I'm convinced that anything from Hasbro won't be OGL and will be overly-draconian in trying to protect it's IP.
That makes them a non-competitor and non-worry to Paizo in my opinion.
Not to mention you'll likely see the same books yet again:
Manual of the Planes
Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting
Draconomicon
Etc...Yep. Which is to say, they aren't selling new stories & ideas (like they should be), but a new rules system. Most people don't place "Great Rules" as a top priority (Otherwise Hero Games would be in the top 3, IMO), just "Functional/Workable Rules" and a "Great Concept" (or story/'feel'/dynamism/etc).
Rehashing old concepts, without new story content/creativity, is what's killing WotC. A large portion of their latest better selling items have their non-mechanical roots in Greenwood's & Gygax's work decades ago (Neverwinter/Tomb of Horrors/et al).
Do you think people were drawn to the Firefly/Serenity RPG because of its great rules? Or because of Whedon's work?
I've never heard Shadowrun praised for its better rules system, though I have met a person who converted Shadowrun to run on 3.x DnD.
I also hear praise for systems that have sheared away many of the rules and made their worlds/games more freeform.Monte Cook is WotC's Whedon, brought in to inject new 'creative/campaign' life into the DnD line. I doubt he's there to inject 'new rules', except as they accentuate new creations. His 3.0 rules amplified the feel already in place, perhaps reflecting the shift from Tolkien fantasy to Feist/Salvatore fantasy (both based on DnD, both more action driven).
4.0 deviated from that in a misinterpretation that 'rules are primary', 'DnD has no contenders', 'locking out 3rd parties will amplify OUR customer base' and 'abandoning the core mythos is fine'.
You do realize that you just argued that D&D should come up with new mythos but shouldn't abandon old mythos, right?
Should they create new storylines in relation to old mythos or just run the same old mythos over and over?
Clearly, Wizards of the Coast will announce that 5e will really be 3.75e, all the same 3.5 OGL but with the direction they were going in Tome of Battle and overshot with 4e. All the rules will be the same but everyone will have caster like powers. They will also accept trades of 4e books for credit against new 3.75e books. And double credit for Pathfinder books. Which they will then use to build a giant paper mache dungeon at their HQ in Seattle that gamers will be invited to play games in. Paizo will weep gently at Wizards' brilliant plan and shut down Pathfinder as penance.
Senior Software Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. We need some some sort of egg-laying moo-pig creature.
That's in the Tome of Horrors, right? If not, clearly we need another edition.
I didn't ever, ever think I would stop playing D&D, or Greyhawk. Both of those had been the core of my campaign - a single, ongoing campaign - for thirty years. But I did. Not because 4e was a bad game (I played it, ok, wasn't my style of game but had some excellent mechanics and was very streamlined and sophisticated in parts), but because with its introduction I had to consider ditching everything I'd purchased in 30 years. I had a ton of great 3e products - many Necromancer Games, Monte Cook, DCC, lot of 3PP stuff generally, and, of course, a mountain of Dungeon magazine scenarios - that I wanted to run, that I enjoyed contemplating working into my campaign. But I didn't want to spend ages converting (and, besides, Wizards were pretty clear that you couldn't upgrade or convert); the whole reason I bought them was because I no longer have the time to design my own stuff. Pathfinder was my Holy Grail for resurrecting my campaign, and Golarion was the brave new world I could planeshift some key npcs into.
So, I'm really fascinated to see what Wizards can do, because I think I represent a large proportion of what went wrong for them. I'm fascinated by their recent pronouncement that they intend to win back players of all previous versions (and I think that comment is going to be key to predicting what they'll attempt). But they can't win me back unless they go back to producing material that is compatible, easily, with the enormous quantity of material I have for 1-3 edition. And if they do that they'll both mystify and alienate the new gamers they've won with 4e. And let's not pretend that's an insignificant amount. More to the point, if they produce an OGL compatible game, they'll risk those new gamers thinking, hey, this is cool, and, oh, so is this stuff produced by Frog God, and JBE, and Supergenius, etc, and then heading over the hill to potentially better material. Whatever they do, and in whatever direction Monte can point them, is going to be very interesting.
From my point of view, just about the only thing they could do that would have me going back would be to start supporting Pathfinder. If they produced a Pathfinder compatible Greyhawk setting I'd probably bite their hand off. That would grow the market, because I'd still find the money for my Paizo fix.
