To me, it isn't even what they have done as much as how. They seem determined to piss as many people as possible off with the vast majority of their methods of going about making and announcing their decisions. I can understand unpopular. Paizo has made many unpopular decisions, but still manages to maintain a certain level of respect, which is not the same think as being liked. WOTC and Hasbro have failed to retain even basic respect in many quarters.
I still haven't really seen this in the 3 years 4E's been around. Yes, WotC has done some silly things. Some have benefited players like the creation of the Essentials line while other things get on player's nerves like the absurd amount of Revisions/Errata done. Also, many still seem to hate the fact that the CB is now totally an On-Line product rather than the downloadable version. But in my opinion, this hasn't dropped my respect for them and I've been pretty satisfied with how they've run things on a whole.
So could you give me some reasons (other than "they created 4E") WotC has lost your respect? Or what methods they've employeed in getting 4E this far that you've found unpopular?
Respect may not have been the most accurate word. Credibility probably would have been better. While the people actually designing the system seem to understand the rpg market for the most part, no one else in WOTC or Hasbro seem to have the slightest clue of what they can reasonably expect in terms of success.
The biggest thing that annoys me is that I can't even really judge the system its current state or how well that system is actually supported because in order to do so, I have to pay out money, something I have a very limited amount of, to access all of their subscription based resources, and I simply don't have the time or money to deal with a company that can't trust the public with even the basic core rules of their flagship system. The character builder sounds cool, but I don't need a web based system that I can only access with an active internet link; Unless I'm playing at home, that really doesn't help me in the middle of a game.
I can understand controls to limit pirating, but putting conditions on even basic access is just shooting themselves in the foot. They expect me to pay out money in good faith that the product will be worth my while, and that isn't going to work well when there is already a lot of people that have tried it, and are going to need to see some kind of proof before they give it a second chance, and the proof is buried behind a firewall.
SOE has the same credibility issue after the Star Wars Galaxy debacle, and they have yet to recover from that, despite that headache being well in the past.
Respect may not have been the most accurate word. Credibility probably would have been better. While the people actually designing the system seem to understand the rpg market for the most part, no one else in WOTC or Hasbro seem to have the slightest clue of what they can reasonably expect in terms of success.
See, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. How does someone determine success? They could assume it would be sales, but how do we (as the consumer) know what's selling and what isn't? How do we figure out what's being successful and what isn't? It's not from Internet forums, to be sure, and we can't even being to understand how much goes through Amazon sales, online distribution, and the like. The biggest source is FLGS reports and that's the tip of the iceberg. I can say, however, from my personal experience that the Core product has work wonders, from the PH 1 to 3 and the Power Books in between. And Essentials has only made the 4E line Stronger from a Gamer's perspective. So I feel someone is doing something right over there.
The biggest thing that annoys me is that I can't even really judge the system its current state or how well that system is actually supported because in order to do so, I have to pay out money, something I have a very limited amount of, to access all of their subscription based resources, and I simply don't have the time or money to deal with a company that can't trust the public with even the basic core rules of their flagship system. The character builder sounds cool, but I don't need a web based system that I can only access with an active internet link; Unless I'm playing at home, that really doesn't help me in the middle of a game.
I'm a little confused here. You state your annoyed that you cannot judge a system because the provider requires you to actually pay for the system. So.....you want free stuff? That's what it sounds like anyways. Maybe you mean because there isn't a full-fledge SRD like Pathfinder has, where you can test the system and play right from the SRD-site. I can understand that, but I'm fairly certain you can download the entire H1: Keep on the Shadowfell adventuer AND pre-made, fully completed characters to run through it. That's at least something to base your opinion on. You could also pay for a 1-month subscription of DDI and make up a bunch of character to run through the adventure too. There's also local, weekly run adventures at your FLGS too (which is free). So yea, WotC requires you to pay for the game (like most other companies do) but there are opportuinities to join in. As for the flagshipt system, I'm assuming you mean the Core rules from the Players Handbooks and excluding Essentials products. Maybe it's just my style but I've been able to fully integrate both aspects and it meshes flawlessly. So there isn't a real "Flagship", only 4E.
I can understand controls to limit pirating, but putting conditions on even basic access is just shooting themselves in the foot. They expect me to pay out money in good faith that the product will be worth my while, and that isn't going to work well when there is already a lot of people that have tried it, and are going to need to see some kind of proof before they give it a second chance, and the proof is buried behind a firewall.
I take people's bad experience with a grain of salt honestly. Many of them tried it when it first came out.....3 years ago. It's developed into a much broader game with tons and tons of supplements to give players more diversity. And the reverse can be said with Paizo. I've never felt compelled to purchace Paizo products because everything is on the SRD. Why would I buy the APG when I have it online? Why would I need a Beastiary Compendium (or whatever it's called) when it's all online for free? It's actually a Godsend because now I can spend the money on WotC products while fully enjoying Paizo products at the same time (for free). So besides the adventures, which are very cheap compared to the hardbacked books found in the store or online, there's absoutley no incentive other than more books detailing the setting of Golarion to buying Paizo products.
If they get to the point where you can at least see the updated versions of the core classes and races without paying a subscription, that would go a long way. I don't expect everything to be free, but the core material that provides the foundation of the game needs to be accessible. They do seem to be learning from their mistakes, which is very encouraging, but, like it or not, they are going to have to do more than make information accessible that should have been accessible from the start in order to win back support. They can't simply pretend the hole they dug for themselves doesn't exist anymore just because they have stopped digging deeper. I don't expect everything to be free by any means, but at this point, they may have a hard time winning back people if they continue to go in the direction of making all their tools available only online.
