Since DND 4 is not really based on OGC as 3.5 I wonder if in time pathfinder will evolve more and rules and grow apart of DND. Any idea about the possible evolutionary paths that Pathfinder might follow?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yuck, Tayschrenn. Forgotten Realms? Really?
I'd almost rather play in Krynn...
:)
This got asked on Another Forum, and I think the response was that Hasbro does not sell IPs for anything. If D&D 5 flops, for example, they'll shelve it and not let anyone else use the D&D brand name.
|
This actually was kind of answered in several thread by various paizo employes. I can't spend the time right now to search through dozens of threads but relevant points are:
1)The owners of Paizo are not interested in seeing the company grow too large (employee wise)
2) Publishing material for more settings means splitting your audience. While there may be some gamers who buy products for all settings, it essentially means you end up with less money if the output of books remains roughly the same (point 1)
3) Hasbro will probably not sell IPs they can use to make money (through novels and CRPGs) even if D&D loses customers. Compared to other products, D&D is possibly already (and was even during its 3.0/3.5 height) not the most profitable product (writing/producing books is more expensive in both time and money then producing most boardgames, the D&D market ist still a niche market, no mater how popular 'nerd culture' may seem at any moment in time)
I think it will. There are some aspects of D&D 3.x/Pathfinder that I would like to see change, namely the complexity of high-level play and the Christmas tree effect.
Because Pathfinder at launch had to be backwards-compatible with 3.5, that limited what the designers could do with it. But now that Pathfinder is a market leader and has a broad, loyal base, they can probably make more changes in a new edition whenever that comes.
I haven't looked closely at the D&D Next playtest, but it seems like there are some good ideas in there. I'm just not confident it will cohere into a good overall system. It's clear though, that they have more freedom to innovate than Paizo did with Pathfinder RPG.
|
This got asked on Another Forum, and I think the response was that Hasbro does not sell IPs for anything. If D&D 5 flops, for example, they'll shelve it and not let anyone else use the D&D brand name.
It is possible they could license ot out though like Activision is starting to do with old Sierra IPs. I doubt Paizo would be an interested buyer but I could see Necromancer, Green Ronin or a startup grabbing some of the campaign settings amd releasing them under their own system or even Pathfinder.
It would require DnD5 to flop and a good 5-10 years of inactivity of the IP for that to happen though. An example why copyright terms of 90 years is absurd.
No, but aside from Kender it's nicer to visit than the 'Realms. Imo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the OP is actually asking if Piazo will make a Pathfinder 1.5 or 2.0 which is significantly different than the current game which is at its heart 3.x with its own world and a few different rules.
I like pathfinder and doubt I could go back to 3.x because to me it is a different game but its a valid question.
I think that a future pathfinder version WILL be significantly different than the game system is now. Piazo absorbed quite a few rules and stats that are open to improvement but could not be improved in the first iteration.
weapons and armor lists, the way feats, skills, spells and abilities work. I dont think that they will make a change as extreme as the DnD 4.0 travesty or even as big as the 2.0 to 3.x change. but I am fairly certain that in the coming years pathfinder will, either through erata or version change, evolve into a more uniquely piazo product.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder has little incentive to do a new edition. Their business model is based on adventures and campaign setting. The only reason we have the pfrpg is because WotC stopped printing 3.5 books and you need a steady source of core books to keep a game growing, may as well fix a few issues with the rules while at it.
Putting out a second edition of Pathfinder would kill sales of the back catalog and just schism their customer base. Nothing is wrong with the rules system (not even the monk) to warrant a new edition.
DnD5e is WotC's hail mary. I think it'll kill the DnD brand (I wish em the best, but they made their bed. They will have to lie in it). So I suppose one brand dying while another chugs along and grows is deviating.
I don't that 5e will flop. It's much more free form (I gather, from reading reviews, developer quotes, and playtest documents), which isn't a bad way to go. The Mouse Guard RPG won a lot of awards, IIRC, and it's far more freeform than mechanical. 5e seems to blend a lot of 3e/3.5 back in to the mix while leaving some of the at-will abilities of 4e (and shedding the nightmare that is power-selection overload).
I don't think it will be able to compete with Pathfinder at this point (okay, I'm biased), but I think it has a chance to help them recover from stumbling with 4e.
I will say that I signed up for the playtest and considered trying to run what they offered with my PF group. I lost interest pretty quickly, and no one else really cared anyway. If the final product looks like the playtest, I'm not going to be switching over. Too rules-light for my tastes.