Oh, and none of that digital rubbish, thank you very much. If I can't drop it on my foot and go ouch, I don't want it.
|
Just my .02c, (Oh BTW first post)
We wanted a "gritty, realistic" feel to our games. pathfinder has us brushing the dusts off our clothes after each game.
Firstly welcome to the forums!
Interesting you would call D&D/PF gritty.
I would suggest that no version of D&D or PF is 'gritty', slightly grubby may be - each iteration got more heroic in nature. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (either 1e or 2e) would be worth a look if gritty is what you are after. Losing a hand during the game, that is gritty! We had a 2H-sword wielder lose a hand and go insane in one 2e WHFRP session. Needless to say he was looking to sell a slightly used 2H after that session.
+0.02c
Beef Bacon!I don't know... bacon still comes from pigs.If cows laid eggs, they would be the best animal ever.
No. We need some some sort of egg-laying moo-pig creature.
Nah. I can mostly do without pig. Nothing religious or anything, I just prefer another creature.
Now, if scientists ever breed a lactating chicken.....
A chicken with lactose-free milk....
Hm... I have a new plan for world domination!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. We need some some sort of egg-laying moo-pig creature.That's in the Tome of Horrors, right? If not, clearly we need another edition.
What isn't in the TOHC? It even contains itself! I'm sure it has such a creature. Probably a variant chimera. (In both the mystical and the scientific senses of the word)
Oh, and none of that digital rubbish, thank you very much. If I can't drop it on my foot and go ouch, I don't want it.
Actually, digital is great. A splendid addition to print. It's just not a replacement.
That's why Paizo rules: They give us both.
I guess once tablet computers become wide-spread enough to make enough people eschew paper books, they might change, but we'll have to how fast that will happen.
What isn't in the TOHC? It even contains itself! I'm sure it has such a creature. Probably a variant chimera. (In both the mystical and the scientific senses of the word)No. We need some some sort of egg-laying moo-pig creature.That's in the Tome of Horrors, right? If not, clearly we need another edition.
That's what the old Amalgam template in the Advanced Bestiary used to be for. If it wasn't combined already make with legitimized DM Fait.
Personally I loved the Miniature Tarrasque. Applying that templet left it at CR 10 and like 5 feet of movement if it didn't charge. I debated putting one into an adventure. At that CR it wasn't a really threat on its own but if it ever caught the PCs dithering and taking to long it'd kill-um. It's upside was that it'd keep after PCs because there is absolutely no way to kill it at that level.
If you sleep, Mini-T will catch you.
What isn't in the TOHC? It even contains itself! I'm sure it has such a creature. Probably a variant chimera. (In both the mystical and the scientific senses of the word)No. We need some some sort of egg-laying moo-pig creature.That's in the Tome of Horrors, right? If not, clearly we need another edition.That's what the old Amalgam template in the Advanced Bestiary used to be for. If it wasn't combined already make with legitimized DM Fait.
Personally I loved the Miniature Tarrasque. Applying that templet left it at CR 10 and like 5 feet of movement if it didn't charge. I debated putting one into an adventure. At that CR it wasn't a really threat on its own but if it ever caught the PCs dithering and taking to long it'd kill-um. It's upside was that it'd keep after PCs because there is absolutely no way to kill it at that level.
If you sleep, Mini-T will catch you.
That's exactly what the Abomination template in The Tome of Horrors Complete is for as well. ;)
I'm convinced that anything from Hasbro won't be OGL and will be overly-draconian in trying to protect it's IP.
That makes them a non-competitor and non-worry to Paizo in my opinion.
Not to mention you'll likely see the same books yet again:
Manual of the Planes
Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting
Draconomicon
Etc...Yep. Which is to say, they aren't selling new stories & ideas (like they should be), but a new rules system. Most people don't place "Great Rules" as a top priority (Otherwise Hero Games would be in the top 3, IMO), just "Functional/Workable Rules" and a "Great Concept" (or story/'feel'/dynamism/etc).
Rehashing old concepts, without new story content/creativity, is what's killing WotC. A large portion of their latest better selling items have their non-mechanical roots in Greenwood's & Gygax's work decades ago (Neverwinter/Tomb of Horrors/et al).
Do you think people were drawn to the Firefly/Serenity RPG because of its great rules? Or because of Whedon's work?
I've never heard Shadowrun praised for its better rules system, though I have met a person who converted Shadowrun to run on 3.x DnD.
I also hear praise for systems that have sheared away many of the rules and made their worlds/games more freeform.Monte Cook is WotC's Whedon, brought in to inject new 'creative/campaign' life into the DnD line. I doubt he's there to inject 'new rules', except as they accentuate new creations. His 3.0 rules amplified the feel already in place, perhaps reflecting the shift from Tolkien fantasy to Feist/Salvatore fantasy (both based on DnD, both more action driven).
