|
I don't know about that. Open Design and other 3PP that do 4E stuff might still go through with producing materials for 4E after "the next iteration of D&D" comes out. And what led you to believe that they (WotC) will stop supporting online content such as the compendium and CB after 5E? Espically since they explicidly stated that those tools will still be available? Aside from snarky comments or pessimistic options of the compnay that is?Again, had the OGL never existed then there would be no 3.x-compatible anything to stick with. 3.x, like OD&D-2e, would be just another dead edition, and would certainly not be alive and competing with D&D's current edition for market share.Of course, because 4e used the GSL, it will eventually be much more dead than 0e-2e. They can be re-created using the OGL and the SRD...4e cannot. And since it's fairly dependent on DDI, which eventually will be turned off (or switched entirely to 5e material), that doesn't bode well for it's post-5e lifespan either.
My understanding is that one of the reasons Paizo didn't like the GSL is that WotC cn literally prevent you from publishing 4e stuff should it so choose (I may not have the legals of this entirely correct, but that is my understanding). So I don't think that 4e will survive in the same way outside WotC's control as 3e.
Finally we agree!
This is the Paizo message board, which is, not surprisingly pro-paizo.
I don't get all the sympathy for the poor misunderstood 800lb Gorilla in the room who changed versions so they could get out of the OGL to avoid sharing and are now doing exactly what many on here predicted, changing versions every few years.
Why are you loyal to WoTC, or more accurately Hasbro. I just don't get it.
This is the sort of comments that just piss me off. First, while this is Pathfinder's site its ALSO the 4th Edition sub-forum, so that sort of "Playground" mentality is neither appreciated or mature. Secondly, there ARE people here that enjoy both PF and D&D and enjoy supporting BOTH games. One reason we're loyal to WotC is because we don't have a bigoted mindset or an elitist perception of this niche market. The other, and probably more important reason, because we enjoy the system and their products. WHY does there have to be this stupid "Us or Them" mentality? JFC.
|
|
3.5 didn't lead to the resurgance of D&D - 3.0 did. And that was produced by WotC. The OGL was very much a side-show in this as most of the original stuff was terrible. The flaws of the system really had very little impact to start with as they didn't (and probably still don't) impact on most people anyway. You are trying to rewrite history by suggesting that the increase in interest in D&D had nothing to do with WotC. It did, it had everything to do with it. The OGL maybe had an impact subsequently but I very much doubt they had anything like the effect of simply launching the new version of the game, especially after the collapse of TSR and the disappearance of D&D from the shelves.
The OGL also meant that the production of 3e-compliant materials didn't have to stop when WotC moved on to a new edition. This clearly has been detrimental to WotC. Whether this is bad for the hobby overall is debatable, but it is certainly bad for them.
I fundamentally disagree with you. 3.0 got traction because of the OGL, not in spite of it.
"Would 3rd Edition D&D -- which most people have forgotten was actually a bit of a risk at the time -- have been so wildly successful if there weren't immediately a shelf full of support products to choose from? I'm going to say no. At the very least, I think the brand would have taken longer to succeed than it did."
4E is failing as much due to it's not being OGL as due to any problem with the product itself.
We'll just have to disagree. I can assure you that the OGL had zero impact on me and my attitude to 3e and 4e, and the same for the guys I game with. Clearly you had a different experience. And I disagree with the sainted Monte too, as I bought some of that stuff he's referring to and it was s!$! (as was the stuff by him I bought off the back of the OGL too).
As for 4e and 5e, I'm actually curious about how 5e will play out v PF. When you could say "Hey, if you don't like the change to 4e, we've still got Pathfinder", you had a good marketing message. But now you have effectively a rather passe system (12 years old) up against something that is not one but two interations newer. So you shake off 4e v 3e baggage and PF isn't the new-old shiny anymore. I don't think this will be that straightfoward. But it depends on how the new system is supported too.
|
|
Why are you loyal to WoTC, or more accurately Hasbro. I just don't get it.