If pathfinder evolves, I hope that the next edition focuses on changes to light/perception/stealth, crafting and economy (I think I'd like to see the currency changed to a silver standard to help with verisimilitude), weapons and armor stats, and new mechanics for things like holding a hostage [with a knife to their throat].
I'm sure that 5e won't flop any worse than 4e, but to Hasbro/WotC it was a flop, and I don't doubt due to the lack of tabletop gamers that 5e will ever bring a profit to satisfy Hasbro, as their expectations are extremely high ($50 million in sales a year is their expectation.) To Hasbro, I'm sure 5e will be a flop.
I personally have no needs for Pathfinder to change or get upgraded, and I hope there is no such update for ten years or more.
Seeing Paizo's adventure publishing schedule which eats up lots of employee time, I seriously doubt to see another kitchen-sink setting like Golarian out of Paizo, ever. I could see a possible space/planets setting that extends Golarian, but nothing more than that.
Besides there are plenty of third party settings out there designed specifically for use in Pathfinder, so there is no need for Paizo to create another. If you want a horror setting, a post apocalyptic setting, an undersea setting, whatever - it's out there now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seeing Paizo's adventure publishing schedule which eats up lots of employee time, I seriously doubt to see another kitchen-sink setting like Golarian out of Paizo, ever. I could see a possible space/planets setting that extends Golarian, but nothing more than that.
Agreed. Heck, they still have tons of areas to expand upon that could easily become another two to four World Guides rivalling the Inner Sea World Guide. We still have Tian Xia/The Dragon Empires, Vudra, and Arcadia. Plus, they could easily do a complete World Guide for the entire Golarion Solar System.
Even if they come out with a World Guide every two to three years, that is still enough.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might be nice to see a "Core Rules II" book that contains new rules and fixes for current issues. That way it would be compatible but also optional for folks.
It is inevitable.
Pathfinder is growing and changing. Every supplement Paizo releases for the core rules includes expansions and developments of ideas from the core rules-- the game is improving. Eventually it will reach a point that for those expansions and developments to remain relevant, they will have to be built into the Core.
There are only so many things you can 'fix' with feats and archetypes before you run out of design space because characters have a limited number of feats and cannot take overlapping archetypes.
The difference is, because Paizo's business model depends on the APs rather than the supplements... their edition cycle can afford to be based on when the game needs refitted, not when they need the money.
I think D&D "5e" is actually developing the acronym "DDN" as its short form moniker, not "5e". "DDN" = "D&D Next".
Market forces being what they are, if DDN ends up being wildly successful, it will have an impact on Pathfinder. If DDN ends up being a total flop, it will have an impacdt on Pathfinder. If it ends up just adopting the current 4e fanbase, it will still have an impact on Pathfinder, although a much reduced one.
I am a DDI subscriber and have seen the playtest materials and have participated in discussion about the current DDN rules. I can say that it is very clear that Wizards/Hasbro is pulling out all the stops to attempt to reclaim the lion's share of the D&D legacy market. That means they are absolutely planning to compete directly with Pathfinder for customers.
The eventual impact of DDN on Pathfinder will depend entirely on how the market accepts DDN. My personal reaction right now is very much a mixed reaction. There are some things I like a lot, some things that I don't really care about, and some things that I think won't survive playtesting, but if they do, will pretty much make it a niche game, leaving Pathfinder to be the market leader going forward.
If I had to bet right now, I'd say that Pathfinder has a better chance of being the market leader in two years, and with that market lead position they can do whatever they like with the game.
And that means they could make similar disastrous mistakes to what Wizards did.
The one thing that is certain is that Pathfinder will make changes. That's how the market model for RPG games works. Without changes there is no market. So changes will come.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might be nice to see a "Core Rules II" book that contains new rules and fixes for current issues. That way it would be compatible but also optional for folks.
I can't imagine how anyone would consider a "Core Rules II" book like that to be optional. Sounds a LOT like the 3.5 edition of D&D, which, while it DID clean things up... caused a fair amount of friction and mayhem. A product like this would be one a game company would be well advised to think LONG AND HARD about the timing of its release.
I can't imagine how anyone would consider a "Core Rules II" book like that to be optional. Sounds a LOT like the 3.5 edition of D&D, which, while it DID clean things up... caused a fair amount of friction and mayhem. A product like this would be one a game company would be well advised to think LONG AND HARD about the timing of its release.
Oh I agree it would need to be done carefully, but really it would be a compilation of the FAQ, later print edition changes, and some revisions.
It would be optional to those who do not use the updated material, or are fine with small issues, but could be purchased by those who need the impact - monk players for example.