4.0 deviated from that in a misinterpretation that 'rules are primary', 'DnD has no contenders', 'locking out 3rd parties will amplify OUR customer base' and 'abandoning the core mythos is fine'.You do realize that you just argued that D&D should come up with new mythos but shouldn't abandon old mythos, right?
Should they create new...
Did I? Hmm... maybe?
I meant 'shouldn't HAVE abandoned old mythos'.I thought I said they'd abandoned the old mythos, now are trying to reclaim it with rehashed versions, and are failing because the old mythos has little appeal to their new set of gamers. (And yes, they did retain some old gamers, but gamers willing to move on from previous mythoses (does that work?).)
Example, Mordenkainen's in a recent title, when Greyhawk doesn't even exist. Really? What's the point? Who does that target?
So, I'm pro 'old mythos' (yay, Mordenkainen lives!) but aren't necessarily recommending that DnD return to it because they're just screwing it up (as evidenced from module quality). But that could be a 4.0 presentation style issue, as I dislike (okay, despise) the normal module layouts they use and the lack of creativity they show. (Exceptions exist, but even these seem hampered.)
I do think DnD needs a strong mythos, one that appeals to their 'new' customer base as well as their 'old' customer base. I'm against the rehashing, as it's weak story-telling/mythos development. They need SOMETHING else, tied to the old stuff or not, neither banking on 'freshness' (no points there) nor on 'nostalgia' (no points with current customers), but on its own intrinsic worth.
Many of the classic modules didn't need to be run in Greyhawk to function well, nor did most have any ties to core Greyhawk personalities or timelines. In fact, Gygax intentionally left Greyhawk 'blurry' so as to allow DMs to utilize it as their own.
If Monte pulls in a lot of his homebrew, and gathers a strong DM squad to assist (ala Paizo), it'd likely make for powerful material, no matter which game system or campaign world/cosmology he sets it in.
He wouldn't need to change 4.0 to 5.0, nor bring back or avoid bringing back classic elements. Those choices would be secondary, depending on how they accentuated the core. (Or didn't accentuate, as current module designs go, and should go...away)
I'd love to see Greyhawk return, but the only people I see capable of pulling that off (Mona & Jacobs) have their hands full at the moment.
So, to DnD planners eavesdropping, bringing back the old mythos won't bring me back with it, but wondrous material would. A new mythos won't keep me away from such wondrous material either.
So WotC/Hasbro, back Monte's play, he knows the RPG industry/customers as well as anybody, and better than anybody you've got...
Edit: And I suppose this goes back to the crunch/fluff debate.
The R&D department, from anecdotes I've heard/read, worked on crunch. I don't need THAT much crunch. Who does? It works for MtG, not for RPGs. There's been a recent shift to fluff, but they still haven't fully adjusted (and which may be why we're seeing a pause in production).
I do think DnD needs a strong mythos, one that appeals to their 'new' customer base as well as their 'old' customer base. I'm against the rehashing, as it's weak story-telling/mythos development. They need SOMETHING else, tied to the old stuff or not, neither banking on 'freshness' (no points there) nor on 'nostalgia' (no points with current customers), but on its own intrinsic worth.
I've heard similar comments to this before - suggestions that the current batch of D&D players would be more interested in new lore rather than going back to reimagine older D&D lore. In my opinion, it wasn't supported by a recent survey on the D&D site. Admittedly the options were skewed in that there were many 'XXX revisited' options and further it isnt a poll designed to answer this specific question. Nonetheless, product tied to previous work seemed to be clearly more popular than a desire that they produce material which is more generic/theme based.
Dragonlance revisited 13.4%
Ravenloft revisited 8.8%
Everything on this list! 7.9%
Planescape revisited 7.7%
Greyhawk revisited 7.3%
Spelljammer revisited 6.7%
Eberron revisited 6.2%
War campaigns 5.6%
Nautical campaigns 5.2%
Gods and primordials 4.7%
Dark Sun revisited 4.5%
The Feywild 4.4%
Mystara revisited 4.1%
Demons and devils 3.1%
Secrets and intrigue 3.0%
Underdark campaigns 2.9%
Constructs and artifice 2.4%
Nothing on this list! 1.1%
Skullduggery 0.9
I also like how Paizo is updating little niggling rules like Stealth and fine-tuning them along with the quick release of errata (though they're moving kind of slow on some major errors in UC). Now if Paizo does for Grappling what it is doing for stealth right now, I'll be ecstatic. Refine grappling, fine tune it, and have all the rules in one single cohesive document covering everything from monster grappling to spellcasting while grappled for reference. That would be awesome.