I'm not. I'm loyal to Paizo, having been here got about five years or so and dating back to the old Dungeon and Dragon, although I'm finding their output now is beginning to bore me. I play 4e because it is for me a better set of rules. It's not an emotional decision, unlike yours perhaps.
|
This is the sort of comments that just piss me off. First, while this is Pathfinder's site its ALSO the 4th Edition sub-forum, so that sort of "Playground" mentality is neither appreciated or mature. Secondly, there ARE people here that enjoy both PF and D&D and enjoy supporting BOTH games. One reason we're loyal to WotC is because we don't have a bigoted mindset or an elitist perception of this niche market. The other, and probably more important reason, because we enjoy the system and their products. WHY does there have to be this stupid "Us or Them" mentality? JFC.
I'm personally not a fan of 4E, and got tired of it (after playing it for 2-3 years; mainly played 'cause that's what the rest of the group played). But, I don't personally mind if someone prefers playing 4E over 3.5/Pathfinder. For me it's like Coke and Pepsi; different flavours of the same thing.
It all boils down to people and their emotions. In this case, WotC said something and people have taken it to mean something in a different way; coming from the family I have, I'm used to this; one person says something, and it's interpreted in a way that was different from its meaning. As a result, one person in my extended family wouldn't talk to other extended family members, sometimes for decades.
But I digress. For myself, I'll look at what 5E looks like, and if I like it, then I'll like it. If not, then I won't. My biggest obstacle right now is finding a group to play 5E with, since my regular D&D group is pretty much defunct now. (Another reason I picked up Pathfinder, so I could start playing in PFS; I didn't really want to play Encounters or LFR).
|
I don't get all the sympathy for the poor misunderstood 800lb Gorilla in the room
I personally am not a huge fan of 4e, though actually playing in a 4e game last night makes me realise it is growing on me) but I have sympathy because some of the comments aimed at WotC are IMHO uncalled for, suggesting WotC are "baddies" or "evil" - really?
I also have sympathy just because 4e as a system is often "misunderstood" - misunderstandings, stuff quoted as fact that isn't at all etc that point 4e in a bad light in ways that are unfounded. I would defend Pathfinder the same way despite me also not being a big fan of it.
Why are you loyal to WoTC, or more accurately Hasbro. I just don't get it.
I am not sure I am loyal to WotC, I buy their Dungeon Tiles but haven't bought a new book for 4e since DMG2 (never bothered with Essentials as I am still not clear what info overlaps between books and what books I would need to get all the Essentials rules).
But I do love Eberron as a setting and that is a D&D setting, not a Pathfinder setting.
I also like the idea of playing in a popular game that is easy to find players for - which is why I play D&D3.5 and 4e locally (the first PF game only just got off the ground in my Meetup Group whereas 3.5 and 4e are mainstays) and PFS at conventions.
So if D&D Next takes off and becomes really popular (especially at conventions) I will likely want to get on board - and knowing that there are things I didn't like about 4e I would be stupid not to get involved in the playtest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the info guys - I'm still fence-sitting for a tad bit longer (waiting on an insurance check to replace my gaming goodies), but I think the interaction here has actually given me more insight then the info.
From all appearances, whilst the non-4e crowd has dialed back their vitriol (pity?), the pro-4e crowd is still going strong with the edition war.
Well, the war is over. At lest the last one is - why continue to rage? I don't go over to the WotC site anymore because why should I be the mean kid kicking sand in everyone's face? Thats not productive for anyone. When 5e comes out, make an educated decision on what rules suit you best, and go with that. There is no need to be angry at the people who didn't agree with you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We know what a straw man is. You're just misusing it. But that's fine. We really don't need to convince you. You can scream, "STRAW MAN!" all you want, but the point stands: some people reacted like that, and it had an effect on how things were presented going forward.You're wasting your breath, Adamantine Dragon.
Apparently you don't know what a straw man is.
The "exchange" that was posted was a ludicrous presentation of a highly educated professional person crying and screaming like a baby (LITERALLY) becuase WotC tried to say "we changed the grapple rules."
That is an insane exaggeration of anyone's reaction. NOBODY reacted like that. NOBODY. It's not merely a straw man, it's an insanely ridiculous straw man. But that IS the "straw man" that was created to "show" how irrational PF fans are.