I suppose you are correct - virtually any hardcover book that comes out is not typically looked at as optional by my group...people rush out to buy it ASAP.
Still, updates on the rules would be nice, so maybe PF 2.0.
Jason, I'd also like to see an update to the rules which incorporate FAQ and errata but also make some pretty significant changes to some of the more obviously problematic rules as they exist now (magic item creation? Ammunition?, etc...)
However, having been in the publishing industry I am aware of how the economics of such things work, and it's very hard to justify all of the expense and effort of producing an "updated" version without seeking out new potential income by making it a "bigger deal" than "just an update" which then opens the door to all kinds of changes, and that tends to take on a life of its own.
I think Pathfinder's current approach is fine, but I do think we will see a Pathfinder 2.0 at some point. As some have said, it's sorta inevitable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might be nice to see a "Core Rules II" book that contains new rules and fixes for current issues. That way it would be compatible but also optional for folks.I can't imagine how anyone would consider a "Core Rules II" book like that to be optional. Sounds a LOT like the 3.5 edition of D&D, which, while it DID clean things up... caused a fair amount of friction and mayhem. A product like this would be one a game company would be well advised to think LONG AND HARD about the timing of its release.
I'm all for something that's sort of like this, but which in practice is more like 3.5e's Rules Compendium. There's a lot of rules scattered in a lot of places, and a lot of clarifications peppered here and there that could use consolidation.
I'm sure a lot of people would moan about paying twice for the same content, but man, I was so happy with the Rules Compendium - it did such a great job of clarifying so many fiddly bits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're five years closer to a Pathfinder 2nd Edition. We just don't know how many years remain! :)
If they announced today that they were starting development of a new edition, but it would take 3-4 years, I would give it my full support. I think it's getting close to time. I really just want the rules reorganized, not changed.
But I would settle for that 13th+ Legends Guide with the 21st+ chapter that I've been requesting for a few years now. I need it now more than ever.
EDIT: Turns out it was only 1 year ago I started begging for a 13th+ book.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
What are they going to do when the following edition is released? Does it become "D&D Previous" at that point?
Removed a post. Please don't make inflammatory statements.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're five years closer to a Pathfinder 2nd Edition. We just don't know how many years remain! :)
If they announced today that they were starting development of a new edition, but it would take 3-4 years, I would give it my full support. I think it's getting close to time. I really just want the rules reorganized, not changed.
But I would settle for that 13th+ Legends Guide with the 21st+ chapter that I've been requesting for a few years now. I need it now more than ever.
EDIT: Turns out it was only 1 year ago I started begging for a 13th+ book.
Personally I am expecting Pathfinder 2.0 8-10 years after Pathfinder RPG came out. Which we are almost to the 3 year mark. I would expect them to perhaps start the alpha/beta testing of it 18 months to 2 years prior to the release. So I think we are 3-5 years before they say anything. But who knows maybe i will be wrong.
This got asked on Another Forum, and I think the response was that Hasbro does not sell IPs for anything. If D&D 5 flops, for example, they'll shelve it and not let anyone else use the D&D brand name.It is possible they could license ot out though like Activision is starting to do with old Sierra IPs. I doubt Paizo would be an interested buyer but I could see Necromancer, Green Ronin or a startup grabbing some of the campaign settings amd releasing them under their own system or even Pathfinder.
I doubt even Paizo would have the kind of money that Hasbro would want to see, let alone any of the smaller games companies.
It might be nice to see a "Core Rules II" book that contains new rules and fixes for current issues. That way it would be compatible but also optional for folks.I can't imagine how anyone would consider a "Core Rules II" book like that to be optional. Sounds a LOT like the 3.5 edition of D&D, which, while it DID clean things up... caused a fair amount of friction and mayhem. A product like this would be one a game company would be well advised to think LONG AND HARD about the timing of its release.
The only I can think of is as mentioned as a 'rules compendium' or to fix any major issues with the game that have reared their heads. The only one of those I can think of is that the monk really needs rewriting, but that's just my opinion...;)
You know, since Pathfinder is such a community driven game, wouldn't it be fun to kind of have an open source ideas doc that compiled the biggest requests, ideas, and problems and then as a community we could decide (through voting, forum discussions, etc.) which pieces were necessary to include in a "Rules Compendium/Core 2" what-have-you?
Just a thought. Pathfinder is working for me now, but there's always room for some more butter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, since Pathfinder is such a community driven game, wouldn't it be fun to kind of have an open source ideas doc that compiled the biggest requests, ideas, and problems and then as a community we could decide (through voting, forum discussions, etc.) which pieces were necessary to include in a "Rules Compendium/Core 2" what-have-you?