|
|
I also like how Paizo is updating little niggling rules like Stealth and fine-tuning them along with the quick release of errata (though they're moving kind of slow on some major errors in UC). Now if Paizo does for Grappling what it is doing for stealth right now, I'll be ecstatic. Refine grappling, fine tune it, and have all the rules in one single cohesive document covering everything from monster grappling to spellcasting while grappled for reference. That would be awesome.
Keep going the way they are going and crossing all the T's and dotting all the I's PF games won't need a GM anymore, just an iPhone app...
Oh, and none of that digital rubbish, thank you very much. If I can't drop it on my foot and go ouch, I don't want it.Actually, digital is great. A splendid addition to print. It's just not a replacement.
That's why Paizo rules: They give us both.
I guess once tablet computers become wide-spread enough to make enough people eschew paper books, they might change, but we'll have to how fast that will happen.
I agree - pdfs can be great, but only if I can print them out, or portions of them. I spend my working day using my pc and tablet, which is effectively like staring at a lamp for 8 hours, and is something I want to get away from at the gaming table.
What I really meant by digital though was a model that demanded I subscribe to online content in order to obtain material that I should be able to look up in a rulebook whenever I like. Downloadable extra content is awesome, but I want that to be supplemental, not required.
Personally, I was more distraught by changes in the rules from 3.5E to 4E than by changes in the fluff, though the latter certainly didn't help. By corollary, I would be especially attracted to 5E if they switched to more simulationist rules, though traditional rules conventions also count for something. Whether they can do this with the modular approach remains to be seen, but if the Legends & Lore articles are anything to go by, they may stand a chance.
Oh, and none of that digital rubbish, thank you very much. If I can't drop it on my foot and go ouch, I don't want it.Actually, digital is great. A splendid addition to print. It's just not a replacement.
That's why Paizo rules: They give us both.
I guess once tablet computers become wide-spread enough to make enough people eschew paper books, they might change, but we'll have to how fast that will happen.
Even once tablets become wide spread enough I'm still going to prefer my dead tree media for home games... I do admit to having bought myself an el-cheapon laptop just for putting all my paizo pdfs on it.
I guess I'm a self confessed bibliophile... there is something about having a book in my hands. "shrug"
I don't see a D&D 5e for another 5 years personally; the 4e came out in 2008... would WotC really release a 5th edition this early ? A revision, yes, but not a fully-revamped edition.
The way I see it, Paizo and Pathfinder will probably become their own system and keep adding new content for their system just like they usually do, with the occasional revisions. The D20 system is still widely used, Pathfinder just added its own touch to it.
I'm not anticipating really the arrival of a 5e to be honest, simply because the 4e just left a sour taste in my mouth. I just don't like the new system... at all. I can only imagine the worst for a 5e.
|
|
Paizo could cleverly and quite innovatively keep our dollars coming their way for future Pathfinder products by making them high-quality, by listening to their fanbase, by putting out a huge array of products, by. . .hmmm, wait a minute, Paizo's somehow already figured out their future success plan, and have been doing it for years! darn those buzzards are sneaky!
...lots of stuff...
This is all a question of shields, isn't it? You cut the head off a gorgon (or is it 'medusa' in your part of existence?) with the assistance of a polished shield so you don't look at it directly; then you mount aforementioned head bang in the centre of aforementioned shield and prance around petrifying enemies with it before establishing a business selling 'lifelike garden ornaments'. Result: Profit. (Princesses chained to rocks considered optional extras.)
Mmmm, that's how the hero business works these days, am I right?Anyway, faces...
<wanders off mumbling vaguely>
I also like how Paizo is updating little niggling rules like Stealth and fine-tuning them along with the quick release of errata
What Paizo are you keeping up with?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also like how Paizo is updating little niggling rules like Stealth and fine-tuning them along with the quick release of errataWhat Paizo are you keeping up with?
There's a shadow Paizo beneath the outer one... fun people only. Sorry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a shadow Paizo beneath the outer one... fun people only. Sorry.
