dimensional about a character in literiture, than a RPG character. And roleplayers with the skills to match the best writers when it comes to characterisation, are rare. And that is before you consider that some players don't even try.
Really where are the craft rules that actualy have a effect?So, again, you need rules/guidelines for everything or you don't know what to do with yourself. I'm glad we got that cleared up.
The logical extension of your argument above is calling a game deficient because "Where are the love-making-with-mermaids rules that actually have an effect?"
Sort of. If neither crafting nor love-making-with-mermaids are important to the game, neither need rules. However i think it is pretty evident that John thinks that crafting should matter, and i do not entirely disagree I must say.
For that matter, in some games it is actually possible that love-making-with-mermaids rules might well be important, and in such cases there absense could be a bad thing(i just am not sure that either pathfinder or D&D are that game) Artesia: Adventures in the known world on the other hand, does have mechanics which govern love, lust, pregnancy and genetic inheretiance, because sex is actually fairly important to the stories it is designed to tell.
Sort of. If neither crafting nor love-making-with-mermaids are important to the game, neither need rules. However i think it is pretty evident that John thinks that crafting should matter, and i do not entirely disagree I must say.
I actually happen to agree with you - I think that the idea of crafting in RPGs is firmly entrenched at this point, and many games over the years have introduced novel mechanics for characters to create their own gear. However, I believe that rules, when applied to a game, should enhance the game experience. Craft rules that rely on a skill check or two but are frankly more an exercise in math than anything resembling a game mechanic do not strike me as worthwhile. I would love to see player crafting become an important part of the D&D experience, but in order to justify it, the mechanics would need to stand up on their own merit.
However, when I discuss crafting here, I am referring to the creation of magical items, which D&D and Pathfinder have. The "craft rules" John Kretzer refers to are for the player creation of mundane goods; something that is, frankly, a pretty lackluster topic for a game about adventurers except when dealing with items that will be enchanted, and in such a case their mundane construction could easily be rolled into the enchanting rules.
Would the game be better off with in-depth crafting rules that are engaging? Yes, probably. Are rules necessary to include crafting in a game of D&D? Absolutely not.
And now I'm starting to mull over the idea of a more involved set of enchanting rules for 4e.
|
Sort of. If neither crafting nor love-making-with-mermaids are important to the game, neither need rules. However i think it is pretty evident that John thinks that crafting should matter, and i do not entirely disagree I must say.
The thing to realise (and it was only recently whilst discussing 3.5 vs 4e on a thread in these forums that I myself realised it) is that 4e is a more focused game than 3.5 was and PF is.
4e goes with the assumption that the PCs are the ones who will be gifted with the Shrieking sword of Hassrall by those that have forged it in the ice fires of Kordal Vale, rather than the ones who actually forge it themselves.
4e assumes that the stories that will be told will mean that playing a musical instrument won't be so vital to the action on a sustained basis that it needs a skill all its own.
Now, for those who like the broader aspects of 3.5 and PF, i.e. crafting, professions, performing etc, then 4e seems lacking in the same mechanical support for those things as 3.5 & PF has - and they are right! However, that doesn't mean that in 4e a PC can't do all those things, just that they are not given the same weight of importance as they were in 3.5 - instead that stuff is largely handwaved, just like love making with mermaids is hand waved in Pathfinder.
Different games do different things, D&D 4e is still called D&D but its not trying to be exactly the same game the D&D 3.5 was, but then D&D3.5 wasn't the same game that D&D 1e was from what I can determine either.
In terms of craft etc, 4e gives some guidelines in the form of backgrounds which along with the fluff also allows you to gain a bonus to some skills or gain them as class skills.
E.g.
Urik - Gifted Potter
Type: Geography
Campaign Setting: Dark Sun
Pottery is the highest art form in Urik, and the pieces produced in the city-state are among the finest on Athas. You studied under master potters and perfected your craft. How do you use your position? Who was your mentor? Do you still practice the trade?
Associated Skills: Insight, Streetwise
Occupation - Entertainer
Type: Occupation
Campaign Setting: General
You were a dancer, a singer, an acrobat, a storyteller, or another kind of performer. Were you a solo entertainer, or did you perform as part of a group? Were you well known? If so, do you still encounter admirers?
