|
*Cash is grudgingly accepted, but payment in hookers and blow provides a 10% discount off the cover price.
Look pony boy, I don't know how you guys in America's Finest city roll, but do you know how much it costs for a high end hooker who would NOT do all your blow in Cheliax New York would cost???
I would have to sell my signed Paranoia 1st printing rule book, my blacklight Silver Surfer Atari controller and half my pog collection for that type of craziness!
I say no to you sir.
But we can still make a deal ....
What can I get for just mushrooms I got in Amsterdam from a guy who may have published the Kult RPG that I've had in my freezer '06?
I think they should either OGL the game, or use Creative Commons (i.e. just Attribution license). Ideally, in the age of the Internet, they should release it copyright free. But most people aren't so forward thinking.
WotC didn't do many adventures for 3E...Perhaps not compared to 2e. But 4e took a dry spell and turned it into the Sahara. I'm not necessarily talking just about big major things like Red Hand of Doom. I mean any adventure support, from short one-shot modules to full-length campaigns.
They produce an enormous amount of adventure material for fourth Edition, it's just not very good (and is predominantly available through the "online iteration" of Dungeon magazine).
|
Like I said, I know nothing about what's come out via DDI. I was judging solely based on the print retail products availible...which is exceedingly minimal. And I'll reiterate my point that WotC shouldn't assume that every 4e (soon to be 5e) player will subscribe to DDI. Some will, some won't. Don't tread those who don't as second-class customers.
|
Do something dramatic, spectacular, and bold.
Be brave and say "we don't want to appease everyone or that other game crowd, we want to have our game working properly".
Unfortunately this IMHO was exactly what they did with 4e. I agree they need something bold, but they also need to make sure it does appease a great majority of current and lapsed players, and is also delivered in an apporpriate manner - PDFs as well as books, DDI for those who need it, organised play, good marketing etc.
|
Maybe it's just me who only ran one published adventure ever and that one was City of the Spiderqueen because I was young and drow are cool. ^^
I also never played a published adventure in the two games I was a player.
I'd say that's probably true about as often as it's not. Some DMs love published adventures, some can't stand them. I've had more pleasant experiences with the former, frankly, but that doesn't really mean anything.
I've played under GMs who ran module after module, by the book, and I've played under GMs who would create their own setting.
When playing under the latter, they tended to have a very focused campaign, taking place within a small area, against one or two enemy organisations, against a deadline, and be wrapped up with a conclusion within say a year real time, or at a certain PC level (remember level 9 used to be 'retirement age' in 1/2E), after which, you'd never visit that campaign again. There'd be a change in systems, change in GM, or another genre.
My own method is to take published material, and alter it to fit the tastes of me and my players, or to disguise the source. I find working from a totally blank slate daunting, but give me an existing frame, and I'll go at it, for my own 'director's cut'. Add extra clues, in case one is missed, fill in plot holes, rewrite awful tactics.
Rules aside, I am more interested in OGL. There are a lot of campaign settings out there, such as Midnight or Scarred Lands, that died when OGL died. I would love to see them resurrected.
Same here. Scarred Lands was my first 3e setting I ever played in, and it would be cool to see an update.
|
|
Unfortunately this IMHO was exactly what they did with 4e. I agree they need something bold, but they also need to make sure it does appease a great majority of current and lapsed players, and is also delivered in an apporpriate manner - PDFs as well as books, DDI for those who need it, organised play, good marketing etc.Do something dramatic, spectacular, and bold.
Be brave and say "we don't want to appease everyone or that other game crowd, we want to have our game working properly".
Nope. 4E was built upon the perceived "new standards" of the younger generation of gamers, trying to translate and duplicate the most appeasing elements of other gaming media.
Without discussing the results, this is one of the great culprits of the "fractured base" (along the most failing PR campaign I've ever seen): losing sight of what is making the difference and building upon its strenghts and advantages, and instead working only to fill the gaps, with an impossible goal.Dramatic, spectacular, not really bold, and doomed.
Thanks (again) but no thanks (again).
Like I said, I know nothing about what's come out via DDI. I was judging solely based on the print retail products availible...which is exceedingly minimal. And I'll reiterate my point that WotC shouldn't assume that every 4e (soon to be 5e) player will subscribe to DDI. Some will, some won't. Don't tread those who don't as second-class customers.