As for the fact that their practices are "normal," I don't care for them in any industry or company. Any company that copies from WOTC or is the basis of how Hasbro and WOTC do business is not going to get much voluntary support from me. The fact that WOTC is one of the few companies in the rpg market that go to that extreme demonstrates that most companies in that market see value in keeping the potential customer/referral, if not happy, at least not actively annoyed. No one will be completely successful in that endeavor, but at least they can see beyond pure dollar signs.
And as 4e fans feeling welcome, i hate this part of myself, but it is still there, and it doesn't want them to fell welcome. I am trying to supress it, but sometimes it resurfaces.Cool, we can't always control how we feel, but we can control how we act on those feelings. I still suffer a bit of nerdrage aimed at Pathfinder for "stealing" all the 3.5 players, but I recognise that it is nerdrage and try to keep the views on PF as objective as I can.
So as long as you realise how you're feelings isn't necessarily beneficial and try to keep a lid on it I think the 4e fans will be okay :)
I know I am 4 days late. Could you explain that "stealing" comment to me?
If they get to the point where you can at least see the updated versions of the core classes and races without paying a subscription, that would go a long way. I don't expect everything to be free, but the core material that provides the foundation of the game needs to be accessible.You've got the PRD which is freely accessible and OGL to boot. And you can get any of the rulebooks as a ten dollar purchase PDF. How much more accessibility do you want?
Sunshadow was asking for that from 4th edition, not Pathfinder. IIRC 4th edition does not do the OGL thing.
Well he needs to know that the present WOTC has a rather dim view of the whole OGL thing launched by the long-departed Dancey and his crew.Sunshadow was asking for that from 4th edition, not Pathfinder. IIRC 4th edition does not do the OGL thing.If they get to the point where you can at least see the updated versions of the core classes and races without paying a subscription, that would go a long way. I don't expect everything to be free, but the core material that provides the foundation of the game needs to be accessible.You've got the PRD which is freely accessible and OGL to boot. And you can get any of the rulebooks as a ten dollar purchase PDF. How much more accessibility do you want?
They don't need to go as far as they did with the OGL, but the basic information from the player's handbook and related material from the essential books could easily be made accessible and used as a lure to get new people interested without requiring everything from every source made fully available. The problem isn't that they are trying to protect themselves; it's that they went so far in protecting themselves that new potential customers don't have any ability to preview the system to get them hooked.
They don't need to go as far as they did with the OGL, but the basic information from the player's handbook and related material from the essential books could easily be made accessible and used as a lure to get new people interested without requiring everything from every source made fully available. The problem isn't that they are trying to protect themselves; it's that they went so far in protecting themselves that new potential customers don't have any ability to preview the system to get them hooked.It's not about protection...they're simply gone back to the pre 3.X buisness module... which is pretty much what almost every game company does.... you want to play, you have to pay. Gygax and Arneson after all never gave away anything for free.
There was in internet back then so the idea was not really plausible. They would have had to print up a book and ship it out which cost more money than a free view online.
I do understand your point though.
And the brand didn't really grow into the market it is now until 3.x for a reason. The OGL may have gone farther than WOTC could afford, but to ignore the impact it had on the spread of the game is equal folly. Paizo and many other companies operating under the OGL have proven that the middle ground between the original OGL and what came before it is a lot wider than what many business people tend to believe.
EDIT: The point about the internet is a good one. It makes that middle ground a lot easier to realize.
Paizo has effectively proven that the theory works just fine. It does mean that a company can't simply rely on the core ruleset itself to make money, which is a bit of a problem for WOTC, but there are plenty of ways to get around that. The Pathfinder rules may be accessible, but a lot of why people still buy the books is because they are reasonably well laid out and have great art. If they hadn't gotten off to such a rocky start with 4E, WOTC probably could have gotten away with not having the core races, classes, and rules public domain, but because of that start and the reaction to it, hiding even core information behind a firewall isn't going to quiet those who had bad experiences. That is their biggest problem right now. They are making improvements and turning the system around, but because only subscribers can really see it, no one else is really noticing.
To many people, especially people who are very passionate about their hobbies, such business decisions, whether they are right or wrong in the long term, can lead to questions of credibility and respect. Most people don't read forums where they can get periodic updates of improvements, and don't know anyone who does, so the first impression is absolutely critical, as that may be the only impression they ever have. In the case of 4E, that first impression was not only not overwhelmingly positive, but often downright negative and in some cases outright hostile, and it was followed by a slew of books that even supporters of the system weren't particularly keen on defending. In that environment, losing professional credibility and respect as a company and a brand is very easy, and while it can be recovered, it is usually a long, painful process to do so. While I personally don't get those who refuse to acknowledge positive change when it happens, I do understand where they might develop that point of view, and I believe that it is a point of view that cannot simply be ignored and written off as unimportant if real change is going to occur.
The biggest thing that annoys me is that I can't even really judge the system its current state or how well that system is actually supported because in order to do so, I have to pay out money, something I have a very limited amount of, to access all of their subscription based resources, and I simply don't have the time or money to deal with a company that can't trust the public with even the basic core rules of their flagship system.
You don't need a subscription to judge the current state of the game. All the updates are posted for free. All of them. Only new content is behind a paywall.
Don't believe me?
Are the basic rules included? No. You have to have something to start from, whether it's the free Quick Start rules or something you actually paid for. But all of the updates are free.
You can't use "But I'd have to actually pay for content in order to know what it's like!" as an excuse.
The character builder sounds cool, but I don't need a web based system that I can only access with an active internet link; Unless I'm playing at home, that really doesn't help me in the middle of a game.