But you are right, I am wasting my breath. Fight the good fight for WotC Scott. Fight the people! Carry the load! Reverse the injustice!
|
|
From all appearances, whilst the non-4e crowd has dialed back their vitriol (pity?), the pro-4e crowd is still going strong with the edition war.
I am very curious - what gives you that impression, are you basing things on just this forum, or other sources too?
If anything my perception of these forums is the exact opposite, plenty of posters on these forums still seem to want to insult 4e, WotC and sometimes even those who play the games (we even had someone just post calling WotC designers "scabs"!). Yet whilst I do see a fair few people defending 4e from such posts, I can't remember the last time I actually saw a 4e fan actually insult 3.5 or PF (civilly criticise, yes, but insult, no).
As I think I stated, I am only recently returned to these boards, which I find quite a bit more civil then most others. Now that I have read through a few more threads, I can see that there is a certain amount of contempt for 4e still left. My apologies. On the other hand, I do not take a plane to Korea and start shouting 'Communism Sucks!" in front of their capitol building.
Why do people do exactly that here on the internet?
I used this example over at CK, and I will use it here as well: I hate peas. I don't just dislike them, just saying the word just now made me feel queasy. If I actually see them, anywhere, I get sick to my stomach.
However, I do not go onto 'pro-pea' fansites and tell them they have no taste what-so-ever for liking peas, because that's not only a waste of my time and energy, but is also 'being a troll'.
So yes, I have discovered a few posts here that still contain vitriol (after 3 years? C'mon! let it go!), but this is a PF fansite, so why bother trying to evangelize other formats?
And BTW, my problem was never with the 4e rules. I didn't consider them bad, they just weren't for me. My problem has always been with the complete de-construction of the Forgotten Realms setting, which I had high hopes would be fixed in 5e (which would be a godsend to me, since I recently lost 35 years of gaming goodness). After seeing who'd be working on 5e FR, I decided to take another long, hard look at Golarion. I plan to be spending a lot of money very soon, and I want to make an educated choice.
Not that I found Golarion 'wanting' the first time I looked at it - quite the contrary. Its just that I already owned everything I needed in FR; I was heavily invested. This is no longer the case (except emotionally).
|
|
We'll just have to disagree. I can assure you that the OGL had zero impact on me and my attitude to 3e and 4e, and the same for the guys I game with. Clearly you had a different experience. And I disagree with the sainted Monte too, as I bought some of that stuff he's referring to and it was s*!$ (as was the stuff by him I bought off the back of the OGL too).
The sainted Monte is the lead designer for 5E.
Just sayin'
We'll see; I'm still waiting for the PR announcement that tells me that resting after every encounter and disruptively played Chaotic Neutral Alignment are not signs of problem players, but game-breaking rules loop-holes that require a system overhaul...
JUST KIDDING!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only if WoTC is trying to be a part of the community rather than trying to throw their weight around to consolidate the market so we have to buy from them.I think WotC has learned that lesson. They seem to be approaching the transition to 5E with a good deal of humility.
I hope so, but we will see. Fool me once, etc, etc...
I would take the same stance if Paizo went power mad, I'm not loyal to the brand, I'm loyal to the product.
If they put out a great product, wonderful. But I have no reason to think they are going to based on recent past performance. Even the last few years of 3.5 splatbooks were pretty weak sauce.
|
|
We'll just have to disagree. I can assure you that the OGL had zero impact on me and my attitude to 3e and 4e, and the same for the guys I game with. Clearly you had a different experience. And I disagree with the sainted Monte too, as I bought some of that stuff he's referring to and it was s*!$ (as was the stuff by him I bought off the back of the OGL too).The sainted Monte is the lead designer for 5E.
Just sayin'
I know - so we shall see what 5e is like. Frankly, I'm probably down on the man unnecessarily - it's not like I didn't like 3e and it's not like I don't play and enjoy its current major variant, PF. But I prefer the system where one of his stated aims (system mastery) was ironed out of existance.
That's not always true. Beta was a better video tape format than VHS, but it still lost out in the consumer space. The better product doesn't always win out.