Sorry, I didn't see that bit. Given all the threads I'm not really reading them all, just commenting on occasional posts.
However, I think the next iteration is very likely to be heavily electronic (it almost wouldn't surprise me if a computer isn't mandatory, although it would mean I wouldn't play it).
People who don't play 4E are often not aware of the growing importance of a DDI subscription over the last few years. WoTC had an "oriental adventures" focus for a few months, but you wouldn't have noticed if you didn't play the game and visit the website regularly, for example. Similarly with the updating of the G series modules. It's possible for a group to play 4E without using a DDI subscription, but it's pretty rare (I think).
Wizards_DnD tweeted a little while ago that they plan on continuing support for the 4e digital tools. I don't think you need to worry.I'm more worried about losing my character builder. :(Well, it looks like the people over at Wizards of the Coast, have decided to take a page out of Paizo's book with an open play test.
A new edition? well this will be interesting. I wonder if there will be those who look at their book shelves and howl about how much money they sunk into an edition, and now how all their books will be useless.
Well this could also be an opportunity and a chance to try and knit the community back together.
Cheers. Thats pretty much my only real concern.
They see to be using the term "next iteration" rather than new edition. There's a brief comment on the wizards site which perhaps suggests they're hoping to transcend ones choice of edition. I can't even begin to think how one would do that. (though I may be misreading it).Hmm. Both the New York Times and Forbes articles use the phrase "fifth edition"—but not as a capitalized title form—but the Wizards announcement avoids that exact phrase (but does refer to "previous editions").
I'm fervently hoping this wording is genuinely indicative of their approach and not a marketting ploy to minimize fallout.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Rules aside, I am more interested in OGL. There are a lot of campaign settings out there, such as Midnight or Scarred Lands, that died when OGL died. I would love to see them resurrected.Same here. Scarred Lands was my first 3e setting I ever played in, and it would be cool to see an update.
I'd like to see Scarred Lands too. The 'crippled' nature of their OGL monsters really hampered their spreading to other companies. I think this was a mistake*
I do wonder how open 5.x is going to be. OGL? GSL? NWIHL?** I think the open content is a good winnowing process in this digital age. Good freelancers get noticed by the 'big leagues' poor freelancers get left by the wayside. The question will be, how do the suits see it?
*
**
|
|
I need to get my first bookcase - I just watched a brown recluse crawl out of the pile. :/O_O
Get a bookcase. lol
I have 4 Shelves, 2 feet wide. And no more room for books. Its mostly 3.x and Pathfinder, with some 2e (particularly campaign settings) and a shelf full of WoD books.
There a couple odd one-off books on there as well, like Conan 2e d20, Angel: the RPG (Unisystem), and some more unusual d20 books, like d20 stargate, and d20 WoW, and Everstone: Blood Legacy,
I have too many bookshelves...filled with every hard/soft cover of each edition since 1978 for D&D and Pathfinder. Not to mention boxed sets like Gamma World, Star Frontiers, Top Secret, Boot Hill, Traveller (the good old pocket sized books), Squad Leader (and the add-ons).
And did I mention every book from every editon of D&D? I'm going to hate moving......
I think midnight looked really quite good.
While I will miss things like Mind Flayers, Eberron, and Lolth, all I want from 5ed is to be Pathfinder...because I love Pathfinder. I found my game, I love it, and there is nothing 5ed could do that would lure my dollars to them, unless they made the game using the Pathfinder system. Since I know this won't happen...Ouch. I hope Paizo's not planning on switching to Pathfinder 2nd Edition at some point.
As always, it depends on how it's done. Is it still mostly compatible? Does it still deliver about the same style of experience? Does it support all the good variations its predecessor supported? If so, updated editions tend to be easily adopted. If not, then you see a greater tendency toward problems in getting people to adopt.
Frankly, WotC put themselves in a bit of a bind. If they come out with a 5e intended to get 3e and PF fans to adopt it, they may have problems with 4e fans doing so. If they make it easy for 4e fans to adopt it, they're probably not going to recapture many 3e or PF fans.
They did a reboot with Essentials and a few months later started with working on 5th Edition.
With all my 2nd/3rd/3.5/starwars/rifts/d20 modern books, not to mention boxes of Dragonlance/Birthright/Dark Sun/Ravenloft/Planescape plus my growing collection of Pathfinder I cannot get into a new system.
If I lived in a Bachelor, I would be featured on hoarders.