The whole point of the Character Builder is that it helps you build your character. Which, presumably, you're not doing in the middle of game. Use the Character Builder at home, where you have internet access (although, really, "I don't have internet access where I game," is becoming a less acceptable excuse by the day). Then print your character sheet - power cards included! - and bring that to your game. Problem solved.
I can understand controls to limit pirating, but putting conditions on even basic access is just shooting themselves in the foot. They expect me to pay out money in good faith that the product will be worth my while, and that isn't going to work well when there is already a lot of people that have tried it, and are going to need to see some kind of proof before they give it a second chance, and the proof is buried behind a firewall.
Yes, they're asking you to pay $10 for the one month's access you would need to give their entire product line a good hard look, after they've provided you with free rules, adventures, supplements, maps and monsters that are not behind the paywall.
They are not asking you to give them money on nothing but good faith (even though that's what a billion other companies do all the time, and even though it's not merely on good faith since you can easily rely on the opinions of others if necessary). They are providing you with tons of free content and saying, "Hey, if you like this stuff, you'll love the stuff our subscribers get."
Paizo has effectively proven that the theory works just fine.
No, they haven't. Paizo has proven that you can get away with putting all of your rules up for free if the rules aren't the core of your business. For instance, board game manufacturers post their full rules online. Why? Because their business model is based on selling board games, not rules documents.
To many people, especially people who are very passionate about their hobbies, such business decisions, whether they are right or wrong in the long term, can lead to questions of credibility and respect.
This is a very, very charitable way of describing a certain flavor of "fan" reaction.
|
I would never go back to 4e. I don't understand how anyone would merge the two in the first place. D&D 4e is a board game, PF can be just as munchkin, or roleplayed, etc. Such variety.
I'm glad to see the first response say "No", as Pathfinder is its own thing now. It's not a "setting or stylebook" of D&D. It is so much beyond that. Cheers to Paizo's future!!
I would never go back to 4e. I don't understand how anyone would merge the two in the first place. D&D 4e is a board game, PF can be just as munchkin, or roleplayed, etc. Such variety.
Aren't we a little past people trying to claim that you can't roleplay in 4e like you can in PF? Or that 4e is a board game?
Like, way past that?
Because that's not a winning position.
I would never go back to 4e. I don't understand how anyone would merge the two in the first place. D&D 4e is a board game, PF can be just as munchkin, or roleplayed, etc. Such variety.
While I'm saddend you didn't have a fun and joyful experience with 4E, I think the reaons for the "board game" experience is a result of your inexperienced or possibly narrow-minded DM rather than the game itself. I don't know, since I don't game with your group but it's a common problem regarding 3E/PF players who've tried 4E. But that's cool, I think a lot of DM's (and gaming groups) have trouble grasping the freedom and complexity of the narritive role-play that is 4E as it's hasn't really been focused on in D&D since pre-3E days. Simulationism is great and all, and I still play ALOT of v3.5/PF, but I've never felt one played more board-game-ish than the other.
As for merging the two, it's quite simple really. Take the sub-rules, ideas, and mechanics from Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords, Star Wars: SAGA, and PF's new and improved v3.75, Skill Tricks, Dynamic feat trees and voilà, a merger that might have some good features. They would have to get rid of the full BAB system, though as that's proven to be ineffective at later levels of play or actually make your ordinary basic swinging of a weapon more powerful or have some incentive through feats, PrCs, and class features rather than taking the full-round action (which often misses with it's last few attacks based on the Math).
The OGL is the main reason for offering the rules for free, in addition to giving players who prefer different systems an opportunity to play Pathfinder. But it is a double edge sword, because some people may decide it is not the game for them, without purchasing any books. This will also apply when people have met their limit on how many books or supplements they want to purchase. At some point it will reach a critical mass. Whether it is a long term practice will be decided if Pathfinder 2 is developed and released.
The problem with 4E is not being an overnight success, and people having to guess where they are taking the product (if you like it). If either of those two go in a positive direction, so 3.5 players start to seriously consider it, then I am not sure releasing the rules for free will have much bearing. I think their money is better spent on DDI, and actually making it worth the price (including the character builder and related utilities).
As to merging the rules systems, I would rather see 4E expand to include a couple more features, versus Pathfinder being dumbed down. I agree with the approached of stripping down the 3E chasis to the bone, and then build a new system.
The OGL is the main reason for offering the rules for free, in addition to giving players who prefer different systems an opportunity to play Pathfinder. But it is a double edge sword, because some people may decide it is not the game for them, without purchasing any books.
Or you have people like me who love Pathfinder and enjoy all the supplements and rules for free without purchasing a single copy of their work. Like I said before, Pathfinder makes ridiculously good adventures and they are well worth their price, but the other stuff.....not so much (quality is great, but why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free?). And I don't think we're going to see sub-systems from Paizo anytime soon. By sub-system, I mean classes that break the mold on the traditional d20PF approach. Psionics (do they have them for PF?) and other things we saw in v3.5 like the Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, etc... So yes, from a consumer standpoint, an OGL/SRD open-content site would be amazing to see how 4E works, how the Classes work, and how monsters interact with their roles and how XP-budges are done. But that nullifies a LOT of hard-backed supplements that cost lots of money to make. Why do that when the Compendium and DDI in general do all that and more? Even if you only buy 1-month's subscription of it (something like $10?) you can gain a good understanding how the game plays, all the monsters you'd ever want to face, all the character's you'd want to try and make, and all the Dungeon & Dragon magazines to download....for the past 3 years.