Ah, but better in what way? Better picture and sound perhaps, but not as economical. In other words, VHS was a better product for the preferences of the consumer - OK picture and sound, more recording time per tape for less money.
|
|
Anonymity breeds false courage.As I think I stated, I am only recently returned to these boards, which I find quite a bit more civil then most others. Now that I have read through a few more threads, I can see that there is a certain amount of contempt for 4e still left. My apologies. On the other hand, I do not take a plane to Korea and start shouting 'Communism Sucks!" in front of their capitol building.
Why do people do exactly that here on the internet?
Well, strictly, lack of proximity breeds lack of restraint. Road rage is also an example of this. In that instance, we ride round in little boxes and can't pick up the body language cues from others which would serve to subconsciously moderate our own behaviour. Same thing online.
|
|
Only if WoTC is trying to be a part of the community rather than trying to throw their weight around to consolidate the market so we have to buy from them.
By "consolidate the market" do you refer to the WotC approach to try to appeal to players of all D&D editions? If so even if they achieve that I fail to see how that will make you "have" to buy from them. If you want to continue playing 1e, 2e, 3.0, 3.5 or PF you will still be able to assuming you can find other players also willing to.
And "throw their weight around"? Do you mean by pushing for media attention and capitalising on the D&D brand name? If so, that is what every game company would do if they could do. Paizo Tweet and Facebook whenever they get a good review or a mention on something like CNN geek list etc.
I really do feel sorry for WotC, when they created 4e people were up in arms saying they have forgotten what D&D is, they have left the old editions behind.
And then when they try to admit the market is now fractured and try to do something ambitious that may actually appeal to the players of all those edition they were accused of forgetting, they get accused of throwing their weight around and trying to force people to buy from them.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
So yes, WotC has my up most sympathy and every post like yours makes me only want to patronise WotC more and hope that D&D Next is a great success.
|
|
After seeing who'd be working on 5e FR, I decided to take another long, hard look at Golarion. I plan to be spending a lot of money very soon, and I want to make an educated choice.
Not that I found Golarion 'wanting' the first time I looked at it - quite the contrary. Its just that I already owned everything I needed in FR; I was heavily invested. This is no longer the case (except emotionally).
The pathfinder wiki is a helpful place to cruise around before spending any money. http://www.pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Pathfinder_Wiki
|
|
Only if WoTC is trying to be a part of the community rather than trying to throw their weight around to consolidate the market so we have to buy from them.Because you can support both.
Paizo do better in a world with a thriving WoTC.
I think that's just called business. You think Paizo wouldn't like to dominate the market?
|
|
Only if WoTC is trying to be a part of the community rather than trying to throw their weight around to consolidate the market so we have to buy from them.By "consolidate the market" do you refer to the WotC approach to try to appeal to players of all D&D editions? If so even if they achieve that I fail to see how that will make you "have" to buy from them. If you want to continue playing 1e, 2e, 3.0, 3.5 or PF you will still be able to assuming you can find other players also willing to.
And "throw their weight around"? Do you mean by pushing for media attention and capitalising on the D&D brand name? If so, that is what every game company would do if they could do. Paizo Tweet and Facebook whenever they get a good review or a mention on something like CNN geek list etc.
I really do feel sorry for WotC, when they created 4e people were up in arms saying they have forgotten what D&D is, they have left the old editions behind.
And then when they try to admit the market is now fractured and try to do something ambitious that may actually appeal to the players of all those edition they were accused of forgetting, they get accused of throwing their weight around and trying to force people to buy from them.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
So yes, WotC has my up most sympathy and every post like yours makes me only want to patronise WotC more and hope that D&D Next is a great success.
By consolidate the market I mean abandon the OGL and screw the 3PP who were working with them at the time (including Paizo).
By throwing their weight around, I mean putting out the GSL and threatening litigation of 3PP.
Both of which they did.
The stated aim of 5E sounds great.
The stated aim of 4E sounded great.
What they actually did...
No one should ever feel sorry when Goliath goes down because he tried to bully the wrong guy named David.
WoTC got to big for their britches. If they come back humbled with a good product that is open, I'll take a look. But I am way past the point where I'll be giving them money on spec.
|
|
I think that's just called business. You think Paizo wouldn't like to dominate the market?Only if WoTC is trying to be a part of the community rather than trying to throw their weight around to consolidate the market so we have to buy from them.Because you can support both.
Paizo do better in a world with a thriving WoTC.