<snicker>
|
I also like how Paizo is updating little niggling rules like Stealth and fine-tuning them along with the quick release of errata (though they're moving kind of slow on some major errors in UC). Now if Paizo does for Grappling what it is doing for stealth right now, I'll be ecstatic. Refine grappling, fine tune it, and have all the rules in one single cohesive document covering everything from monster grappling to spellcasting while grappled for reference. That would be awesome.
What the heck is wrong with the grapple rules as they are now? Combat maneuver system is awesome, easy to use and really streamlined. You roll a single die. Wham.
I also like how Paizo is updating little niggling rules like Stealth and fine-tuning them along with the quick release of errata (though they're moving kind of slow on some major errors in UC). Now if Paizo does for Grappling what it is doing for stealth right now, I'll be ecstatic. Refine grappling, fine tune it, and have all the rules in one single cohesive document covering everything from monster grappling to spellcasting while grappled for reference. That would be awesome.What the heck is wrong with the grapple rules as they are now? Combat maneuver system is awesome, easy to use and really streamlined. You roll a single die. Wham.
Because the penalties and such for grapple are in two sections of the Core book and they are somewhat vague, if not contradictory about those penalties. Aside from that, grapple works fine.
What the heck is wrong with the grapple rules as they are now? Combat maneuver system is awesome, easy to use and really streamlined. You roll a single die. Wham.
Because the penalties and such for grapple are in two sections of the Core book and they are somewhat vague, if not contradictory about those penalties. Aside from that, grapple works fine.
You are restrained by a creature, trap, or effect.You cannot move, and take a -4 Dex penalty.
You take -2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuvers, except grapple.
You can only use one hand, and cannot make attacks of opportunity. You must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) to cast spells.
That's what I use. Seems simple enough. What's the problem?
I also like how Paizo is updating little niggling rules like Stealth and fine-tuning them along with the quick release of errata (though they're moving kind of slow on some major errors in UC).
Didn't UC come out barely a month ago? They've barely had time to compile and prioritize the list. I'd rather they put some thought into errata instead of rushing changes out which will need to be changed later.
I also like how Paizo is updating little niggling rules like Stealth and fine-tuning them along with the quick release of errata (though they're moving kind of slow on some major errors in UC).Didn't UC come out barely a month ago? They've barely had time to compile and prioritize the list. I'd rather they put some thought into errata instead of rushing changes out which will need to be changed later.
Yeah, soon they will errata problems in the core books. Gotta wait a couple years for Ultimate Combat.
Yeah, soon they will errata problems in the core books. Gotta wait a couple years for Ultimate Combat.
Haven't they already released 5 pages of errata for the Core book? Other than strange corner cases, are there really any major problems they have left unresolved? I certainly haven't noticed any. But I guess I'm too busy playing the game to search for obscure loopholes in the rules.
Yeah, soon they will errata problems in the core books. Gotta wait a couple years for Ultimate Combat.Haven't they already released 5 pages of errata for the Core book? Other than strange corner cases, are there really any major problems they have left unresolved? I certainly haven't noticed any. But I guess I'm too busy playing the game to search for obscure loopholes in the rules.
Clearly nothing in the game needs to be fixed because you can just play it! Brilliant!
|
I think Paizo doesn't see 5e in the same light that many in this thread do. Both companies are headquartered in the greater Seattle area. They are all probably friends and play game with each other.
Pathfinder is the likely result of gamers who decided they wanted thier continually developed house rules published for all to see, it just turned out to be profitable. If 5e is better than Pathfinder, I expect either Paizo to write adventure paths for 5e. They're gamers, what else would they do?
As individuals, yeah, they are gamers. As Paizo, they're a company. A company's main goal is to make money. Now, they can make their APs for 5E; or they can make their APs for their own system, which means that in addition to selling the APs, they also get to sell the RPG line. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
If 5e is better than Pathfinder, I expect either Paizo to write adventure paths for 5e. They're gamers, what else would they do?
I'd be astonished if Paizo ditched Pathfinder APs in favour of 5e. I mean, that's just ludicrous frankly.
The thing is, what's 'better'? Who's defining that, and based on what? Plenty of people think 4e is better. Plenty of people think Pathfinder is better. Plenty of people think retroclones are better than either. It's an indefinable, nebulous quality that can only be determined subjectively based on what you enjoy. Sure, if enough people think it is, that adds up to a weight of opinion, but it's still only that - opinion.
The only way Paizo will ever drop their support of Pathfinder in favour of 5e is if sales completely stiffed. Not because they're all gamers and suddenly think 5e is a cool game system. And, of course, you're not including an OGL in this equation. 5e could have the most awesome, bestest game system on Earth, and if it ain't OGL then no-one is going to risk pouring money into print runs that could be left sitting in a warehouse if Wizards think they could do with a little less competition.