Maybe it's just me (and that's cool) but I think that's a pretty fair deal and I don't feel a SRD site is really needed. There's ample opportuinities to play and try 4E for free or with a relatively low cost. If people really want to give it a go, then I think they'd be willing to go these short lengths. If not, then they won't.
The problem with 4E is not being an overnight success, and people having to guess where they are taking the product (if you like it). If either of those two go in a positive direction, so 3.5 players start to seriously consider it, then I am not sure releasing the rules for free will have much bearing. I think their money is better spent on DDI, and actually making it worth the price (including the character builder and related utilities).
Uh....what am I supposed to be guessing about in terms of the product? But I agree that new players and un-sure prospects should get DDI first and use that as a sort of SRD (D&D Compendium is basically the SRD, but a bit better). That way, if they don't like the flavor, mechanics, or whatever they're only out $10-15 bucks instead of 40-60 for the Core Rulebooks. In any case, if you didn't know you can access the Compendium via multiple interfaces with the same account. So if one person gets a subscription, and is looking at the compendium and another player with the same account name, etc... is looking at the compendium then it's all good. It doesnt' work for the Character Builder, however.
As to merging the rules systems, I would rather see 4E expand to include a couple more features, versus Pathfinder being dumbed down. I agree with the approached of stripping down the 3E chasis to the bone, and then build a new system.
I'll try to take the Dumbed Down comment with a grain of salt, but in essence I agree with stripping down 3E and rebuilding it up from there. Not really sure what other expansions 4E needs as they already have 3 Monster Manuals and the Monster Vault, 3 Player's Handbooks and Setting books that include 25 different classes, the Essential products 16 additional classes, all the Dragon articles... that's a lot of stuff to pour through.
And the brand didn't really grow into the market it is now until 3.x for a reason.
This is blatently untrue. The biggest growth D&D ever saw wasn't 3e. It still remains to be AD&D and Basic. Neither of those were released for free. It was in this time period that D&D became the household name.
Furthermore, the conditions for 3e and for 4e are drastically different. 3e came during a large economic boom and rose from the ashes of a very dead D&D after TSR had finished with it. 4e on the other hand was birthed in a huge recession, and WotC decided against running D&D into the ground TSR style before hand.
As for the OGL, Pathfinder is literally built on the back of the SRD. It'd be kinda silly for them to not be fully OGL, seeing as how 90% of their rules are in the SRD to begin with.
The thing with the GSL is that it's not "Hurrrr Wotsee hates third party." WotC just isn't holding your hand anymore. You have to be big boys now. GSL isn't anti-third party - hell, it's still one of the most lenient licenses in the entire industry! They just aren't going to help you out. You're on your own. Sink or swim on your own efforts. EN World is to my recollection doing just fine as a third party developer for 4e, so it very clearly ain't impossible!
Lastly, as far as "simulationist" goes, I'd rather have a game that admits it is bad at being a "simulation" and doesn't try, then a game that is bad at being a "simulation" and nonetheless desperately tries anyways. And as far as powers and "imagination" goes, RA Salvatore has some good words on the difference between editions and how 4e requires player creativity.
Edit: Youtube is being dumb and isn't going to the right spot. Go to 35m 40s in the video.
|
I still suffer a bit of nerdrage aimed at Pathfinder for "stealing" all the 3.5 players, but I recognise that it is nerdrage and try to keep the views on PF as objective as I can.I know I am 4 days late. Could you explain that "stealing" comment to me?
Okay explanation time :) First off though, remember that this is my explanation of what is, by my own admission, a bit of nerdrage - it is an explanation of perception & experience rather than fact & hobbywide statistics, and based on emotion rather than rational thought.
Basically, when 4e came out quite a few 3.5 players would have converted over and decided to no longer run, and even perhaps play, 3.5. This would have been a blow to any people who wanted to still play 3.5 as the number of DMs and players would have lessened and I was worried as I had only really just gotten into 3.5 at that stage and I wasn't liking some of what I read about 4e .
However, due to the quite devisive nature of 4e it seemed as though quite a lot of 3.5 players would not actually be converting over, indeed none of the players in my weekly group wanted to. This came as somewhat of a relief to me as I imagined the pool of 3.5 players wouldn't shrink as much as I thought - I could still play 3.5 in my weekly group and I could still go to conventions and find 3.5 games being run.
Then Pathfinder was launched. Originally I was excited as it seemed as though it was going to keep a version of the 3.5 rules in print. However, Pathfinder moved on from 3.5, just like I imagine 3.5 moved on from 3.0 (I don't know I only got into D&D with 3.5).
Whilst some of the changes were good, some I didn't (and still don't) like. Also enough was changed that I felt I lost what little system mastery of 3.5 I had, needing to double check everything, and if I wanted to run or play in my preferred setting of Eberron conversion work would be needed.
Basically, like when 4e came out I just wanted to stick with 3.5. However this time it seemed that quite a few of the players who stuck with 3.5 when 4e came out now did decide to convert over to PF, the two GMs in my weekly group did and I don't believe any 3.5 is played there anymore. So, while I was saved the loss of players to 4e, I instead found I lost the 3.5 players to PF.
So, to use a provocative nerdrage phrase - Pathfinder seemed to "steal" a lot of what remained of the 3.5 players (so much so that to get a game of 3.x at a convention, PFS seems like the only choice and so I do play PF just for PFS). And marketing like this poster just fanned the flames of my nerdrage :)
Maybe his sympathies are with one of the other would-be 3.5 successors. Paizo isn't the only kid playing the post-3.5 game, they do seem to be the most successful at lining up the 3.x grognards though, and they are a grumbly lot.
