I'll just say this on the subject of Pathfinder 2nd ed....if it comes I hope it is not because they have ran out of ideas for Golarion....and use the edition change to relaunch a bunch of 'updates' to Golarion...or a new campaign setting. IE I hope 2nd ed is not tied to the campaign setting side of things.
If there ever is a PF2E you can be sure that Paizo won't publish something that will obsolete their existing material (especially already published APs). They have been pretty adamant and consistent regarding this strategy. So should a PF2E ever get published I believe it will be about as different from PF1E as PF1E is from 3.5. Which is to say, not very.
IMHO, I think Paizo should leave the rules as they are and concentrate on game and world material. Every once in a while a new set of rules would be fine (like kingdom building added to Kingmaker, or very high level rules for a very high level AP) but these addendum should be tied directly to an adventure (again like Kingmaker did). But of course I felt the same way about 3.5 when the 4E rumblings began and look how wrong I was about 4E, I mean that was a huge success, right?
I don't play Call of Cthulhu (btw, "Cthulhu" is recognized by my spell checker now, a sure sign of something) nor have I ever read the rules for it but it seems to me like they have a pretty good rules publishing model. From what I can tell almost all versions of CoC are compatible with each other and I think they are on 7.0 now.
Splat eventually saturates the market though, and keeping it forever backwards compatible is not something I see if you want new splat which is needed. 3.0 was not backwards compatible with 2nd edition, and it did well. Yeah people will be upset, but it is not economically feasible to keep throwing flavor out, which is normally more of a GM product than a player product. Everyone buys crunch.
off topic:What are these decoder wheel things? I tried to google them, but could not find any real info. I know they are obsolete, but I am curious.
If there ever is a PF2E you can be sure that Paizo won't publish something that will obsolete their existing material (especially already published APs).
I'm not so sure of that
They have been pretty adamant and consistent regarding this strategy.
PFRPG is not a good indicator for this. The game was specifically made as a 3e revision, not a new edition. It was created based on the belief that 3e is not yet obsolete, and that you can fix a lot of the system's problems without making a new edition or even new game out of it (throwing lots of precedents and history over board)
So should a PF2E ever get published I believe it will be about as different from PF1E as PF1E is from 3.5. Which is to say, not very.
I think that when they do a PFRPG 2nd edition, it will be a new edition the way 3e was a new edition: It will still be the same game, all the setting information and game background will remain the same, but the rules will be different enough that they won't be backwards compatible the way PF was.
It will be years before they do PF2e, and when it comes, 3e (i.e. 3.0, 3.5 and PF) will have had the better part of two decades, which is probably a good run for an edition.
At that time, they will want to change everything they think needs changing, which in some cases will mean the game systems being not compatible with each other. I bet they even have a list of things they would have changed for PF if not for backwards compatibility.
Let's say they want to change the way multiclassing works, especially for spellcasters, so there is some synergy with most things the way BAB, saves and skill points work together even now. Whatever they do with that will make the system incompatible with 3e/PF1.
That's just one example. I'm sure there are many more things like that.
What I am absolutely sure of is that while the rules will probably change, the background will most certainly not. We don't have to fear Akiton crashing into Golarion. We don't have to fear Azatas suddenly being magical elves, or Serpentfolk giant snake mating balls that can take a vaguely humanoid shape, or any nonsense like that.
Agreed, the rules were much tighter, and it was written in a much easier to understand way (mostly). Doesn't mean it was fun however to play, at least for me. I find GURPS to be very well written (mostly, with one big exception in 4.0), and it's got a lot of detailed explanations. That doesn't mean it's not a pain in the butt to learn.
Strange, I haven't any problem with learning GURPS. 4th edition of it is my favorite system at the moment. I found it simple and streamlined. Yes, there are some rules I do not recall completly, but I think it would be the case in most systems that allow for certain level of complexity.
Have you tried GURPS Lite, which can be downloaded for free from Steve Jacksons Games site as a starter to learn? (or even as complete system - it is good enough for some more rule-disabled gamers, like a few of mine)
Also, may I ask what had you one mind speaking about the one big exception to being very well written?