"Do you really need 1000's of dice?"
"MIIIIIIIINNNNNnnnnneeeee"
EDIT: I forgot about my 4th ED books...because well....for me they were forgettable.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I began playing D&D in 1976. My group and I changed to every new addition, upgrading our characters to the new rules and moving right along. We loved the game. And we were loyal to the game, and felt it was loyal to us.
Then came a total change in D&D. Not only was 4th not the same game, but there was a feeling of being just the next guy in line to give money to an unappreciative sales clerk who wouldn't even make eye contact.
Along came Pathfinder and again there was that feel of community, of a game made and sold by people who loved the game themselves. The people of Paizo have treated players with the respect we once had from D&D. When I stand in that imaginary line to buy my Pathfinder product, the sales clerk says, "Hey, did you see the cool artwork on page 33? What do you think of the new feats in chapter five?"
Paizo makes eye contact, the way D&D once did. Why would I consider abandoning that just because the rude sales clerk now wants my input?
Sorry, WOTC, you got my input when I got out of the D&D line and moved to the Pathfinder line.
Essentials was more of a marketing strategy than a reboot (though I could be wrong about that). Didn't they use the same 4E rules set? It seems that it was geared to a "casual" board game type player who would be willing to do a one off night and not a campaign.
I did play the Ravenloft board game and I thought that was pretty decent though if the 4E rules are similar I was not that crazy about them.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought on the surface at least the basic concept behind the essentials line was two fold. One was to make an easy entry point for new players with the Red Box with tokens and the like in the boxed sets/monster vault. The other main purpose was to put together a single set of evergreen products that would stay in print (for the run of the edition at least) that retailers could keep in stock. While I have no information as to the financial success of Essentials I will say that overall I think it was a nice approach and one they should have taken from day one of 4E. The only weakness in my mind is that the Red Box and the two Heroes books should really have been combined in a single D&D box that gave you all the character information you needed in addition to some intro material and dice to get you going. I think the Monster Vault and Dungeon Tiles Master Sets were very nice.
It's going to be interesting to see what the core evergreen product or products are going to be when they release 5E.
L
As a side note, I think the adventure system games like Castle Ravenloft are a lot of fun and a good way to expand the D&D IP.
As a side note, I think the adventure system games like Castle Ravenloft are a lot of fun and a good way to expand the D&D IP.
Indeed. It's also a good place for the 4e power structure to shine without becoming overly cumbersome.
WHAT how you dare Vanilla Coke is the best thing over that's it I'm going for the knife!
Not all ideas are great ones (Vanilla Coke).
The only people who like it are women and bags with teeth...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not all ideas are great ones (Vanilla Coke).
HA! Don't you mean "NEW" Coke? Using that as a parallel, what we should expect from 5th Edition is "Coca-Cola Classic" or D&D 3.75, (i.e. very similar to Pathfinder).
WoC didn't realize what they had with Paizo. They wanted to eliminate competition with Paizo, but instead created competition they couldn't handle. Business people at Hasbro / WoC failed to recognize not only the talent of Paizo's staff, but the talent pool of thousands of 3.5 gamers that were fans of Paizo's superior products. Paizo went a different route and listened to all of to make an even better product that's still D&D.
I don't know if even Monte Cook can save WoC from this blunder. I foresee day when Hasbro will sell Paizo the D&D Trademark for pennies on the dollar. Let WoC make cards. They're really good at that. Then WoC will one day make supporting products for Paizo's Dungeons & Dragons: Pathfinder Edition!
LONG LIVE D&D!!!
I don't think they've created a competition they couldn't handle, but I must aggree with those who say that 4E didn't generate as much income as they thought it will. If the maximum profit rather than steady profit and sustainability is the goal than it may happen.
Not all ideas are great ones (Vanilla Coke).
HA! Don't you mean "NEW" Coke? Using that as a parallel, what we should expect from 5th Edition is "Coca-Cola Classic" or D&D 3.75, (i.e. very similar to Pathfinder).
WoC didn't realize what they had with Paizo. They wanted to eliminate competition with Paizo, but instead created competition they couldn't handle. Business people at Hasbro / WoC failed to recognize not only the talent of Paizo's staff, but the talent pool of thousands of 3.5 gamers that were fans of Paizo's superior products. Paizo went a different route and listened to all of to make an even better product that's still D&D.