Nah, my sympathies are with 3.5 :)
|
EN World is to my recollection doing just fine as a third party developer for 4e, so it very clearly ain't impossible!
Good enough to have to keep most of their site "premium" to have it running, that is.
Anyway... what 4e 3PPs do we have running successfully at the moment?
Goodman Games is moving to their own system, the DCC RPG.
And whoops, Paizo store shows under 200 4e 3PP products and over 500 PFRPG 3PP products.
So yeah, there's got to be some difference that makes a system that's younger by a year have over twice as many 3PP products than 4e.
|
|
So yeah, there's got to be some difference that makes a system that's younger by a year have over twice as many 3PP products than 4e.
TBH I think the main thing that discourages 4e 3pps is not the lack of an SRD or the OGL, its the fact of how good, and therefore how widely used, the DDI tools are.
Without the ability for 3pp content to be added to the compendium, character builder and monster builder, people are less likely to buy such content I imagine.
|
|
So yeah, there's got to be some difference that makes a system that's younger by a year have over twice as many 3PP products than 4e.TBH I think the main thing that discourages 4e 3pps is not the lack of an SRD or the OGL, its the fact of how good, and therefore how widely used, the DDI tools are.
Without the ability for 3pp content to be added to the compendium, character builder and monster builder, people are less likely to buy such content I imagine.
I think it's a sum of several factors:
- DDI
- GSL vs. OGL
- PF being an extension of 3.5 is easier to learn than 4E, meaning you can just convert your old products
- Paizo's support for 3PPs
I think it's a sum of several factors:- DDI
- GSL vs. OGL
- PF being an extension of 3.5 is easier to learn than 4E, meaning you can just convert your old products
- Paizo's support for 3PPs
In all likelihood, though I think the DDI element really needs to be emphasized as it was a real game changer. I think there was a tendency among 3PPs to go ahead with all sorts of material that just does not fly with the existence of the DDI - and then to wonder why the material was not getting much support.
Basically a tendency to try and give us 'player options' (classes, feats, magic weapons). This is just about the worst avenue to pursue with 4E because its the area least compatible with the DDI and therefore most likely to be rejected as being to difficult for 4E players and DMs to utilize.
On the other hand a campaign world is not as hard for 4E players to use and an AP or adventure, especially one that shows off 4E strengths but is time consuming to design would work well. So a higher level muder mystery that is complicated by palace intrigues with lots of interesting skill challenges, colourful NPCs, and fascinating twists and turns to the plot could be an excellent adventure...and WotC ain't been doing anything like that so no fear of competition from them here.
|
|
an AP or adventure, especially one that shows off 4E strengths but is time consuming to design would work well. So a higher level muder mystery that is complicated by palace intrigues with lots of interesting skill challenges, colourful NPCs, and fascinating twists and turns to the plot could be an excellent adventure...and WotC ain't been doing anything like that so no fear of competition from them here.
Which ironically brings us back to potentially the reason why the OP started this thread :)
Which ironically brings us back to potentially the reason why the OP started this thread :)
Speaking of the OP, I like that he starts with "Now that the edition wars are over..." and kicked off seven pages of edition warring. :)
I've only kept a cursory eye on this topic, and have nothing to say to the edition wars, except to say I didn't like 4E at all - not my cuppa.
It was bound to happen eventually. Most 4E threads tend to recycle themselves if they are allowed to go on long enough
On the note of 3PPs, the biggest difference between WOTC and Paizo is where the rule set itself fits into their overall plan. Paizo sees the actual rules as a necessary side product to support their main product, the APs, adventures, and now novels, written for their world. WOTC relies almost entirely on the actual ruleset to make money, virtually ignoring campaign settings, adventures, and any other "flavor" material that would only appeal to a smaller crowd.
What this means for 3PPs is that working with Pathfinder is remarkably easy, as Paizo doesn't really care if people use the base Pathfinder rules or how people use it as long they give proper credit to Paizo. This flexibility makes it attractive to both 3PPs and Paizo itself. 4E, on the other hand, because of the prevalence of DDI and the lack of an OGL, is much harder to work with. Pretty much any playing with the ruleset itself is completely out as most players will completely ignore it even if WOTC allows it to a certain extent, and writing adventures in a setting with less set guidelines can be freeing in some ways, but make the process much, much harder in others. Also, with most 4E players on DDI, and no help from WOTC, there really isn't a way to market any such adventures or campaign settings that might be created to 4E players. The fact that Enworld is so prominent in their success highlights the lack of others who have successfully found a way to make it profitable. Under those conditions, I can understand why most 3PPs would prefer to work with Pathfinder; there is more options of what they can do, and still make money, and they get a good boost from Paizo in getting players aware of their product.
Going into the future, Paizo's model is going to do a lot better than WOTC's. WOTC may be doing what worked in the past, but in the internet age with so many other choices out there, it isn't going to work nearly as well. They can't just sit back and rely on word of mouth to support the game; they are going to have to learn actual advertising skills, something neither they nor Hasbro has ever really had to do before. They are going to have to go the customer themselves since they can't rely on third party material or a hyper positive word of mouth campaign to do it for them.
On the other hand a campaign world is not as hard for 4E players to use and an AP or adventure
I think this might also be a factor. For a DM, it's much, much easier to convert a 3.5 or PF adventure to 4e than it would be the other way around. Its so easy that you can adapt most things on the fly, and with a little prep time, as also shown by Scott Betts stuff and others, the results are truly amazing, and 4e groups playing a paizo AP can get the best of both worlds.