Jumping into this thread randomly, all I can say is that I've never had a bad experience working with Paizo*
*even when they cut stuff from a book that I thought was totally cool.
You'll get your chance. After all, you're supposed to write "Tome of Balance vol.1 - Masters of the Cerulean Void" (The big book about Proteans) to be released this year, early 2012 at the latest, right? Right?
Right?
Right?
off topic:What are these decoder wheel things? I tried to google them, but could not find any real info. I know they are obsolete, but I am curious.
I think they are referring to ancient forms of copy protection. You have to turn it to the right configuration (depending on the symbol you're getting and then decode the information on the screen.
@ wraithstrike: Basically, they were an early (and failed) form of copy protection. You had to line up certain symbols on the paper disks and the game asked you for the next symbol in line before you could play. Or something along these lines.
This picture (Link) might give you an idea.
edit: slightly ninja'ed by the xaositect.
Thanks. I actually did see those one google, but I figured those were so silly that nobody would actually try to use anything similar to that as a decoding system. I am guessing the screen told you what to line up in order to get each letter of the code.
I agree 4E was based on a miniatures game, as that is fairly evident, in addition to wanting to attract players from recent computer games like Warcraft. But it would be a poor subsitute if it was implemented as a Warcraft game engine. The same could be said for Pathfinder, based on D&D online. Even Pathfinder gets into tactical movement and placement, just not to the degree of 4E, i.e. it will take a lot of feats to gain some of the combat maneuvers. By using miniatures, you are playing for tactical advantage, and it would be hard to play Pathfinder without it. I had problems playing 1E, without miniatures, once distances and areas became relevant. The same applies to GURPS.
4E and Pathfinder have more in common, so blanket statements about one usually will apply to the other.
While I remember some chatter about 3e being some sort of "computerized" AD&D, the changes really were not that big compared to 3.5 and 4e. Basically it was only streamlining of the mechanics which didn't affect how the game was played at all apart from rolling high was important where rolling low was before.
Only because you are saying this after eight years of 3e. There's a lot of differences, some of which 4e actually went back to older editions on.
Monsters and NPCs having the same rules as PCs?
The skill system in of itself?
One unified roll mechanic?
Attack bonuses rather then THAC0/charts?
No level caps?
3e's entirely unique leveling system?
Non-static attributes? (This is actually a really big one)
Purchasable magic items?
The list goes on.
3e made a huge plethora of changes to D&D as a whole. I'd love to see you go to Dragonsfoot and tell them 3e is just a better touched up AD&D and see how favorably they take it.
I think it's hard to really grip here how big the changes were since it's, well, a 3e fansite first and foremost, and it's been eight years. Go to some more old school-esque places like Dragonsfoot and you'll start seeing people who very pointedly know the differences between 3e and TSR editions. To them, 4e is just the second edition in their own personal "Not my D&D" game.
Also, may I ask what had you one mind speaking about the one big exception to being very well written?
It may just be I haven't had enough time to figure it out as I haven't had a chance to run a game in 4th. But the changes to powers (Superpowers, psionics, etc) have left me very confused. The old system was complicated as it was (buying levels of power, and then having a skill to indicate how fine a control you had over the raw power), but at least made sense. The new system for it lacks any examples, and the last time I tried to figure out how it works I gave up and went back to 3rd for the game.
Have to agree with cibet44. With the exception of the PH2 3.5 did not feel videogamey. The PH2 had a feat like a WoW priest's Holy Nova, Druids had an option which was clearly copied from the WoW Druid's Rejuvenation spell, that class that was essentially a Tank complete with aggro-gaining taunts. But then again, I heard Dave Noonan played WoW. Eventually I banned the PH2 from my games because it was very very WoW.
4E clearly had WoW references right down to class names like Striker, etc. Why didn't they go all the way and name some classes Tank and DPS. It's a sad lack of creativity when you model a classic RPG like D&D after an mmorpg.
In PFRPG the only thing wow-like is Channel-Energy, the WoW Priest Holy Nova again, everything else still feels like a tabletop RPG.
YMMV <------- again my diplomatic immunity disclaimer.