I think if they tried I would be saying the same thing about them and they would have the same problems that WoTC is have. Worse, because Pathfinder isn't a well known brand.
Monopolies are bad. Any business trying to create a monopoly is bad for the consumer.
I'm the consumer. I root for me.
|
|
By consolidate the market I mean abandon the OGL and screw the 3PP who were working with them at the time (including Paizo).
By throwing their weight around, I mean putting out the GSL and threatening litigation of 3PP.
Both of which they did.
Ah, completely wrong end of the stick then, you have my apologies!
But again I am curious, what happened re "threatening litigation of 3PP"? I must admit I am ignorant of what may have happended there.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
4E is failing as much due to it's not being OGL as due to any problem with the product itself.Agreed...but I'd go further and say 4E failed because it wasn't OGL in a post-OGL world. It's the combination of having gone open with 3E and then trying to pull it all back in 4E that has proven toxic for WotC.
I think it's a bit of toxicity, and bungling on WotC's part that caused this problem.
I mean, pulling away from the OGL was a gradual process throughout the life of 3.x. At first you had huge chunks added to the SRD (most of Deities and Demigods for one example). Then you had the incredible releasing of material to be expanded on (Tome of Horrors). Finally, you had the Monster Manual 2, with two OGL* monsters from other publishers included. That's not including Unearthed Arcana which was a 'best of' of other companies OGL stuff.
The fumbling of 4.x and their GSL contributed to the toxicity. Let's not forget Clark was one of the biggest cheerleaders for an open 4e, until he finally gave up.** The 'spend (what was it, $400?) for an early copy' went over like a lead balloon. In part because of the costs, in part because of the crappy execution (which was later dropped). I recall a lot of feathers being ruffled about WotC getting to determine who was a 'real publisher' for the early release and who wasn't. My memory also says that Scott Rouse and WizOLidda were two of the 'in-house' champions of some form of OGL.
Part of Pathfinder's popularity is the OGL, I believe. That 3PP*** can write stuff and publish it and Paizo actively promotes the stuff in their store contributes to the image of a 'friendly competition'.
The sudden**** ending of licenses hurt WotC's image too. WotC made a lot of missteps that alienated older fans. Both in the market, and in the management of their IP. Will 5.x repair those rifts? Clearly WotC believes it is possible.
I want WotC to succeed.***** Competition is good. Cross promotion is good. If 5.x fails, Hasbro might shelve D&D for the next 5-10 years, or worse, let it die forsaken and alone. That said, I've no interest in 5.x. I had no interest in 4e because I got a 'complete' fantasy RPG system with 3.x. Pathfinder interested me because a) it was 3.x compatible and b) Paizo build a lot of 'street cred' with me in their handling of the Dragon/Dungeon licenses and their subscribers. Heck if I want a 'superhero game' I crack out MSH, if I want a Sci-fi game, it's Star Frontiers.******
*
**
***
****
*****
******
*******
|
|
By consolidate the market I mean abandon the OGL and screw the 3PP who were working with them at the time (including Paizo).
By throwing their weight around, I mean putting out the GSL and threatening litigation of 3PP.
Both of which they did.
Ah, completely wrong end of the stick then, you have my apologies!
But again I am curious, what happened re "threatening litigation of 3PP"? I must admit I am ignorant of what may have happended there.
Yeah I hadn't heard much about litigation threats besides some C&Ds being sent to people making action cards.
The original 6.1 and 6.2 clauses of the GSL and the no publishing material until October instead of at GenCon were interesting choices.
6.2 No Backward Conversion. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that it will not publish any product pursuant to the OGL that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents of a Licensed Product.