Going into the future, Paizo's model is going to do a lot better than WOTC's. WOTC may be doing what worked in the past, but in the internet age with so many other choices out there, it isn't going to work nearly as well....
I think its more the other way around. More and more, you see fan-made adventures that eclipse anything that can be bought, and with the internet, anyone can download a pdf for free.
This makes it harder to sell pure fluff materials, while a steady income from DDI in addition to any new rulebooks provides a solid base.
Writing an adventure is much easier as designing new rule mechanics from scratch, which is one reason why the basic ruleset of 3.5 despite its many glaring flaws is still sold today, although with fixes and band-aids provided by Paizo.
And Paizo starts running into the same problem than TSR and WotC did/do every 5-10 years...after a few supplements, the bases are covered, and while you can still release great stuff, it won't have the larger appeal of the 'obvious choices' for most. If you have the wizard, sorcerer, bard, witch, summoner and magus, ..... it's much harder to create a new caster or caster-ish class that is interesting but different enough from existing options for people to buy a book for it. I'm looking forward to how Paizo will solve this.
I would hope by understanding that as long they can pay the bills, they don't need to become the new WOTC, or even try to do so. I don't see Paizo having that many problems because the rule set isn't their bread and butter. If the sales of the core rule set eventually slow down, but their adventures and APs keep selling, they should be fine.
That is a big difference between WOTC and Paizo. WOTC has effectively gambled on a single product line, the core ruleset for 4E, with only minimal support to anything else, so if that fails, they have nothing to fall back on. Paizo has multiple product lines, all of which are of good quality; if anything the generic rulebooks are already the weakest line of the bunch and not the ultimate focus, so a slight lag in sales of those books wouldn't automatically doom the company. The APs and adventures may not themselves grab a huge market, but there will always be a market for well made adventures, campaigns, and campaign settings, as not everyone has time to write their own. Also, there are plenty of rules and weak points left over from 3.5 that could use a good once over, and plenty of areas to develop beyond the pure mechanics of the PCs.
In short, they can continue to do what they are already doing, focusing on one or two quality products, with enough support products to maintain their primary lines, and let the market decide how big they ultimately get.
It comes down to expectations. For pretty much any other gaming company, the success that WOTC has had with 4E and DDI would be the pinnacle of what they could hope to achieve. For WOTC, it's barely enough to pay the bills. In order to make the profits that are expected from a leading brand name, they are going to have to do more than rest on their laurels, and expect DDI to continue to support an aging system that increasingly gets little to no attention from anyone not actually playing it, due to it's age as much as any other factor. By choosing to use DDI as a model, they have effectively declared they no longer need the rest of the industry to help them advertise and sustain their game; their marketing and advertising skills have yet to catch up with that bold claim. They have a solid product, but without more positive publicity to make people notice, it's not going to do them any good. Again, for any other company, their current position would be just fine, but WOTC and Hasbro have come to require more from their products than what 4E is currently able to give them.
Also, with most 4E players on DDI, and no help from WOTC, there really isn't a way to market any such adventures or campaign settings that might be created to 4E players.
Use Enworld and the WotC threads themselves, maybe take out an ad in Kobold Quarterly. Provide free copies to some of the bigger name 4E players/DMs like the guy that does Sly Flourish and Penny Arcade in the hopes that they will like what they see and give you a plug.
and writing adventures in a setting with less set guidelines can be freeing in some ways, but make the process much, much harder in others.
Conceptually it should be no harder then doing adventures for 1st or 2nd. Both of those systems also ran on DM Fiat. 4E is a little easier in some ways because its DM fiat with guidelines in the background (your numbers should look like this at this level...if they deviate significantly there may be a problem).
Now there are elements that are reasonably hard. Designing a good skill challenge can be tricky, significant encounters should generally have lots of interesting moving parts for the players to interact with and adventure design in general has had the bar very much raised...if you want to make a name for yourself as a publisher of adventures you need to make sure you stuff is top notch. So plot, NPCs etc. need to really be up to snuff.
Still...all of this is why there is money to be made here.
Jeremy, the problem is not many 3PPs are in a postion to be able to consistently crank out the quality of adventures that people would demand. Paizo and only a handful of others have the resources to do so, and they can benefit more from actively working with each other than with a company that seems content to ride their success without paying attention to what anyone else may be doing. It isn't that 4E adventures would be that much harder to make, it's that the lack of official support from it's creator tends to be a problem when many other companies are much more willing to be supportive of such complimentary efforts.
Also, there are plenty of rules and weak points left over from 3.5 that could use a good once over, and plenty of areas to develop beyond the pure mechanics of the PCs.
But they can't fix 3.5. If they do, it's no longer 3.5 but a completely new ruleset.
It comes down to expectations. For pretty much any other gaming company, the success that WOTC has had with 4E and DDI would be the pinnacle of what they could hope to achieve. For WOTC, it's barely enough to pay the bills. In order to make the profits that are expected from a leading brand name, they are going to have to do more than rest on their laurels, and expect DDI to continue to support an aging system that increasingly gets little to no attention from anyone not actually playing it, due to it's age as much as any other factor.
Oh, if 4E is 'an aging system', what is 3.5/PF?
Also, they seem to have done quite well with the Dark Sun stuff, and the Neverwinter Campaign Guide is backed by a series of Salvatore books and a new computer rpg, so that looks very promising.
By choosing to use DDI as a model, they have effectively declared they no longer need the rest of the industry to help them advertise and sustain their game; their marketing and advertising skills have yet to catch up with that bold claim. They have a solid product, but without more positive publicity to make people notice, it's not going to do them any good. Again, for any other company, their current position would be just fine, but WOTC and Hasbro have come to require more from their products than what 4E is currently able to give them.