Associated Skills: Bluff, History
|
Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C and Submit! Is my mantra when posting on these boards :)
Or I could just go back a page and quote it. :)
Pathfinder is a different shade of 3.5. It both is and is not 3.5. The same way Frank and K's Tomes are 3.5, and anyone else's houserules are still 3.5. Pathfinder is merely 3.5 houseruled. In a way, so is 4E.
I disagree. I think that, even had 4e made their own OGL, there would have been a Pathfinder. Potentially not from Paizo, but one nonetheless.Agreed. Let's lay a few things out here:
1) Pathfinder had an audience because a lot of people didn't like 4e.
a) For the majority of these people, it wasn't the lack of OGL support that made them dislike 4e.2) Paizo has said repeatedly that even if the GSL were altered to be much more like the OGL, they don't ever want to chain themselves to another company's brand again.
3) Whether or not point #2 had turned out to be true, it's clear that, even if 4e had supported the OGL, Paizo would have been better off creating Pathfinder. It would have been in their best interest to do so.
4) Because the GSL/OGL debacle doesn't change the fact that a lot of people stuck with 3.5 or switched to Pathfinder, it's clear that Paizo would have become the same competitive entity that it is today (assuming they produced Pathfinder, which they ought to have) if Wizards stuck with the OGL.
5) When we reach point #4, we are forced to conclude that the OGL ultimately allowed the creation WotC's most significant direct competitor in the D&D brand's history.
At the point that the OGL was created, WotC unknowingly hung a damning requirement around its own neck: From this point forward, whenever you switch to a new edition, you must take the vast majority of your previous fans with you, or you will give another company the juicy, juicy opportunity to sweep them up using your own license and your own system.
They either didn't realize that they had created this requirement for themselves, or they were confident that they could meet it. Either way, backing yourself into a corner like that is a terrible business move.
I can agree with you there.
The next interesting observation will be to see what life will be like with Paizo as they have their own compatibility license that, for most intent and purposes, mirrors the OGL. Will having a sense of openness in honor of the tradition they're following as example become a good or bad business decision down the road in comparison to what WotC has done when they introduced 4e and the GSL? Right now, we can only prognosticate and then look back to this debate a decade later to see whose opinions stated as facts* comes out victorious.
The next interesting observation will be to see what life will be like with Paizo as they have their own compatibility license that, for most intent and purposes, mirrors the OGL. Will having a sense of openness in honor of the tradition they're following as example become a good or bad business decision down the road in comparison to what WotC has done when they introduced 4e and the GSL? Right now, we can only prognosticate and then look back to this debate a decade later to see whose opinions stated as facts* comes out victorious.
I think Paizo has several distinct advantages over WotC in regards to their OGL. For one, they started out in that environment, so started learning from the beginning how to successfully operate within it and with other companies to insure that the license truly benefits everyone. Second, they are still small enough they can adapt reasonably well. I suspect a lot of the reason that the people who were at WotC when the OGL was implemented are now on their own is because they saw both the potential and the limitations that WotC had to deal with, especially with Hasbro as a parent company. If WotC had had the freedom Paizo currently has, they probably could have done a lot more to make the OGL work for them; as it was, they were left trying to fit a square peg in a round hole with no tools available to reshape the hole. They thus did the only thing they could do, which is change the shape of the peg.
Chief Technical Officer
|
The next interesting observation will be to see what life will be like with Paizo as they have their own compatibility license that, for most intent and purposes, mirrors the OGL.
Technically, we don't have anything that *mirrors* the OGL—we have the OGL. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility License complements the OGL, and does not replace it or adjust it in any way. All it *really* does is allow you to say that your product is compatible with the Pathfinder RPG (if you meet certain criteria), which is something the OGL specifically forbids without a separate agreement like ours.
The next interesting observation will be to see what life will be like with Paizo as they have their own compatibility license that, for most intent and purposes, mirrors the OGL.Technically, we don't have anything that *mirrors* the OGL—we have the OGL. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility License complements the OGL, and does not replace it or adjust it in any way. All it *really* does is allow you to say that your product is compatible with the Pathfinder RPG (if you meet certain criteria), which is something the OGL specifically forbids without a separate agreement like ours.