...3e made a huge plethora of changes to D&D as a whole. I'd love to see you go to Dragonsfoot and tell them 3e is just a better touched up AD&D and see how favorably they take it...
I do not dispute this.
However AD&D and 3e, with all their differences, actually PLAY alike. There is not much of a difference (at least we played AD&D as we did 3e) in the pure style, if you know what I mean.
But we certainly didn't play 4e as we did 3e - there the big difference is ingrained not only in the rules but also in the official material available at launch.
I fully know that this is a matter of perspective, many AD&D fans scowled at the introduction of Skills as being low fantasy but I never met anyone saying that the reason for not playing 3e was that they streamlined ThAC0, Attribute Checks and Saves...
I bet someday we will hear that this was the original plan but that got changed due to a corporate restructuring or disappointing numbers in a quarter.
That, plus most ( I don't say 'all', but...) of the great writers of such things being on Paizo staff now, imo.
Thanks. I actually did see those one google, but I figured those were so silly that nobody would actually try to use anything similar to that as a decoding system. I am guessing the screen told you what to line up in order to get each letter of the code.
Well, who's feeling silly now? ;-P
And yes, you usually got the symbol and then were asked to decode something.
An even "better" alternative was the one where you had to repeat word X in line Y of page Z of the game manual.
edit: slightly ninja'ed by the xaositect.
Slightly ninja'ed? How can someone be significantly ninja'ed?
4E and Pathfinder have more in common, so blanket statements about one usually will apply to the other.
Not really.
Thanks. I actually did see those one google, but I figured those were so silly that nobody would actually try to use anything similar to that as a decoding system. I am guessing the screen told you what to line up in order to get each letter of the code.Well, who's feeling silly now? ;-P
And yes, you usually got the symbol and then were asked to decode something.
An even "better" alternative was the one where you had to repeat word X in line Y of page Z of the game manual.
Which was really fun when you lost the manual and had to send $5 to the company for a new one.
Only they'd redone the manual with the second production run, so the words were all wrong, and they didn't have the original manual in stock anymore.
As far as the 3E/Diablo comparisons, I have to say I don't remember much of that.
Neither do I. I think it is what the 4e camp brings up whenever someone draws the connection between WoW and 4e. "Yeah?? Well... 3e is like... DIABLO!"
However AD&D and 3e, with all their differences, actually PLAY alike. There is not much of a difference (at least we played AD&D as we did 3e) in the pure style, if you know what I mean.
I don't know - with 3e, they went from restrictions to options. Not necessarily a change in playing style (though now you didn't have to plan your character concept around restrictions any more and people would go from "what can I play?" to "what do I want to play?" - and, yes, sometimes, "what is the most powerful combo?")
I know in our games that coincided with a general change of playing style. There was less "no you can't" around.
With the streamlined encounter design and strong-arming of 3PP like Paizo out of the market I thought the whole plan was to start churning out adventures and long term campaigns (like APs). For whatever reason that never seemed to happen (as far as I know anyway).
I could be cynical and say that 4e players aren't interested in adventures, only in raids. "Just open the monster book, spawn anything in front of us, we'll kill it and see what drops."
I think it's more that even though they strong-armed the competition out of the game so their adventures were the best again, the consensus was that the best was not nearly good enough.
Once again something in common between Video games and RPGs :-)Ahh the perils of a public company, everything is based on quarters.
Especially arcades!
|
Thanks. I actually did see those one google, but I figured those were so silly that nobody would actually try to use anything similar to that as a decoding system. I am guessing the screen told you what to line up in order to get each letter of the code.Well, who's feeling silly now? ;-P
And yes, you usually got the symbol and then were asked to decode something.
An even "better" alternative was the one where you had to repeat word X in line Y of page Z of the game manual.
Which was really fun when you lost the manual and had to send $5 to the company for a new one.
Only they'd redone the manual with the second production run, so the words were all wrong, and they didn't have the original manual in stock anymore.
I tended to memorize one or two of the words and then just restart until I got the question I knew.
CEO
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has gotten WAY off topic with Magic: The Gathering expansion discussions and the inevitable 4e vs Pathfinder. Not to mention PF2 speculation. A long ways from the Working with WotC and Paizo original thread. So let's leave off these other discussions in this thread, and leave it to its original purpose. :)
Thanks!