Clearly nothing in the game needs to be fixed because you can just play it! Brilliant!Yeah, soon they will errata problems in the core books. Gotta wait a couple years for Ultimate Combat.Haven't they already released 5 pages of errata for the Core book? Other than strange corner cases, are there really any major problems they have left unresolved? I certainly haven't noticed any. But I guess I'm too busy playing the game to search for obscure loopholes in the rules.
So where's the thread full of major outstanding issues? I haven't seen one in quite a while.
That posting, which didn't seem verified, is for a marketing director, not brand manager. Marketing is advertising. Advertising these days is about targeting groups via social networking. Seems like business as usual to me. WotC seems to reorganize every few years, regardless of edition stuff.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm.
I'm a bit late to the party, but here are some thoughts:
I'd be sketchy on a '5e' D&D.
I hate their business model:
- No digital products, even for books that are out of print.
- Discontinued the character builder and made the crappy online one, to try to salvage their terrible business model.
- Took the detailed campaign setting of the forgotten realms, and discarded nearly all of it (which in my opinion, defeated the purpose of the setting entirely).
- Adding in trading cards? Really? I can see cards to save looking up rules on gear or monsters or rules or spells or whatever. But you sell the entire damn set, you don't go with a trading card route.
- I feel similarly about their minis setups. Don't give me random minis, let me grab the minis I want. I don't care if they're painted, but obviously some people cant be bothered to paint them themselves. The minis were alot nicer back in the 2e days. Theyve become too cheap looking.
- Module Design. 4e modules have too little in the way of plots, and the modules are quite bad, unless things have drastically changed in the past 6 months.
- Rules: The levels at which you gain powers in each tier. They're designed to look like new choices, but they're really just a choice to retrain a power or upgrade it, and dolling it up to look like new options insults me.
Damn. I never summed it all up before.
I don't play 4e because I dont want a gaming company to jerk me around. I'm not convinced they would treat me better with a 5e.
I may not like all of the things Paizo puts out, but those generally fall into one of two camps:
1. An otherwise interesting option is nerfed to the point of being terrible, or designed that bad from the start. I agree with monte cook that intentionally including weak options was a bad idea when designing 3e. I think Pathfinder takes this a step further by making a larger number of really weak options.
2. I hate the standard firearm rules presented in ultimate combat, and I took it a little personally when they said the firearm rules were not part of the playtest, and we were stuck with them. I have not picked up a copy of UC yet, and I'm still debating whether I want to. I haven't heard of anything in it that makes me think "Ooh, I'd really like to have this book", but I haven't given it a thorough readthrough. I do think I'm more likely to write new firearm rules than use them as written in UC.
But besides the one design philosophy gripe, and the one particular mechanic that drives me up the wall, I like paizo. they're good people, they write good content, they make quality products, and they treat their customers well.
Paizo doesn't make me feel like I'm being treated like an idiot or make me think "what the hell were they thinking!" as a regular occurrence when I see their new products.
|
|
If what is hinted about a new edition is true and they do end up make an edition that supports all previous editions of D&D it may hurt Paizo sales a little. You cannot use PF in a 1E, 2E or 4E game without major houseruling. If you have an edition anyone can use chances are you will get more gamers buying into it. If they support those old editions even with minimal suppport they can draw in all those who play rhe older edition. Which is something that PF would not be able to do or not that well. If a person who likes playing 2E and nothing else and Wotc releases new books or reprints older books why would they buy books from Paizo.
If Wotc with Monte helps actually does do that and they pull it off well hard to see what Paizo could do to counter such a modular edition. Backwards compitability is no longer such a strong selling point if you can get the 3.5 books again even if in digitla format I will predict Wotc will be stronger for it. As for digital no ways around it. On that either you adapt or die. It's not going to go away no matter how much you hide your hands in the sand or click your ruby red shoes toghter and go "I wish, I wish".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my opinion.
Wizards of the Coast isn't going to be able to put out a truly good product unless they do what Paizo does and embraces the community. Even in their 4th Edition, Wizards has almost no 3PP or material because they tie up all their products with legal restrictions and loopholes.