Addendum? Template? Footnote? It is essentially what I inferred, but you had to get technical on me. Then again, you are the Technical Director of this joint. ;-)
Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C and Submit! Is my mantra when posting on these boards :)My brilliant post on the OGL was just swept under as the Last Post in a page ;_;I feel your pain, my response to DigitalMage had the same fate.
Or just get Lazarus.
Most of the actual human beings involved in the decision to create the irrevocable OGL don't work at WotC any more, and many of them have published material with various 3PP's (Monte Cook actually founded a fairly successful 3PP). So for them, it was a brilliant business decision.I can't argue with that.
To extend that thought, the nature of the RPG industry -- high employee turnover, extensive use of freelance contractors to produce content -- probably discourages strong employee loyalty to any particular company, in favor of loyalty to the industry as a whole. Someone like Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet or Skip Williams (or James Jacobs or Eric Mona or Jason Bulmahn or any of the rest of the Paizo team, for that matter) probably won't ever have much trouble finding work as long as the industry remains healthy, even if a particular company they work for downsizes or goes out of business altogether. (WotC might engender less loyalty than most, given the lack of downward loyalty to their creative staff that the management demonstrates by their nasty habit of laying off a bunch of designers right before Christmas every year.)
I think the OGL has been a very good thing for the industry (at least from a business perspective -- arguably not so much for fans who like systems other than D20), which seems to be what Ryan Dancey intended. His theory that what benefits the industry in general will benefit the industry's leading brand and company most of all probably still holds true -- and should the management of Wizards of the Coast lose that position through poor business decisions (not arguing that they already have, only that it's possible they could), another company will doubtless step into the gap their decline creates. I'd guess that were WotC to vanish from the market this year, the "market leader" position would be filled by Paizo and/or White Wolf, but I don't see that happening -- and a few years down the road, some other publisher might be better positioned to become the new market leader -- just as WotC itself was when TSR was teetering on the brink of collapse.
Another advantage of the OGL is that the risk of the D&D rule system itself vanishing from the market along with its owners is negligible -- that was a real possibility in the 90's, if TSR had actually filed bankruptcy, but today the system would survive the demise of WotC, even if the Dungeons and Dragons trademark did not.
Who says you can't use Non-Weapon Proficiencies or secondary skills in Pathfinder? Who says you have to use 4e skills while dungeon delving? It's not like we have Qin Shi Huang Di's legalism in Pathfinder or 4e. If you don't like something, you still have the option of house ruling it.I do not understand what you are trying to say here :\
Well, since you don't know Ancient Chinese History, here's the facts of it. After Chin Shi Huangdi started taking Mercury to extend his life and gotten a little weird in his head, the First Emperor's prime minister wanted to control thought.
Since China didn't have a printing press with moveable type in those days, the Prime Minister confiscated everything that was written down, placed one copy in the Imperial Library and burned all other copies in a massive book burning. He then rounded up the Intelligentsia and the Scribes and convicted them to work on the Great Wall of China. China had a hundred schools of thought during the Warring States Period, and after this you had legalism and Confucianism (along with the Tao -- Buddhism came later).
What I should have said that no one is going to force you to run the game according to the Rules as Written. You are free to change the game how you wish. I made the obscure reference to Chinese History in order to tell a joke. :)
Well, since you don't know Ancient Chinese History, here's the facts of it. After Chin Shi Huangdi started taking Mercury to extend his life and gotten a little weird in his head, the First Emperor's prime minister wanted to control thought.
Since China didn't have a printing press with moveable type in those days, the Prime Minister confiscated everything that was written down, placed one copy in the Imperial Library and burned all other copies in a massive book burning. He then rounded up the Intelligentsia and the Scribes and convicted them to work on the Great Wall of China. China had a hundred schools of thought during the Warring States Period, and after this you had legalism and Confucianism (along with the Tao -- Buddhism came later).
What I should have said that no one is going to force you to run the game according to the Rules as Written. You are free to change the game how you wish. I made the obscure reference to Chinese History in order to tell a joke. :)
That story is way more entertaining as a story than a joke. I'd go with the story first next time. ;)