-Lisa
This thread has gotten WAY off topic with Magic: The Gathering expansion discussions and the inevitable 4e vs Pathfinder. Not to mention PF2 speculation. A long ways from the Working with WotC and Paizo original thread. So let's leave off these other discussions in this thread, and leave it to its original purpose. :)
Thanks!
-Lisa
the gist of the discussion seems to be that WoTC used to be cool to work with, but they've kinda lost their way. Paizo staff is firm about their rules but fair about how they handle business.
which jibes with what I've seen of how both organizations work. What I can't figure out is what's driving WoTCs rush to the bottom. they seem to have made several misguided decisions over the past decade or so and it HAS to have been noticed by their bigwigs. I have some suspicions as to what might be the cause of their institutional blindness...but that's all it is - suspicions.
This thread has gotten WAY off topic with Magic: The Gathering expansion discussions and the inevitable 4e vs Pathfinder. Not to mention PF2 speculation. A long ways from the Working with WotC and Paizo original thread. So let's leave off these other discussions in this thread, and leave it to its original purpose. :)
Thanks!
-Lisa
BUUUUUUTTTTTTT MMMMOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!
:)
|
for what it's worthy - 4e reads (and plays) like a pen and paper version of World of Warcraft. If I want to play Warcraft, I'd log in and re-activate my old character(s).I like pathfinder. Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader too for that matter...but when it comes to fantasy RPG games, pathfinder is what i'm sticking with.
I love these comments because I saw the 2e -> 3e shift, and guess what?
Replace "4e" with "3e" and "World of Warcraft" with "Diablo" and they are completely identical.
As I have stated previously, we will not see a fifth edition until Blizzard makes a new fantasy IP for fans to compare it to.
+1. I remember being on the "4e" side of the 2e -> 3e "split". I was vehemently opposed to 4e until I went back and read some of the letters Dragon posted from that time. Memories came flooding back of eagerly anticipating 3e and loving what I saw in Dragon. I couldn't understand why anyone objected. I can remember myself clearly reading those letters with a "dude, what's your problem?" reaction.
Then I had the same reaction those "old timers" had when WotC announced 4e. No one likes being told "sorry, you aren't my demographic anymore and we're willing to make a business decision that alienates you."
I'm over it. But I definitely enjoy the behinds the scenes insight as long as we can keep it free of flame.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll just say this on the subject of Pathfinder 2nd ed....if it comes I hope it is not because they have ran out of ideas for Golarion....and use the edition change to relaunch a bunch of 'updates' to Golarion...or a new campaign setting. IE I hope 2nd ed is not tied to the campaign setting side of things.
Pshaw. I know you've been drooling waiting for "Golarion: the Time of Troubles" since beta. I've been writing it for the past few months now though so don't worry. It's very hush-hush though; so much so that even Paizo doesn't know about it. Probably explains why they wouldn't talk to me about money up front. In fact, they won't talk to me at all. Or return my calls. Or my emails. It may possibly explain that restraining order as well... ;)
SJ
By using miniatures, you are playing for tactical advantage...
Curses! And here I thought I was using them to show my players how vicious and terrifying the monsters were! Tactical advantage only, got it... ;-)
it's, well, a Pathfinder fansite first and foremost...
There, fixed that for you... :-P
The king is dead; long live the king!
[edit] I posted these before I had scrolled down to Lisa's "Back to Topic" suggestion. Apologies for any off-topic reminders!
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so back on topic, a question to Paizo; how has it been like to work with so many 3rd party publishers?
Very, very, very fun and rewarding.
One of the things you give up when you start to work for a game company you love is the excitement of reading a brand new RPG book. By the time we're done designing and editing and laying out and developing and printing and proofing a book, we're pretty tired of it, frankly, but having 3rd Party publishers producing content for the game we love lets us be customers and eager gamers as well. Which is really really nice.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so back on topic, a question to Paizo; how has it been like to work with so many 3rd party publishers?Very, very, very fun and rewarding.