6.1 OGL Product Conversion. If Licensee has entered into the “Open Gaming License version 1.0” with Wizards (“OGL”), and Licensee has previously published a product under the OGL (each an “OGL Product”), Licensee may publish a Licensed Product subject to this License that features the same or similar title, product line trademark, or contents as such OGL Product (each such OGL Product, a “Converted OGL Product”, and each such Licensed Product, a “Conversion”). Upon the first publication date of a Conversion, Licensee will cease all manufacturing and publication of the corresponding Converted OGL Product and all other OGL Products which are part of the same product line as the Converted OGL Product, as reasonably determined by Wizards (“Converted OGL Product Line”). Licensee explicitly agrees that it will not thereafter manufacture or publish any portion of the Converted OGL Product Line, or any products that would be considered part of a Converted OGL Product Line (as reasonably determined by Wizards) pursuant to the OGL. Licensee may continue to distribute and sell-off all remaining physical inventory of a Converted OGL Product Line after the corresponding Conversion is published, but will, as of such date, cease all publication, distribution and sale (and ensure that third party affiliates of Licensee cease their publication, distribution and sale) of any element of a Converted OGL Product Line in any electronic downloadable format. For the avoidance of doubt, (a) any OGL Product that is not part of a Converted OGL Product Line may continue to be manufactured, published, sold and distributed pursuant to the OGL; and (b) this Section 6.1 will survive termination of this Agreement.
|
|
As I think I stated, I am only recently returned to these boards, which I find quite a bit more civil then most others. Now that I have read through a few more threads, I can see that there is a certain amount of contempt for 4e still left. My apologies.
No need to aplogise, I was just genuinely curious how you got the perception you did, and you have explained that now, thanks!
However, I do not go onto 'pro-pea' fansites and tell them they have no taste what-so-ever for liking peas, because that's not only a waste of my time and energy, but is also 'being a troll'.
So yes, I have discovered a few posts here that still contain vitriol (after 3 years? C'mon! let it go!), but this is a PF fansite, so why bother trying to evangelize other formats?
So if you went into a 'pro-pea' fansite and started telling them they "have no taste what-so-ever for liking peas" you wouldn't begrudge the pro pea fans trying to correct any misconceptions, or worse outright lies about the taste of peas? You would naturally expect the pro pea lot to defend their love of peas, yes? And in this instance it would be you as the anti pea person posting in a pro pea forum who you would consider the troll and in the wrong, yes?
You see, the thing is Paizo is a pretty great company, not only do they publish a wildly popular RPG and setting, they are also an online retailer of all sorts of RPG books and accessories too. They actually sell D&D 4e, and promote those sales through their store blog. Pretty good huh?
And Paizo are so great that as well as hosting the official forums for their own RPG, they also host forums for other games, and specifically one for D&D 4e. Paizo actively encourage D&D 4e fans to visit their website and hang out on their forums.
So when a PF fan (or indeed anyone) comes into the 4e forum on Paizo's site and insults the D&D 4e game, they are being the troll (to use your term) and thus you can't really berudge any of the 4e fans who were effectively encouraged here by Paizo themselves, to take offence and at least try to civilly dispel any misconceptions or outright lies about D&D 4e.
My problem has always been with the complete de-construction of the Forgotten Realms setting, which I had high hopes would be fixed in 5e (which would be a godsend to me, since I recently lost 35 years of gaming goodness).
It sounds like you miht get your wish as apparently WotC have implied that they hope to support the FR in whatever era you want to play in. Of course their is a hope and intention, not a promise, but it shows that they have listened to the complaints of people like yourself and are willing to try to do something about it.
Me personally, I found the FR 3.0 campaign book a slog to read through and not particularly inspiring so I luckily had no stake in what WotC did, or do, with the Realms.
|
|
But I don't think it was oversensitivity to read that into it. "Here, your PC isn't supported, and to rub it in, here's a guy doing the stereotypical dehumanized midget routine" was a legit terrible way to handle it though.
Dehumanized? Midget routine? The gnome was presented as a more "human" character than even the tiefling, who was actually representing a player race. The gnome had a pet, a mother he talked to, was excited about his new "job", etc.
He also had a LAIR!
I liked the gnome; they've always been overlooked in most editions.
The most write-up they ever got seemed to end at "Taller than a halfling, shorter than a dwarf.".
Everyone I've ever played with has either always avoided them, or always played them as deranged pot-heads.
Quick question to those who hated that cartoon:
How do you like Paizo's take on the race?
Flourescent-haired aliens from a psychedelic demiplane, riddled with ADD/OCD, driven to experience everything they can, RIGHT NOW, or they literally DIE?