I'm sorry, but what?
Dungeons & Dragons is a brand known far beyond TTRPGs, which cannot be said for Pathfinder. Even with the current pathfinder upswing, it's D&D who brings new players to the game, simply because they have successfully branched out into novels and computer games.
I would hope by understanding that as long they can pay the bills, they don't need to become the new WOTC, or even try to do so. I don't see Paizo having that many problems because the rule set isn't their bread and butter. If the sales of the core rule set eventually slow down, but their adventures and APs keep selling, they should be fine.
Your right, and as time passes they'll explore more parts of Golarion. They put out Setting-specific books like the Forgotten Realms and carry one for a few more years. But when the breakage comes (and it will) they'll need to do something new. It's not a marketing ploy, it's fact. So the question is, what? Maybe expand on their universe, maybe expand to different systems, maybe expand to different Genres (like Sci-fi for example or historic military). But they'll need to do something in the long run.
That is a big difference between WOTC and Paizo. WOTC has effectively gambled on a single product line, the core ruleset for 4E, with only minimal support to anything else, so if that fails, they have nothing to fall back on. Paizo has multiple product lines, all of which are of good quality; if anything the generic rulebooks are already the weakest line of the bunch and not the ultimate focus, so a slight lag in sales of those books wouldn't automatically doom the company. The APs and adventures may not themselves grab a huge market, but there will always be a market for well made adventures, campaigns, and campaign settings, as not everyone has time to write their own.
Lets see, 4E core rules...check. Essentials for easy transistion to 4E...check. Multiple adventure paths....check. Alternative settings to the Point of Light setting....Check. Board Games (3 of them so far that all help introduce people into the game)....check. Novel line of 4 separate settings.....check. Miniature line (though now discontinued, ran for a solid 2 1/2 years under 4E and now unde Heroescape)....check. Missing anything? Oh yea, multiple video games due soon (or already out)....check. So while some people may not like the above mentioned products, they are there other avenues that WotC and D&D specifically persue. Not to mention WotC does all the Magic the Gathering stuff as well and that's selling fairly well, or so I happen to believe.
Also, there are plenty of rules and weak points left over from 3.5 that could use a good once over, and plenty of areas to develop beyond the pure mechanics of the PCs.
You sure do have that right. Alternate sub-systems is going to be needed in the future to support a change of pace if they want to keep things going IMO.
But they can't fix 3.5. If they do, it's no longer 3.5 but a completely new ruleset.
They don't have to fix it, cleaning it up and expanding upon that base is perfectly viable. Rules for monster races, kingdom building, rules for building your own lair/tower/castle/fort/whatever. Pre built high level NPCs. Advice for how to speed up high level play. Alternate subsystems like the Words of Power. More things like the chase and haunt rules. There is plenty of material that could be put out, and as long as it's a good quality, people won't tired of it.
Oh, if 4E is 'an aging system', what is 3.5/PF?
Also, they seem to have done quite well with the Dark Sun stuff, and the Neverwinter Campaign Guide is backed by a series of Salvatore books and a new computer rpg, so that looks very promising.
The difference between 4E and 3.5/PF is that one is getting visible continued support from not just the one company, but a whole slew of companies. The new computer game, and the new Salvatore books are a good start for 4E, but need to be expanded upon if they wish to have continued success.
Dungeons & Dragons is a brand known far beyond TTRPGs, which cannot be said for Pathfinder. Even with the current pathfinder upswing, it's D&D who brings new players to the game, simply because they have successfully branched out into novels and computer games.
Even the best brand names need to be supported. All those computer games you mention were for earlier versions of the brand name, so provide only limited help to 4E. D&D may be what brings new players into the game in many cases, but that's because up to this point, most people were playing D&D, and the existing player base is what brings most new people into the game. If most existing players are playing something other than 4E, which is starting to be the case, than 4E can't rely on a boost from existing players, even if many of those players still consider themselves to be playing D&D while playing Pathfinder.
It's a solid brand name, but not so solid anymore that WOTC can sit back and expect people to be knocking on the door, begging to be allowed to have a barely noticable role in it's development and sustainment. They are going to have to get more aggressive about making people want to be a part of it somehow, instead of the current attitude of expecting customers and 3PPs to jump on board just because its D&D. SOE went through the same cycle and got burnt by something similar with the whole Star Wars Galaxy debacle. The reason that 3.5 and all it's derivatives are still so popular is because so many people are out there supporting them, touting them, and doing everything they can to make sure that as many people as possible know that it's still there, it's still supported, and it's only getting better. I see some fan based stuff like that for 4E, but nothing official enough or visible enough to really grab people's attention when it's already drifted on to something else.
But they can't fix 3.5. If they do, it's no longer 3.5 but a completely new ruleset.They don't have to fix it, cleaning it up and expanding upon that base is perfectly viable. Rules for monster races, kingdom building, rules for building your own lair/tower/castle/fort/whatever. Pre built high level NPCs. Advice for how to speed up high level play. Alternate subsystems like the Words of Power. More things like the chase and haunt rules. There is plenty of material that could be put out, and as long as it's a good quality, people won't tired of it.
They do. And will.
The difference between 4E and 3.5/PF is that one is getting visible continued support from not just the one company, but a whole slew of companies. The new computer game, and the new Salvatore books are a good start for 4E, but need to be expanded upon if they wish to have continued success.