I've wanted to do this for some time, a sort of 100% community maintained "fork" of the Pathfinder code-base. It would retain compatibility (wherever possible) but the community would decide on the best fixes/updates for various things and then after a suitable review period (say, quarterly) the best suggestions would trickle into the codebase.
There's lots of neat possibilities there, and I'm rather certain the technical requirements are not a big challenge. All it really needs is adequate interest and effort by the community. Thus far I haven't seen either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh I agree it would need to be done carefully, but really it would be a compilation of the FAQ, later print edition changes, and some revisions.
dont they already do that.
every once in a while they release a new printing of the core books with the latest eratta.
You know, since Pathfinder is such a community driven game, wouldn't it be fun to kind of have an open source ideas doc that compiled the biggest requests, ideas, and problems and then as a community we could decide (through voting, forum discussions, etc.) which pieces were necessary to include in a "Rules Compendium/Core 2" what-have-you?
We already have the suggestions forum, that's what it's for.
You know, since Pathfinder is such a community driven game, wouldn't it be fun to kind of have an open source ideas doc that compiled the biggest requests, ideas, and problems and then as a community we could decide (through voting, forum discussions, etc.) which pieces were necessary to include in a "Rules Compendium/Core 2" what-have-you?I've wanted to do this for some time, a sort of 100% community maintained "fork" of the Pathfinder code-base. It would retain compatibility (wherever possible) but the community would decide on the best fixes/updates for various things and then after a suitable review period (say, quarterly) the best suggestions would trickle into the codebase.
There's lots of neat possibilities there, and I'm rather certain the technical requirements are not a big challenge. All it really needs is adequate interest and effort by the community. Thus far I haven't seen either.
Something like this, which is then released to a decent POD vendor for a zero/nominal markup would be utterly fantastic.
Yeah, it has already moved quite a bit away from 3.5. As someone who back-engineers (primitive 3.5 neanderthal here) it can be a pain. I can use some monsters though, if I increase their CR by 1-2 and swap out vital strike and other pathfinder feats for something else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, since Pathfinder is such a community driven game, wouldn't it be fun to kind of have an open source ideas doc that compiled the biggest requests, ideas, and problems and then as a community we could decide (through voting, forum discussions, etc.) which pieces were necessary to include in a "Rules Compendium/Core 2" what-have-you?We already have the suggestions forum, that's what it's for.
I personally think that the conflation of the Homebrew and Suggestion forums has caused problems for both.
I would never post a suggestion there because I feel like the developers wouldn't be combing the Homebrew forum.
I often end up critiquing House rules because I mistake them for suggestions for the general game's future.
It's quite dreadful actually.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think an important distinction gets lost in these types of threads.
WotC is a crunch company primarily.
Paizo is a Fluff company primarily.
This gets lost on the forums, as forums are heavily populated by crunch aficionados. While both companies do both things, fairly well, they have different focuses. This difference is what drives, not only the companies but the hobby. You can overload on production and consumption of either rules or setting material. Paizo has an ambitious production schedule, one I cannot afford to keep up with as well as I like, so did WotC at the end of 3.5.
Their ambitions were different however.
WotC overloaded options and rules and they were sloppy about it, they published a RULEBOOK every month. They failed to balance a great many of their designs and created a lopsided game. The crunch junkies were kept sated, but the casual players were lost in a sea of conflicting options. This overload came at a cost however, their fluff got diluted by rules and errata. The focus of fluff was divided among multiple settings. Perhaps most telling they virtually lost the art of adventure design. There were exceptions but overall the company forgot how to do awesome modules. The folks, in house, who were good at fluff were frequently doubling as rule guys. Then of course they advanced the timelines for editions. You see what happened.
Paizo writes APs, it's their bread and butter. They freely admit that. They backup their APs with a bunch of support material that the average casual player never delves into. They also produce nifty things like maps and cards and templates that have a near permanent shelf life. They are a DM support company. They also do rules. Rules are secondary (stop shouting it's not heresy!). They do rules because WotC pulled their licenses and they HAD TO. It's not their primary Buisness model, though I'm betting it makes pretty good revenue.
There will be an inevitable evolution of Pathfinder and PFRPG, the ruleset. It's just how this hobby works, even the grognards want new rulesets every decade or so. Way, way, way back, The Main Man, Gygax said that a new ruleset is warranted about every 10 years. I think he was right. I think Paizo thinks he was right too.
And let's not forget the elephant in the room. The OGL. Anyone can adapt the 3.0 ruleset. The game will change no doubt but some things will always be there.