I don't know if even Monte Cook can save WoC from this blunder. I foresee day when Hasbro will sell Paizo the D&D Trademark for pennies on the dollar. Let WoC make cards. They're really good at that. Then WoC will one day make supporting products for Paizo's Dungeons & Dragons: Pathfinder Edition!
LONG LIVE D&D!!!
If Wizards goes, D&D is on the shelf possibly forever as an RPG. It might show up as a boardgame, or CCG. Wizards will always be around thanks to MtG but D&D could face a very real possibility of a shelf.
hasbro does not sell their property, as far as I know they acquire it. I imagine well before D&D would get offered to Paizo, Hasbro would make an offer to buy PF (Don't think that is likely). They want a monopoly.
Look at GI JOE and TRANSFORMERS. What was around in the 90's? Nothing. Around 2005 they start to bring it back, and they even market to nostalgia. That would be the fate of D&D. A generation skip.
Or D&D becomes a fine boardgame brand like Monopoly, Life, Sorry, Battleship, and Hungry Hungry Hippos.
All those different toy companies that were competeing when I was a kid have almost all been bought by Hasbro. Everything that is not originally Mattel seems to be Hasbro now.
Hasbro is a cold corporation, but I have to admit, almost ALL of my childhood interests that made me very happy are controlled by Hasbro. (I never liked He-Man). All those cutting edge games I used to play as a kid with labels like Avalon Hill, all are Hasbro. Hasbro has engulfed just about everything not shielded by Mattel. They bought Avalon Hill... was Avalon Hill a larger company than Paizo? I don't think so but I tend to look at Paizo in a very favourable light.
If Hasbro wanted to get dirty they could buy out Paizo and make Eric, Lisa, James et al. very very rich. Ultimately that is the american way. Start a small company and hope the big boys want you bad enough that you NEVER have to work again.
I would certainly be upset if Hasbro bought Paizo, but I could never in a million years blame the Paizo folks for taking an offer.
Parker Brothers USED to compete with Milton Bradley. Now they are brands of the same company.
Nobody ever knows what can happen in the world of business. I am almost sure though Hasbro will not offer up any of its properties.
D&D as a board game only. <shudder>
You're probably right, but the only difference is that D&D is not a toy or a game like monopoly. It's really a series of books. They bought WotC for a card game. They may not care about being in the publishing business.
Regardless, Pathfinder is really D&D now. I'd hate to see that iconic trademark for ALL role-playing games disappear from the Earth.
|
|
D&D as a board game only. <shudder>
You're probably right, but the only difference is that D&D is not a toy or a game like monopoly. It's really a series of books. They bought WotC for a card game. They may not care about being in the publishing business.
Regardless, Pathfinder is really D&D now. I'd hate to see that iconic trademark for ALL role-playing games disappear from the Earth.
Firstly, NO Pathfinder is Pathfinder, D&D is D&D...
Secondly, actually the '4e' boardgames from WotC are very entertaining. Now I am NOT saying it's all WotC should do and they should forget about producing an RPG, just I'm giving credit where credit is due.
S.
Firstly, NO Pathfinder is Pathfinder, D&D is D&D...Regardless, Pathfinder is really D&D now. I'd hate to see that iconic trademark for ALL role-playing games disappear from the Earth.
While Pathfinder is not D&D, it is also not a unique system called Pathfinder. It is a D20 system, and always will be, til the day Paizo creates a unique character creation and combat system that is not based on the OGL.
|
|
While Pathfinder is not D&D, it is also not a unique system called Pathfinder. It is a D20 system, and always will be, til the day Paizo creates a unique character creation and combat system that is not based on the OGL.Firstly, NO Pathfinder is Pathfinder, D&D is D&D...Regardless, Pathfinder is really D&D now. I'd hate to see that iconic trademark for ALL role-playing games disappear from the Earth.
What makes you think D&D = d20 system. D&D 3e, 3.5e, & 4e edition all use the d20 system - 1e/2e & 4e do not have any OGL content. Your implication is that out of all the D&D's to date 1e/2e & 4e aren't D&D! The only true D&D is 3/3.5e then?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While Pathfinder is not D&D, it is also not a unique system called Pathfinder. It is a D20 system, and always will be, til the day Paizo creates a unique character creation and combat system that is not based on the OGL.Firstly, NO Pathfinder is Pathfinder, D&D is D&D...Regardless, Pathfinder is really D&D now. I'd hate to see that iconic trademark for ALL role-playing games disappear from the Earth.