When people look at Paizo, a lot of people blame their success on Wizards of the Coast's choice to create the OGL back in 3.0. The fact is that the OGL wasn't really Wizard's problem; it allowed for the irony of their own, older gaming rules to trump their new product, sure, but that's not why Wizards failed. Wizards failed because of their poor customer service and customer relations. They didn't embrace their fans, something you can see when you look at their contributions to the OGL and realize that of all the many, many books that 3rd Edition came out with, only five or six of them were placed under the OGL (off the top of my head, the three Core books, Expanded Psionics, the Epic Handbook, and Unearthed Arcana).
You cut over to Paizo, which was a former 3PP, and look what they've built. They're heavily involved with their players (a fact that's been true since Beta and remains true to this day), every bit of rule mechanics that they produce is OGL, and and they even promote 3PP on their website. Paizo thrives because of what many large corporations (even outside of the gaming industry) forget; you don't have a business without your customers.
Now, is this something Wizards could fix? I think so, but I am very doubtful that Wizards will ever embrace the OGL the way that Paizo has. Even if Wizards does start treating its consumers right, I'll personally be hard-pressed to leave Paizo. It's like this, I have a stable relationship with Pathfinder Products, and even if D&D manages to clean itself up and pull itself back onto its feet, D&D has disappointed me in the past, and regardless of how pretty D&D may end up looking, I'm staying with Paizo.
If Wotc with Monte helps actually does do that and they pull it off well hard to see what Paizo could do to counter such a modular edition. Backwards compitability is no longer such a strong selling point if you can get the 3.5 books again even if in digitla format I will predict Wotc will be stronger for it. As for digital no ways around it. On that either you adapt or die. It's not going to go away no matter how much you hide your hands in the sand or click your ruby red shoes toghter and go "I wish, I wish".
Considering that 3.5 / 3.0 is backwards compatible with Pathfinder already, I don't see how Wizards rereleasing those products would hurt Pathfinder. As Pathfinder would be compatible with it :-P.
One think Wizards could do if they wanted me to respect them a little more is do what Paizo did and release more of their copyrights to the OGL. At least then I could end up seeing a cool, legal remake of the Tome of Magic's Binder class. Of course, I'm planning on just homebrewing my own anyway, but still ....
Here's my opinion.
Wizards of the Coast isn't going to be able to put out a truly good product unless they do what Paizo does and embraces the community. Even in their 4th Edition, Wizards has almost no 3PP or material because they tie up all their products with legal restrictions and loopholes.
When people look at Paizo, a lot of people blame their success on Wizards of the Coast's choice to create the OGL back in 3.0. The fact is that the OGL wasn't really Wizard's problem; it allowed for the irony of their own, older gaming rules to trump their new product, sure, but that's not why Wizards failed. Wizards failed because of their poor customer service and customer relations. They didn't embrace their fans, something you can see when you look at their contributions to the OGL and realize that of all the many, many books that 3rd Edition came out with, only five or six of them were placed under the OGL (off the top of my head, the three Core books, Expanded Psionics, the Epic Handbook, and Unearthed Arcana).
You cut over to Paizo, which was a former 3PP, and look what they've built. They're heavily involved with their players (a fact that's been true since Beta and remains true to this day), every bit of rule mechanics that they produce is OGL, and and they even promote 3PP on their website. Paizo thrives because of what many large corporations (even outside of the gaming industry) forget; you don't have a business without your customers.
Now, is this something Wizards could fix? I think so, but I am very doubtful that Wizards will ever embrace the OGL the way that Paizo has. Even if Wizards does start treating its consumers right, I'll personally be hard-pressed to leave Paizo. It's like this, I have a stable relationship with Pathfinder Products, and even if D&D manages to clean itself up and pull itself back onto its feet, D&D has disappointed me in the past, and regardless of how pretty D&D may end up looking, I'm staying with Paizo.
I didnt start buying Wizards products until after 4th edition was announced. I always struggle to see these 'Wizards have failed' arguments, since I missed all the furore on the transition.
While it may be true that they alienated a large portion of their customers and even treated them poorly (without expressing any view as to whether that's accurate) I don't see them failing in that now. In my opinion, they are just more interested in serving the current customer base than those who used to be customers. I don't really see that they should do anything else - rebuilding bridges would obviously help them, but I don't think it should be their focus. Paradoxically, I suspect I'd be better off if they did try and target fans of 3.5 rather than those who prefer 4th edition and/or who only started playing after the change had happened - I'm not enjoying the shift to more and more digital content and the subsequent decline in hardcover books. Nonetheless, I always find it hard to reconcile WoTC's public persona as an uncaring corporation with how I experience them as a customer.
That posting, which didn't seem verified, is for a marketing director, not brand manager. Marketing is advertising. Advertising these days is about targeting groups via social networking. Seems like business as usual to me. WotC seems to reorganize every few years, regardless of edition stuff.
