With the so-called "edition wars" thankfully behind us and the GSL updated (slightly), any chance Paizo will publish even a single supp, mod, or even an AP for 4e?
I think that I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
..
.
.
.
;)
I haven't been following 4E very carefully, so maybe you can fill me in: Is there any third-party company that seems to be thriving by making modules/supplements/etc. for 4E?EN Publishing would be a good example. They just finished up a full adventure path and have another set to begin very soon.
What's the adventure path called?
What's the adventure path called?I haven't been following 4E very carefully, so maybe you can fill me in: Is there any third-party company that seems to be thriving by making modules/supplements/etc. for 4E?EN Publishing would be a good example. They just finished up a full adventure path and have another set to begin very soon.
What's the adventure path called?I haven't been following 4E very carefully, so maybe you can fill me in: Is there any third-party company that seems to be thriving by making modules/supplements/etc. for 4E?EN Publishing would be a good example. They just finished up a full adventure path and have another set to begin very soon.
They also did War of the Burning Sky for 3.5 and 4th edition.
I'd say it's about as likely as WotC starting to write Pathfinder modules.
A few points of clarification:
I have an "EN" in my avatar, but it in no way indicates I work for EN Publishing. I was a moderator for ENWorld, that's all. It looked like some people might have had that misconception, but I'm mentioning it for the sake of clarity.
Personally, I can't stand the GSL, for all the reasons Clark mentions. I get the impression most of the designers and developers at WotC can't stand it, either.
My earlier comment was from the standpoint of writing for the system, publisher or not, and yes, I have personally seen fans browbeat both 3.5 publishers and WotC over stat blocks being off by a point in the attack bonus, or "how a specific magic effect couldn't possibly exist." In my opinion, it's as silly as for 4E and Pathfinder saying one is harder to write for than the other -- they each have their own challenges, and for me, the challenge in PF is not having a system like in 4E to generate an NPC in under a minute and still be 90% book-legal. (Trailblazer helps, but the NPCs created as such in my experience don't hold up as well to live field-testing against a PF adventuring party.)
Lastly, I play and enjoy both PF and 4E. Extensively. I'll play PF more readily than run it, because of the ease of GMing 4E for me.
I do appreciate Clark's comments earlier, it helps shed light on some of the internal politics that go on that we don't always see. (I also appreciate those e-mails to Scott Rouse he published in another thread! Damn, I wished WotC had taken that path....)
I do appreciate Clark's comments earlier, it helps shed light on some of the internal politics that go on that we don't always see. (I also appreciate those e-mails to Scott Rouse he published in another thread! Damn, I wished WotC had taken that path....)
Glad to help. I think the history of our fine game is important to know and understand. Particularly when you have something as extraordinary as what happened with Pathfinder/4E--a true split of the game.
I said before and will repeat, in a way I am glad I cant support 4E (or should say find the GSL unworkable and won't use it). If I could support 4E, I probably would have to. Philosophically, I always support the current version of the game. But because the GSL is unacceptable to me, I have the luxury of supporting the version of "new" D&D that I actually prefer.
I don't intend to make any absolute statements. Gaming is gaming. What you like can be different from what I like and that is OK. That's fine. Having seen and played both, I prefer Pathfinder. But your mileage may vary. That said, it is lucky for me that I can't support 4E and get to support the system I prefer.
I don't know what would have happened if WotC had OGC'd 4E. I have a funny feeling there would still be Pathfinder. I don't speak for anyone, but when you are a bigger company with employees and lots of mouths to feed, it makes it hard to rely on licensed content that can be yanked at any time (particularly when you deal with a licensor that HAS done exactly that to you with Dungeon and Dragon). Its always made sense to me for Paizo to move away from that dependence. Now, I can't say if that is their reason or not. I'm just saying that even if 4E was supportable in an acceptable way it is likely we'd still have Pathfinder.
So long story short, and back to the original post, I just don't see 4E products for Paizo. It doesn't make sense, in my view of things, in the current market and current state of gaming.
|
Cheer up, not everybody hates WotC and wishes them to die in flame.
No.... of course not. No one wants that.
Mwu-hahahahaha!