What makes you think D&D = d20 system. D&D 3e, 3.5e, & 4e edition all use the d20 system - 1e/2e & 4e do not have any OGL content. Your implication is that out of all the D&D's to date 1e/2e & 4e aren't D&D! The only true D&D is 3/3.5e then?
Actually, I think he's saying that Pathfinder's utter reliance on the D&D 3.5/d20 rules means that it's pretty hard to hold the position that Pathfinder and D&D are two completely distinct things. I think that, for 90%+ of people who played D&D 3.5, if you sat them down to play a Pathfinder core game without actually telling them that it was Pathfinder, they'd probably still think they were playing D&D.
Actually, I think he's saying that Pathfinder's utter reliance on the D&D 3.5/d20 rules means that it's pretty hard to hold the position that Pathfinder and D&D are two completely distinct things. I think that, for 90%+ of people who played D&D 3.5, if you sat them down to play a Pathfinder core game without actually telling them that it was Pathfinder, they'd probably still think they were playing D&D.While Pathfinder is not D&D, it is also not a unique system called Pathfinder. It is a D20 system, and always will be, til the day Paizo creates a unique character creation and combat system that is not based on the OGL.Firstly, NO Pathfinder is Pathfinder, D&D is D&D...Regardless, Pathfinder is really D&D now. I'd hate to see that iconic trademark for ALL role-playing games disappear from the Earth.
What makes you think D&D = d20 system. D&D 3e, 3.5e, & 4e edition all use the d20 system - 1e/2e & 4e do not have any OGL content. Your implication is that out of all the D&D's to date 1e/2e & 4e aren't D&D! The only true D&D is 3/3.5e then?
Yep, what Scott said.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I think he's saying that Pathfinder's utter reliance on the D&D 3.5/d20 rules means that it's pretty hard to hold the position that Pathfinder and D&D are two completely distinct things. I think that, for 90%+ of people who played D&D 3.5, if you sat them down to play a Pathfinder core game without actually telling them that it was Pathfinder, they'd probably still think they were playing D&D.While Pathfinder is not D&D, it is also not a unique system called Pathfinder. It is a D20 system, and always will be, til the day Paizo creates a unique character creation and combat system that is not based on the OGL.Firstly, NO Pathfinder is Pathfinder, D&D is D&D...Regardless, Pathfinder is really D&D now. I'd hate to see that iconic trademark for ALL role-playing games disappear from the Earth.
What makes you think D&D = d20 system. D&D 3e, 3.5e, & 4e edition all use the d20 system - 1e/2e & 4e do not have any OGL content. Your implication is that out of all the D&D's to date 1e/2e & 4e aren't D&D! The only true D&D is 3/3.5e then?
Funny, because 90%+ of 3.5e players if you sat them down to a core 4e game wouldn't think they are playing D&D... ;)
|
|
Yep, what Scott said.Actually, I think he's saying that Pathfinder's utter reliance on the D&D 3.5/d20 rules means that it's pretty hard to hold the position that Pathfinder and D&D are two completely distinct things. I think that, for 90%+ of people who played D&D 3.5, if you sat them down to play a Pathfinder core game without actually telling them that it was Pathfinder, they'd probably still think they were playing D&D.While Pathfinder is not D&D, it is also not a unique system called Pathfinder. It is a D20 system, and always will be, til the day Paizo creates a unique character creation and combat system that is not based on the OGL.Firstly, NO Pathfinder is Pathfinder, D&D is D&D...Regardless, Pathfinder is really D&D now. I'd hate to see that iconic trademark for ALL role-playing games disappear from the Earth.
What makes you think D&D = d20 system. D&D 3e, 3.5e, & 4e edition all use the d20 system - 1e/2e & 4e do not have any OGL content. Your implication is that out of all the D&D's to date 1e/2e & 4e aren't D&D! The only true D&D is 3/3.5e then?
I get your general point, just comments such as these devalue the input Paizo has put in to go from 3.5e OGL --> Pathfinder RPG..
S.