(Edited, clarification)
I only watch television via internet streaming sources. Far fewer commercials that way. ;)
My main point was, that these days a marketing director needs to be using a variety of media avenues. A niche product like D&D gets far better results in the sorts of targeted marketing internet and social media can provide. For a marketing director position, expertise in everything from Television to Twitter should be a given.
However, advertising director or brand manager, I would have thought (from my comfy armchair) that Hasbro would want to be able to coordinate their efforts right from the start, if they were releasing a new edition, and not have a handover to a new man or woman halfway through the development cycle.
If you say it's normal (or at least not eyebrow-raising) practise in corporate circles to replace the person in charge of advertising a new product in the middle of development, though, maybe I was reading too much into the position being apparently advertised, and a new edition could currently be under way.
I'm saying that getting a new marketing director can mean many things. The existing one may have moved off to some other section of the company, and simply needs to be replaced. The fact that Pathfinder is rivaling D&D sales may mean they want a new marketing director to help increase sales and strengthen the brand. Even if they are working on a new edition, they've got about a year to work up a marketing strategy before the official announcement. Whatever pre-alpha stage they might be in now is unimportant from a marketing standpoint.
In my opinion, changes in the marketing department say little as to what the R&D department is up to. They are fairly independent. Marketing doesn't really get involved until after the product is much nearer to deployment.
If what is hinted about a new edition is true and they do end up make an edition that supports all previous editions of D&D it may hurt Paizo sales a little. You cannot use PF in a 1E, 2E or 4E game without major houseruling. If you have an edition anyone can use chances are you will get more gamers buying into it. If they support those old editions even with minimal suppport they can draw in all those who play rhe older edition. Which is something that PF would not be able to do or not that well. If a person who likes playing 2E and nothing else and Wotc releases new books or reprints older books why would they buy books from Paizo.
While this is true, I have a hard time believing that such a thing is possible. Even supporting both 2E and 3.x, the two editions I have the most experience with aside from 4E, at the same time would be difficult. I can't imagine how one would incorporate that and 4E and all the earlier stuff into the same system. Seems like you would end with something feeling like Frankenstein's monster, pieces from everything thrown together in a jumble and a result that nobody likes. I don't think at this point, the risk would be worth it to WotC. I could see them looking at elements from earlier editions and seeing what they could make work with their current base, 4E, but I don't see them doing anything that would radically change that base. Too much of the earlier era stuff can't be completely protected under their IP. Between Hackmaster and PF, not to mention the OGL as a whole, they would have competition in regards to that older material. Better for them to move forward with stuff that they, and only they, can provide access to, and distance themselves from the OGL as much as possible. I don't think that is necessarily the best for the industry as a whole, but for WotC, it definitely is.
I started to DM Pathfinder on january 2011, so not too much time on it but I have to say that I really like this game, as much of the people states it feels like 3.5 but with a lot of improved things.
I played 4e for about 15 months and I have to accept that to make characters is a lot easier and combats use to be more fluid than with any of the 3.x/Pathfinder. I choose to return to the 3.x world because I felt that 4e lacked of different flavor for every single class in combat, all of them were quite similar to me depiste of their role (defender, striker, etc.).
Besides of that there are a lot of people that feel that 4e is better than 3.x/Pathfinder, its a matter of personal oppinion.
Since there are a lot of people that supports 4e I believe WotC won't make a new edition in the next few years, they have yet a lot of room to create new stuff for their game (rules, adventures, etc.) and if they make a new ed they'll put in risk their fan base again in few years (not precisely a bold move IMHO).
On the other side if WotC makes a 5e, Paizo will have to look at that to know what they're facing and then make the choices they think are the best in terms of profits and marketing.
|
I don't think 5e is a serious threat to Paizo. WotC deliberately chose to emphasize new players when it developed 4e while thumbing their noses at the old players. And for Prof C - my proof is an acquaintence who attended a WotC seminar on he development of 4e who was specifically told that 3.5 customers were not the desired audience. To that extent, they have been successful - IME, brand new players are far happier with 4e than experienced ones.
No matter who they hire and the fact that they are hiring a marketing director with no industry knowledge, I can't see them coming up with a product that attracts the audience they lost to Pathfinder.
IME, brand new players are far happier with 4e than experienced ones.
The problem with that plan being that I think most of us were introduced into the game by people that were already playing. So if you're not keeping your older players to show people the ropes then who's doing that job?