On a serious note, there really is no need to see Paizo ever do 4e work. I know I wouldn't buy it, although undoubtedly some would. Who knows, maybe some of our favorite writers will do a little freelance moonlighting at WOTC.
From what I've heard about the (lack of) quality of WOTC official adventures, it might be nice to show what could be done with the system. It always blew my mind how Hasbro seemed to care less about the adventures made to support their system when they were one of the better selling points to keep a system alive. Look at dungeon mag (print), Necromancer games, the Paizo APs, etc... WOTC, with a few notable exceptions, always seemed to release lackluster modules that never really leveraged what their system could do.
BTW, Clark, thanks for your posts here and in the "Working With WotC and Paizo" thread.
Some posts here make me facepalm. That being said the one thing not being mentioned is time. Early on in development of the aps (Around Second Darkness if memory serves) This topic came up, and James flat out said they weren't going to support 4e. Now the important point here is his reasoning, which I didn't see anyone mention. Plain and simple Paizo is already cramped for time, they have a very packed schedule that likely could get behind at any given second since they have so much going on. It had been mentioned that they don't hate 4e or anything like that, it's just that they Knew 3.5 edition. To learn a new system, even an easily learned one still takes time and money, R&D that needed to be put into their new business, especially given how long until the first draft of the GSL was taking. They can't afford to hire 4e guys, and establish a department for 4e stuff without cutting into their other projects and the ambitiousness of what they already do doesn't afford them the luxury. Add in the GSL, which is pretty well disliked in general (maybe not by everyone but enough 3pp peaple) and it just doesn't work out for them. I'm actually pretty sure at one point James may have even said he wishes they could as overrall theres no hate or bad blood between WotC and Paizo, theyre friendly neighbors (Dont quote me, quoting him on that though).
Also as has been pointed out, converting adventures isn't terribly hard and many people already do, so why cut into your funds to make money your already probably making? I mean if 13 4e players are already buying modules or aps for converting then taking out the r&d costs of doing them in 4e format as well would only net you 4 or 5 new buyers as the other 13 will have been buying anyway. Thats just bad cost management. (Please Note these are expressley my opinions and not meant to actually reflect any elses, but accurately reflect what I remember.)
Also as has been pointed out, converting adventures isn't terribly hard and many people already do, so why cut into your funds to make money your already probably making? I mean if 13 4e players are already buying modules or aps for converting then taking out the r&d costs of doing them in 4e format as well would only net you 4 or 5 new buyers as the other 13 will have been buying anyway. Thats just bad cost management. (Please Note these are expressley my opinions and not meant to actually reflect any elses, but accurately reflect what I remember.)
I agree. Personally I attempted to do a conversion of the Kobold level of KEEP ON THE BORDERLANDS in 4E when I first got the rules and found it to be a bit of a nightmare. Not in so much that it couldnt be done, it was just in trying to balance out the encounter and trying to keep true to the encounter areas just werent happening enough to my liking. I realized that if I had to change the enocunters so much that they didnt even represent what was there originally, I might as well design all new enocunters and not convert anything. Which is what I wound up doing for the first few 4E games that I ran.
Keep in mind this literally in the first few weeks (days?) of the game being released, I'm sure that since then people have gotten better at doing conversions to 4E from earlier versions, but that was a BIG turn off for me at the beginning, one of the them anyway. If 4E is easy to convert to then I dont think that offical support is needed. I feel the same way about 3.5 to Pathfinder conversion support. I dont want to see official Pathfinder versions of Rise of the Runelords/Curse of the Crimson Throne/Second Darkness/Legacy of Fire. (Unless, that is theyre going to be hardcover special editions, then... :-))
I definitely feel the tension, or lines drawn in the sand in regards to the "edition wars", but ultimately OGL is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, and had 4E followed it, you will still have 4E and pathfinder, but different versions of both.
I am glad people have clarified issues for both licensing schemes, but anyone should take the time to read both.
I also think WOTC moving to electronic content based on web tools and VTT is the other side of the equation, because they do not make it very friendly for third parties to share a piece of the pie.