Actually, I think he's saying that Pathfinder's utter reliance on the D&D 3.5/d20 rules means that it's pretty hard to hold the position that Pathfinder and D&D are two completely distinct things. I think that, for 90%+ of people who played D&D 3.5, if you sat them down to play a Pathfinder core game without actually telling them that it was Pathfinder, they'd probably still think they were playing D&D.While Pathfinder is not D&D, it is also not a unique system called Pathfinder. It is a D20 system, and always will be, til the day Paizo creates a unique character creation and combat system that is not based on the OGL.Firstly, NO Pathfinder is Pathfinder, D&D is D&D...Regardless, Pathfinder is really D&D now. I'd hate to see that iconic trademark for ALL role-playing games disappear from the Earth.
What makes you think D&D = d20 system. D&D 3e, 3.5e, & 4e edition all use the d20 system - 1e/2e & 4e do not have any OGL content. Your implication is that out of all the D&D's to date 1e/2e & 4e aren't D&D! The only true D&D is 3/3.5e then?
Funny, because 90%+ of 3.5e players if you sat them down to a core 4e game wouldn't think they are playing D&D... ;)
Actually, most of them would probably say something along the lines of, "Huh, this seems a lot like D&D. Are you sure we're playing something different?"
|
|
Adventures matter; they matter a lot.I cannot agree with this enough. Adventure support is huge. Huge huge huge. I hope they have a strong plan for how they'll muster up sufficient adventure content in 5e.
If they can get Chris Perkins and Monte Cook to work on the adventures, I think they could really have a great thing on their hands. Perkins' webisodes of DnD (with Penny Arcade and Robot Chicken) were excellent.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adventures matter; they matter a lot.I cannot agree with this enough. Adventure support is huge. Huge huge huge. I hope they have a strong plan for how they'll muster up sufficient adventure content in 5e.I'll +1 these points.
Same here. If they do not want to do an OGL, like with 3rd ed, I would be fine with them doing something in between the OGL and GSL, such as only WOTC producing source books and crunch, while 3PP are allowed to do all the setting and adventure material they want.
Why would any 3PP want to invest in creating adventures for a system that is in constant flux with an unfriendly licensing when they have an alternative that is currently more popular with a friendly gaming license.
It isn't coincidence, it's good business. WoTC completely screwed the 3PP on the last edition change, why would they move resources and risk getting screwed again?
I wouldn't be that ecstatic about popularity. With production schedule WotC had it's no wonder that Paizo had better sales, but that's skewed image of the D&D market IMO. Let's wait and see (and I seriously hope that Paizo will do fine even when the new system lands in the stores).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only in so much as 90%+ of 3.5e players if you sat them down to a core AD&D game wouldn't think they are playing D&D...Funny, because 90%+ of 3.5e players if you sat them down to a core 4e game wouldn't think they are playing D&D... ;)
Which got a 20 year run and then went into bankruptcy.
A 3.5 variant on the other hand, has sold better the 4e for the last two quarters.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I think he's saying that Pathfinder's utter reliance on the D&D 3.5/d20 rules means that it's pretty hard to hold the position that Pathfinder and D&D are two completely distinct things. I think that, for 90%+ of people who played D&D 3.5, if you sat them down to play a Pathfinder core game without actually telling them that it was Pathfinder, they'd probably still think they were playing D&D.
Pathfinder relies on it because it is a smart business model.
Pathfinder is D&D for most of us. WoTC bought the brand and abandoned the game.
The reason Pathfinder is successful is because the basics behind the game work, and they realized that the OGL wasn't a problem by a solution. They have more and better adventures and modules specifically because the OGL allows 3PP and freelancers to be able to write for the game without worrying about litigation.
Just because WoTC owns the brand, doesn't mean they own the concept of table top gaming. Pathfinder is 3.51 or 3.75 or however you want to frame it. They have a staff who are skilled at making product for the 3rd edition chassis, because they have been doing it for 11 years now.
Every time you put out a new edition, writers have to learn how to write things that work for that edition. When it is a major revision, that requires a major investment in time and resources, as well as a trial and error period.
Add to that that WoTC basically reserves the right to sue anyone who gets to actually be competitive with them and the fact that Pathfinder is currently outselling them...if I'm writing adventures, I'm not going to write them for the system that is dying (4e) I can't write them for the system that I don't know yet (5e) so I'm writing for Pathfinder.
Even if they get Monte to write, he is only one person. Paizo exists because WoTC got rid of them. Paizo really is D&D in all but brand.
Brand loyalty to a brand that no longer produces the product you are loyal to and no longer have the same staff that made it makes no sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is D&D for most of us. WoTC bought the brand and abandoned the game.