One of the things you give up when you start to work for a game company you love is the excitement of reading a brand new RPG book. By the time we're done designing and editing and laying out and developing and printing and proofing a book, we're pretty tired of it, frankly, but having 3rd Party publishers producing content for the game we love lets us be customers and eager gamers as well. Which is really really nice.
What a great response!
So, the staff at Paizo does get a chance to check out (and maybe even use) some of the various products put out by 3PP companies? That's really cool to hear!
Slightly ninja'ed? How can someone be significantly ninja'ed?edit: slightly ninja'ed by the xaositect.
Allow me to demonstrate.
<Pause>
There, get that? I bet you never even felt that ninja decapitate you with his katana, and reattach your head with his ki-powers all in an instant! Hell, I bet you never even noticed the ninja, they are THAT GOOD! :D
This thread has gotten WAY off topic with Magic: The Gathering expansion discussions and the inevitable 4e vs Pathfinder. Not to mention PF2 speculation. A long ways from the Working with WotC and Paizo original thread. So let's leave off these other discussions in this thread, and leave it to its original purpose. :)
Thanks!
-Lisa
the gist of the discussion seems to be that WoTC used to be cool to work with, but they've kinda lost their way. Paizo staff is firm about their rules but fair about how they handle business.
which jibes with what I've seen of how both organizations work. What I can't figure out is what's driving WoTCs rush to the bottom. they seem to have made several misguided decisions over the past decade or so and it HAS to have been noticed by their bigwigs. I have some suspicions as to what might be the cause of their institutional blindness...but that's all it is - suspicions.
I'm beginning to suspect that D&D is an unimportant brand given to junior managers to cut their teeth on. Have a good quartr and they move you somewhere else.
I'm beginning to suspect that D&D is an unimportant brand given to junior managers to cut their teeth on. Have a good quartr and they move you somewhere else.
if true, that's a very sad way to run a company.
But remember - this is all just random speculation, at least for my part. I honstly have no idea what the leadership of WoTC thinks about the game industry on a daily basis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4E clearly had WoW references right down to class names like Striker, etc. Why didn't they go all the way and name some classes Tank and DPS. It's a sad lack of creativity when you model a classic RPG like D&D after an mmorpg.
"Striker" isn't in WoW.
This is my second favorite thing to see: people who never played WoW trying to talk about it :p.
Hunter traps and taunt mechanisms, on the other hand... ;p
|
|
I play or have played some MMO's not currently playing one due to money. But anyways, I have never heard anyone use striker. Now popular terms in MMO's are, dps(class that does damage per second aka striker), tank, healer etc.
The only part of 4e to me is like a MMO is the encounter powers, that does remind me a lot of powers with long cool downs designed so in a MMO you can only use it once a fight typically.
4E clearly had WoW references right down to class names like Striker, etc. Why didn't they go all the way and name some classes Tank and DPS. It's a sad lack of creativity when you model a classic RPG like D&D after an mmorpg."Striker" isn't in WoW.
This is my second favorite thing to see: people who never played WoW trying to talk about it :p.
Hunter traps and taunt mechanisms, on the other hand... ;p
Actually, I re-activated yesterday after 4 months off of WoW. I've been playing since release. See Garrosh server (currently) ....Desna, Stormwracked, and my main, Fruitbat.
I meant the generic class names like "Striker" compared to WoW generic termed "Tanks", "Healers", " DPS", etc. Hope that ends your confusion Professor.
Edit*. I just prefer tabletop remain separate from my video games.
I never heard " tank" used once in my tabletop games since 1980 or Gen Con trips in the 90s. I started hearing Tank after WoW though.
I know video games draw from tabletop, movies, novels etc., you are missing my point. If I wanted a WoW-like experience at the table I'd play the D20 version.
Sorry for the off topic threadjack people, I withdraw as I don't have much to add.
|
|
Thanks. I actually did see those one google, but I figured those were so silly that nobody would actually try to use anything similar to that as a decoding system. I am guessing the screen told you what to line up in order to get each letter of the code.
And now I feel old.
Floppy disks used to be floppy, you know...
And the size of a telephone. Of course, telephones in those days could be pretty big compared to today's varieties...