So the likelihood of anyone developing for both systems is very low, even if you could let bygones be bygones.
I find the whole premise to be strange. Nobody asks if Paizo is going to write modules for HERO or Basic Roleplaying. They have their own system, and it doesn't really make sense for them to use anything else.
Had this huge response about the various eras and philosophy of design that makes conversion hard and all that, realized it wasn't coming off as me celebrating gaming like I wanted but rather long winded and ranty. So to summ up, all Kobolds should be anti-paladins who repel from the ceiling in ambush and ride small flying drakes....
|
I find the whole premise to be strange. Nobody asks if Paizo is going to write modules for HERO or Basic Roleplaying. They have their own system, and it doesn't really make sense for them to use anything else.I would heart if Paizo would write up a BRP mod or, even better, an AP.
I think that, as unlikely as that is, it's FAR more likely than a 4e project. At the very least I know that James is a huge fan of Call of Cthulhu.
BTW, Clark, thanks for your posts here and in the "Working With WotC and Paizo" thread.
Sean, my pleasure. You know that I love Paizo. You guys just do it right. Gamers to the core. And that love drives your design decisions and business decisions. I love it.
Plus, the history of the 3E/4E license issues I think becomes increasingly important for people to know so I'm happy to share my info. The "edition wars" made me hold off since I didnt want to get sucked into that with posting my letters. I thought that would just inflame things. But I think it is important to know the paths that were taken and not taken, since we have to "versions" of D&D these days. And edition wars has calmed down so I can share this info without as much fear of flamethrowers.
|
They also did War of the Burning Sky for 3.5 and 4th edition.What's the adventure path called?I haven't been following 4E very carefully, so maybe you can fill me in: Is there any third-party company that seems to be thriving by making modules/supplements/etc. for 4E?EN Publishing would be a good example. They just finished up a full adventure path and have another set to begin very soon.
It is interesting to note that they're making their latest one, Zeitgeist, for both 4E and PF, which is a good thing since it opens their potential audience base.
It is interesting to note that they're making their latest one, Zeitgeist, for both 4E and PF, which is a good thing since it opens their potential audience base.They also did War of the Burning Sky for 3.5 and 4th edition.What's the adventure path called?I haven't been following 4E very carefully, so maybe you can fill me in: Is there any third-party company that seems to be thriving by making modules/supplements/etc. for 4E?EN Publishing would be a good example. They just finished up a full adventure path and have another set to begin very soon.
It's also of note that Morrus is doing it as an experiment born from a discussion that he was involved with on his boards with the assertion that it is financially worthwhile to do his own APs in PF format.
With the so-called "edition wars" thankfully behind us and the GSL updated (slightly), any chance Paizo will publish even a single supp, mod, or even an AP for 4e?No. Not interested. Sorry.
Same here.
Gorbacz: Must you do that?
|
|
It's also of note that Morrus is doing it as an experiment born from a discussion that he was involved with on his boards with the assertion that it is financially worthwhile to do his own APs in PF format.It is interesting to note that they're making their latest one, Zeitgeist, for both 4E and PF, which is a good thing since it opens their potential audience base.They also did War of the Burning Sky for 3.5 and 4th edition.What's the adventure path called?I haven't been following 4E very carefully, so maybe you can fill me in: Is there any third-party company that seems to be thriving by making modules/supplements/etc. for 4E?EN Publishing would be a good example. They just finished up a full adventure path and have another set to begin very soon.
Ah, that's interesting.
I did notice that another 3pp doing the dias ex stuff is also probably going to publish in PF soon, I just noticed his stuff since I really enjoyed his older fan stuff like the Ghost in the Shell conversion for 3.5 modern.
|
Yeah the guy from Dias Ex wrote a open letter to WotC asking them to do some stuff to help 3pp out. Mostly just doing the stuff that Paizo already does for 3pp. After finding out about that and being contacted by Vic personally, he decided to test the PFRPG waters. Not sure when or what his first product will be. Only that, that's how it happened. It was a interesting letter he wrote and discussion till it started turning into a edition war at least.