Even the best brand names need to be supported. All those computer games you mention were for earlier versions of the brand name, so provide only limited help to 4E. D&D may be what brings new players into the game in many cases, but that's because up to this point, most people were playing D&D, and the existing player base is what brings most new people into the game. If most existing players are playing something other than 4E, which is starting to be the case, than 4E can't rely on a boost from existing players, even if many of those players still consider themselves to be playing D&D while playing...
Your vision is skewed. One brand gets additional support from other players in the niche market they populate, while the other releases novels that get on the NY Times bestseller list and computer/console games that sell millions. And editions only matter for people already in the game.
They are going to have to get more aggressive about making people want to be a part of it somehow, instead of the current attitude of expecting customers and 3PPs to jump on board just because its D&D.
But D&D is the best-selling tabletop role playing game.
SOE went through the same cycle and got burnt by something similar with the whole Star Wars Galaxy debacle.
SWG was a disaster before the relaunch, too, otherwise they wouldn't have had to do a relaunch. But people angry at the relaunch just paint their memories golden :)
I see some fan based stuff like that for 4E, but nothing official enough or visible enough to really grab people's attention when it's already drifted on to something else.
Your experience differs from mine. Essentials brought a lot of oldschool players on-board with 4e, and stuff like fourthcore is a direct result of that.
Your right, and as time passes they'll explore more parts of Golarion. They put out Setting-specific books like the Forgotten Realms and carry one for a few more years. But when the breakage comes (and it will) they'll need to do something new. It's not a marketing ploy, it's fact. So the question is, what? Maybe expand on their universe, maybe expand to different systems, maybe expand to different Genres (like Sci-fi for example or historic military). But they'll need to do something in the long run.
Which is more than what WOTC has to work with for 4E right now without a major shift in focus. They already have enough races, feats, and classes to saturate the need for more, and the only major campaign setting they have is one that is, to put it politely, rather polarizing in its popularity, especially after the spell plague. This isn't to say that WOTC can't change focus, just that Paizo is in as good or better of a position as WOTC is in this regard.
Lets see, 4E core rules...check. Essentials for easy transistion to 4E...check. Multiple adventure paths....check. Alternative settings to the Point of Light setting....Check. Board Games (3 of them so far that all help introduce people into the game)....check. Novel line of 4 separate settings.....check. Miniature line (though now discontinued, ran for a solid 2 1/2 years under 4E and now unde Heroescape)....check. Missing anything? Oh yea, multiple video games due soon (or already out)....check. So while some people may not like the above mentioned products, they are there other avenues that WotC and D&D specifically persue. Not to mention WotC does all the Magic the Gathering stuff as well and that's selling fairly well, or so I happen to believe.
First off, Magic is something completely separate, and the only reason it is worth considering is that they expect 4E to automatically sell as well as Magic does with the same amount of minimal effort, which is not a reasonable expectation. Second, the adventures and boardgames from what I have seen have gotten at best mediocre reviews over all, and the miniatures for most of the 4E run have had the same difficulty, so while it is clear they are pursuing other lines, it is equally clear that those lines probably haven't gotten the support they need to be truly effective. Multiple video games coming soon means help for the future, but until they actually are released, it's pure speculation on how much effect they will actually have. The most problematic aspect of all of them is that beyond Essentials and the core rules themselves, most people don't know about any of these things because everyone in their personal group tuned out a long time ago, and seeing a new 4E product on the shelf at this point isn't going to help because they probably ignore the entire 4E shelf out of habit.
Which is more than what WOTC has to work with for 4E right now without a major shift in focus. They already have enough races, feats, and classes to saturate the need for more, and the only major campaign setting they have is one that is, to put it politely, rather polarizing in its popularity, especially after the spell plague. This isn't to say that WOTC can't change focus, just that Paizo is in as good or better of a position as WOTC is in this regard.
What? FR, Eberron and Dark Sun are three major campaign settings, and 'a half' with all the planescape-y stuff from Manual of the Planes/Plane Above/Plane Below. That's in addition to the default setting of Nentir Vale (which sucks, yes, but it's also a setting).
Your vision is skewed. One brand gets additional support from other players in the niche market they populate, while the other releases novels that get on the NY Times bestseller list and computer/console games that sell millions. And editions only matter for people already in the game.
What good does getting mentioned in the NY Times or selling computer/console games automatically do to get more people playing? Just because someone reads a novel or plays a computer game doesn't mean they are going to translate that into picking up dice and buying a rule book/DDI subscription. You are right is that editions technically only matter to those already playing, but you are a new player and everyone in your neighborhood is playing Pathfinder or GURPS or SWSE instead of 4E, guess which system you're likely going to invest in? It probably going to be the system that others are already playing. If you're a brave soul, you might try to start your own group, but that takes a level of commitment you may not be comfortable with.
I don't understand why this thread is still going. It was answered in the SECOND POST, why 7 pages of discussion after that?
... you are a new player and everyone in your neighborhood is playing Pathfinder or GURPS or SWSE instead of 4E, guess which system you're likely going to invest in?
You forget that 4e is still the best-selling ttrpg.
What? FR, Eberron and Dark Sun are three major campaign settings, and 'a half' with all the planescape-y stuff from Manual of the Planes/Plane Above/Plane Below. That's in addition to the default setting of Nentir Vale (which sucks, yes, but it's also a setting).
Unless something major has changed, Eberron and from what I know about Dark Sun are both niche campaign settings not likely to appeal to a broad audience. FR is, and has always been for as long as I've known about it, a very polarizing setting in that you either love it or hate it, not very helpful when trying to capture, or in many cases recapture, your audience. As for Nentir Vale, I've had it described to me as their official version of a homebrew setting, and that wasn't meant in a positive light. So they have material to work with, but nothing likely to be an attention getter.