Obviously, I like them, since I play one. But for all of you who believe the portrayal of gnomes is NO LAUGHING MATTER, and should be a VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS;
I hope you spend as much time gnashing your teeth, clenching your fists, churning your guts into knots of incandescent fury, over the portrayal of gnomes in the PF CRB and GoG, I hope you spend as many keystrokes hurling abuse at the Paizo writers as the 4E writers, I hope you spend as much time planning your boycott of all related PF products as you do of 4E.
Because to do otherwise would make you a hypocrite, and a very very very silly person indeed.
And the perfect target for an impish little scamp such as me.
Only if WoTC is trying to be a part of the community rather than trying to throw their weight around to consolidate the market so we have to buy from them.Because you can support both.
Paizo do better in a world with a thriving WoTC.
Isnt the latter what you think is the current state of play? That doesn't seem to have harmed paizo in the last few years.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
How do you like Paizo's take on the race?
Flourescent-haired aliens from a psychedelic demiplane, riddled with ADD/OCD, driven to experience everything they can, RIGHT NOW, or they literally DIE?
I don't think that's fair to gnomes. I don't see anything that they're ADD/OCD.*
I like Paizo gnomes. The Golarion fluff gives them reasons to be out and adventure. It also makes sure that gnome communities are interesting. A gnome baker might be making bread to sell in town, but they're also going to be able to test their creativity with new recepies. A gnome house builder is going to likely 'experiment' in their own home, but not in one they're contracted to build (unless the builder wants something unique).
I'd also point out that Golarion gnomes are 'fluffy'. I can take the crunch and use the Pathfinder RPG ruleset to run games in Eberron** and the first world will never come up.
*
**
|
|
Isnt the latter what you think is the current state of play? That doesn't seem to have harmed paizo in the last few years.Only if WoTC is trying to be a part of the community rather than trying to throw their weight around to consolidate the market so we have to buy from them.Because you can support both.
Paizo do better in a world with a thriving WoTC.
I believe he's referring to the initial roll out of the GSL and the clownshoes way it kept changing on 3PPs - like the $5,000 fee to see the srd early that didn't happen etc...
Even Mr. Peterson referred to their conduct as "strong play". And WOTC is on the record that their goal was to stop people from publishing for 3.5 under the OGL (source).
Assuming WoTC have been behaving badly since 4E's launch - Was that bad for paizo? They seem to have done alright despite any weight throwing.
My point is that it's not a case of "you're with us or you're against us!" he asked why one would be "loyal" to WoTC - my answer is that the question is predicated on a false dichotomy. You can support both and everybody wins.
|
|
Assuming WoTC have been behaving badly since 4E's launch - Was that bad for paizo? They seem to have done alright despite any weight throwing.
My point is that it's not a case of "you're with us or you're against us!" he asked why one would be "loyal" to WoTC - my answer is that the question is predicated on a false dichotomy. You can support both and everybody wins.
:) Yes but the goal at roll out was to limit the amount that publishers could support both.
@ DigitalMage - point taken. The term 'troll' itself would have to be applied differently to different parts of these forums. How very enlightened (not being sarcastic - how do you guys know how to take each other without smilies?)
I can use any rules - I used at least seven different company's rules back when I ran Greyhawk, so they matter very little to the types of games I enjoy running.
Its the settings that matter to me, and I borrow from the all. I just hate the idea of being behind the 'learning curve' in anything - I'm not used to being the 'newb'. Thats probably the only thing that has kept me from embracing Golarion. How do I run a world that my players know more about then I do?
|
|
Because you can support both.
Paizo do better in a world with a thriving WoTC.
Agreed and seconded. Why should I as a gamer have to take sides. Why not enjoy both.
Only if WoTC is trying to be a part of the community rather than trying to throw their weight around to consolidate the market so we have to buy from them.
I never got and still don't get the attitide of "the company I buy from also has to be my best friend" type of logic. Gamers like to point at wotc yet no one says anything about non-rpg companies that act the same way. You think Microsoft or anyone similar cares that they release new products all the time and that they have a large market share. They don't. I rather a company be profiatable, release quality products and be at the top of their game. I'm not interested in going over to the ceo house for a cup of tea and a chat.
In the end as other posters have said no matter what Wotc does with 5E they will be damned if you do and damned if they don't.