I said before and will repeat, in a way I am glad I cant support 4E (or should say find the GSL unworkable and won't use it). If I could support 4E, I probably would have to. Philosophically, I always support the current version of the game. But because the GSL is unacceptable to me, I have the luxury of supporting the version of "new" D&D that I actually prefer.
I hear psychology can really help with that CDO stuff these days! :P
I don't know what would have happened if WotC had OGC'd 4E. I have a funny feeling there would still be Pathfinder. I don't speak for anyone, but when you are a bigger company with employees and lots of mouths to feed, it makes it hard to rely on licensed content that can be yanked at any time (particularly when you deal with a licensor that HAS done exactly that to you with Dungeon and Dragon).
Depends: Would they only have gone with OGC? Or are we talking about a wotc that isn't screwing over other companies for kicks?
Because I think if they were the kind of company that supported an open platform, they might not have yanked those licenses. They might also make their online tools more open to not shut out third party and house rule material.
They still might have gone with PF because they found 4e inadequate, but one of the big reasons they probably keep as far away with wotc as possible would no longer be there.
Look at my avatar. There lies the answer to your question, Leafy Face.
<Sigh>
You're lucky that I seem to have a natural liking for Poles.
I cleaned up some bickering and the replies descending from them.
Some helpful posts were caught in the crossfire, so please feel free to repost that material without the references to removed posts.
I thought you're just into plants, but it seems like 10-foot long sticks are also your fancy... *shakes head*
|
|
I haven't bought a HASBRO/ W o TC product since 4E began. Hope they go out of business.
I think that if Dungeons & Dragons went away, it would be bad for the hobby in the long haul. D&D is far and way the most popular RPG in existence, and it's kind of the "gateway drug" into the hobby, at least for most of us. I don't think I've ever met a gamer who's first RPG wasn't some edition of Dungeons & Dragons.
I can pretty truthfully say I won't ever play 4E. I have no interest in it. But does that mean I may not return to Dungeons & Dragons with 5E, or some other, future edition? Who knows. Never say never. In the same vein, while I currently play Pathfinder, Pathfinder 2E might similary not hold any interest for me.
I haven't bought a HASBRO/ W o TC product since 4E began. Hope they go out of business.I think that if Dungeons & Dragons went away, it would be bad for the hobby in the long haul. D&D is far and way the most popular RPG in existence, and it's kind of the "gateway drug" into the hobby, at least for most of us. I don't think I've ever met a gamer who's first RPG wasn't some edition of Dungeons & Dragons.
I can pretty truthfully say I won't ever play 4E. I have no interest in it. But does that mean I may not return to Dungeons & Dragons with 5E, or some other, future edition? Who knows. Never say never. In the same vein, while I currently play Pathfinder, Pathfinder 2E might similary not hold any interest for me.
The guy I game with now started in 4E, and switched to Pathfinder. I also occasionally find threads of people switching on other sites. That is like free advertising for Paizo. :)
|
Paizo acquiring D&D license
Not going to happen, and Paizo would not be capable of producing it AND Pathfinder. Between the two, I think they would choose their own brand.
I would like to see them able to reproduce some of the good things from 3.5 however. (Age of Worms/ Savage Tide hardcovers!)
But does that mean I may not return to Dungeons & Dragons with 5E, or some other, future edition? Who knows. Never say never. In the same vein, while I currently play Pathfinder, Pathfinder 2E might similary not hold any interest for me.
Agreed completely.
Best possible outcome i see is WOTC going under, Paizo acquiring D&D license and employing all the good people from wotc (no, bill, you are not one of them, get out)
I don't really care if they have the license or not. I do want the mindflayer and the displacer beast to go to Paizo though, not that I even think it is a remote possibility. Then Paizo can get rid of the name.
Of course as I said in my last post I don't want them to go out of business. I just want Pathfinder to be more popular.
Paizo acquiring D&D licenseNot going to happen, and Paizo would not be capable of producing it AND Pathfinder. Between the two, I think they would choose their own brand.
I would like to see them able to reproduce some of the good things from 3.5 however. (Age of Worms/ Savage Tide hardcovers!)
Age of Worms was a good AP, even if parts of it were ridiculously hard. I never got to play or GM STAP.