Now you really are just getting silly. There was this 11 year period in which Wizards developed 3rd Edition and ran with it extremely successfully until it THEN dropped it to be continued by Paizo as the game you praise so much now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They produce an enormous amount of adventure material for fourth Edition, it's just not very good (and is predominantly available through the "online iteration" of Dungeon magazine).WotC didn't do many adventures for 3E...Perhaps not compared to 2e. But 4e took a dry spell and turned it into the Sahara. I'm not necessarily talking just about big major things like Red Hand of Doom. I mean any adventure support, from short one-shot modules to full-length campaigns.
Yeah, lots of combat encounters strung together with the barest hint of a plot tying them together (which is what most of WotC's 4E adventures are) doesn't make for much of an adventure. If you are going to publish adventures, make them at least somewhat interesting or don't bother.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, most of them would probably say something along the lines of, "Huh, this seems a lot like D&D. Are you sure we're playing something different?"Actually, I think he's saying that Pathfinder's utter reliance on the D&D 3.5/d20 rules means that it's pretty hard to hold the position that Pathfinder and D&D are two completely distinct things. I think that, for 90%+ of people who played D&D 3.5, if you sat them down to play a Pathfinder core game without actually telling them that it was Pathfinder, they'd probably still think they were playing D&D.While Pathfinder is not D&D, it is also not a unique system called Pathfinder. It is a D20 system, and always will be, til the day Paizo creates a unique character creation and combat system that is not based on the OGL.Firstly, NO Pathfinder is Pathfinder, D&D is D&D...Regardless, Pathfinder is really D&D now. I'd hate to see that iconic trademark for ALL role-playing games disappear from the Earth.
What makes you think D&D = d20 system. D&D 3e, 3.5e, & 4e edition all use the d20 system - 1e/2e & 4e do not have any OGL content. Your implication is that out of all the D&D's to date 1e/2e & 4e aren't D&D! The only true D&D is 3/3.5e then?
Funny, because 90%+ of 3.5e players if you sat them down to a core 4e game wouldn't think they are playing D&D... ;)
I don't know about that. It would be more like, "This is kind of like D&D, but I don't think it really is D&D." One of the main reasons 4E failed is so many gamers took a look at the books or played a game of it and said or at least thought "This isn't D&D."
|
|
Pathfinder is D&D for most of us. WoTC bought the brand and abandoned the game.Now you really are just getting silly. There was this 11 year period in which Wizards developed 3rd Edition and ran with it extremely successfully until it THEN dropped it to be continued by Paizo as the game you praise so much now.
TSR was bought in 1997. 3.0 came out in 2000. 3.5 came in 2003. It was announced to go away in E00Z and killed in E00X.
Where are you getting 11?
|
|
Only in so much as 90%+ of 3.5e players if you sat them down to a core AD&D game wouldn't think they are playing D&D...Funny, because 90%+ of 3.5e players if you sat them down to a core 4e game wouldn't think they are playing D&D... ;)
Which got a 20 year run and then went into bankruptcy.
A 3.5 variant on the other hand, has sold better the 4e for the last two quarters.
Eh? I am lost as to how your comment relates to mine? I was merely indicating that if 3.5 players felt playing 4e wasn't playing D&D that they would likely feel the same about playng AD&D. I.e. that if they only think of D&D as 3.x d20, then any change from that would be something not D&D to them.
However most people realise that even though the rules change, the game in AD&D, 3.5 & 4e is still D&D. Just like people who play Deadlands whether it is using the original rules or the new Savage Worlds rules would still believe they are playing Deadlands.
|
|
Yeah, lots of combat encounters strung together with the barest hint of a plot tying them together (which is what most of WotC's 4E adventures are) doesn't make for much of an adventure. If you are going to publish adventures, make them at least somewhat interesting or don't bother.
I admit I haven't read an Adventure Path (started playing RotRL but it dragged on so long I never finished it), however I could describe quite a few of the Pathfinder Society scenarios as "lots of combat encounters strung together with the barest hint of a plot".
I just read 3-09 The Quest for Perfection Part 1 and it is basically that - pretty much all combat and only a bit of social interaction. Even the "skill challenge" encounter is the one made optional. So whilst WotC may not have written good adventures (I haven't read any TBH) they don't hold the monopoly on that.