I have high hopes for various race conversions with Advancer Races actually. But PFing the races isn't too hard IMO, single +2 more and it's almost done :)
WotC may well be "contrite" now. Funny how I've never seen admission of a vice to be a virtue. I admit that I'm pretty rare in that regard. I judge people and corporations by their actions, not their promises. At this point in time I'm not a big fan of WotC for various reasons (none of which have anything to do with the OGL).
But I still play 4e and still have a DDI subscription, so I'm still a "customer" of WotC in spite of my view of their products and marketing. It's still a good game to play. There's some really good stuff they came up with that I'd like to see incorporated into a PF style game.
Maybe that's what we'll see in 5e. I dunno. My expectation is that the 5e design team will discover soon enough that pretty promises about including diverse rules systems into one over-arching superset of rules is easier said than done. Frankly I'd rather they take a green-field approach and just come up with a game that works. Competition is good. I am not much for "brand loyalty" either. I want the best product I can find for the money I spend. If 5e is superior to PF then I'll buy product for 5e. I'll probably continue to play PF (just as I have continued to play D&D) but my spending will shift more and more from PF to 5e in relation to how much more I like it.
I'm rooting for the 5e team, I really am. But I gotta say, promising the moon is a pretty bad start to a system that is going to have hell reaching the top of a mountain.
:) Yes but the goal at roll out was to limit the amount that publishers could support both.Assuming WoTC have been behaving badly since 4E's launch - Was that bad for paizo? They seem to have done alright despite any weight throwing.
My point is that it's not a case of "you're with us or you're against us!" he asked why one would be "loyal" to WoTC - my answer is that the question is predicated on a false dichotomy. You can support both and everybody wins.
I wasn't there, but I'll take your word for it.
It doesn't matter though. Even if WoTC were trying to limit 3PP in some way, it didn't do paizo any substantial harm. They innovated and continued to strive for high quality product in the areas that interested them and those of us who like their stuff win. Those who like WoTC stuff win. Those of us lucky enough to like both win twice.
Why is "loyalty" to WoTC so hard to understand? You can support both companies and the industry is better off if both are thriving.
I think that as in most cases, waiting to see what actually transpires in the 5th edition might be the most prudent course of action.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It doesn't matter though. Even if WoTC were trying to limit 3PP in some way, it didn't do paizo any substantial harm. They innovated and continued to strive for high quality product in the areas that interested them and those of us who like their stuff win. Those who like WoTC stuff win. Those of us lucky enough to like both win twice.
Define 'harm'. :-)
Seriously, the (mis)handling of the OGL/GSL argument did hurt companies by hampering long term planning. Now that's not WotC's concern, they're a business, not a charity. Necromancer was directly impacted by the dithering (IIRC). It culled the herd as it were, some good companies and IP were shelved because of the dithering (Scarred Lands) and other companies went elsewhere (Pathfinder, AGE, True20, Cortex etc.)
I seem to recall Wolfgang having a concern about handling 4x articles in KQ, and eventually he said 'frak it' and he (and I assume his lawyers) figured they could publish 4x content in a OGL friendly magazine.
*climbs in wayback machine* I think Wotbro could have been more successful in 'quashing the OGL' if they'd had a GSL more finished and thought out *and* gone to their licensors and given them the new rules and let them continue what they were doing. Well except Paizo. Offer them Greyhawk. Imagine a 4e that had WotC focusing on their 'in house' properties (Eberron, Forgotten (and nuked) Realms, etc) while MWP made GSL Dragonlance Paizo made GSL Greyhawk, WhiteWolf made GSL Ravenloft etc. Sure Paizo, MWP, WW, etc could go elsewhere, but would they?
*back to reality* To me, the false starts with 4.x and the GSL alienated a lot of potential 3pp, and their supporters. That's why we see the success of Pathfinder and 'edition clones'. Heck, if I was Monte, I'd be wondering if I can rerelease material that is Pathfinder AND 5e compatible. 5E Ptolus anyone?
I think that as in most cases, waiting to see what actually transpires in the 5th edition might be the most prudent course of action.
Well, that would be easier if the lead designer didn't insist on stirring the pot with wild promises and self-aggrandizing tweets.