Paizo supports the 3PP, seriously I've seen a Paizonian call out solid work by 3PP several times this week. They've done it on their own product boards. That's something immeasurable to the long term stability of a company and the hobby. Im pretty sure that Lisa and Co. have learned from the mistakes of the Rpg industry. They know something, they got where they are through more than dumb luck.
But IMO, D&D will always be D&D. Even though Pathfinder is a much cooler name. It doesn't matter what it's called.
I can say that it is very clear that Wizards/Hasbro is pulling out all the stops to attempt to reclaim the lion's share of the D&D legacy market. That means they are absolutely planning to compete directly with Pathfinder for customers.
This is a good thing for the customers of both companies, and I would argue that it is just as much a good thing for the employees of both companies. Wizards' change in strategy with 4e forced Paizo to bring out their A-game to survive, and we got Pathfinder-- Paizo got Pathfinder. I don't have any insider information or special insight into how Paizo works, beyond being a businessman myself, but I would bet that Paizo is doing better now than they ever were publishing Dungeon and Dragon.
(Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'd love to know what's actually going on inside those offices.)
Paizo's success with Pathfinder is forcing Wizards to bring out their A-game to stay on top of the field. They're boiling down everything good about every edition of D&D to try to make the best possible D&D to appeal to the biggest number of D&D players from the past, present and future. This is a big deal for them, because in order to keep D&D in the spotlight Wizards needs the full backing of their parent, Hasbro. Their standards for 'success' are much, much higher.
And if Wizards is successful with Next, Paizo is going to have to fight harder to hold on to their market share-- I would say that they haven't really been competing directly with Wizards so far because they've been producing two very different games and Wizards really hasn't been trying very hard to appeal to Pathfinder fans and fans of older versions of D&D. That's changing now. Next is being designed specifically to directly compete with Pathfinder and OSRIC.
Difference is, anyone who's been following Paizo for the last couple of years can tell you their A-game is a Hell of a lot bigger than it was three years ago.
The next five years are going to be glorious for all of us.
It might be nice to see a "Core Rules II" book that contains new rules and fixes for current issues. That way it would be compatible but also optional for folks.
I can't imagine how anyone would consider a "Core Rules II" book like that to be optional. Sounds a LOT like the 3.5 edition of D&D, which, while it DID clean things up... caused a fair amount of friction and mayhem. A product like this would be one a game company would be well advised to think LONG AND HARD about the timing of its release.
I don't know. If it were only one book, instead of three, and all it contained were the fixes-- for all of the previous books-- and conversion guides, rather than reprinting all of the original rules... you might be able to get away with it. People who bought the original books would simply buy the 'update' book and continue using the material they already had, while new core rulebooks would simply contain the updated information.
More like the 3.5 Rules Compendium than the 3.5 revision itself.
You know, since Pathfinder is such a community driven game, wouldn't it be fun to kind of have an open source ideas doc that compiled the biggest requests, ideas, and problems and then as a community we could decide (through voting, forum discussions, etc.) which pieces were necessary to include in a "Rules Compendium/Core 2" what-have-you?
Something like a cross between the original Unearthed Arcana and the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana. Fewer fundamental alterations to the game, but more optional rules that can be used together and that are more or less compatible with previous material. It would be a good dry run for finding out what rules changes need to be incorporated-- eventually-- into the inevitable second edition.
I'm happy that PF has deep roots in 3.5, but I agree with many other posters that it has grown enough on it's own that it really is it's own game at this point.
After attempting to run a lot of 3.5 material with PF rules, and a cascade of rules clashes and off-kilter encounters, I'm convinced that backwards compatibility, at this point, is a pipe dream. But, that's not a bad thing at all. Pathfinder is a strong enough game on it's own, with so much community support, that in my opinion it doesn't need to be backwards compatible anymore. I don't need a new ruleset to run my old material, I have the old ruleset for that.
It was necessary at first, to continue publishing their adventures and bring in the orphaned 3.5 crowd, but 3 years later it stand pretty firm on it's own. I think it's heritage in the D&D legacy is evident, but it's evolved well past the point of being "D&D 3.75".
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been GMing Pathfinder for 4 years with adventure books written for 3.5.
It's backwards compatible. There isn't a transparent exchange of rules between the two, but adventure content can be used as-is with only slight tweaks.
Incompatible means that running the original printings of Curse of the Crimson throne in Pathfinder would take as much work as running a NWoD or Burning Wheel or Shadowrun or 4e adventure series in Pathfinder. It is absolutely easier than that.
Yes, I may have to adjust the CRs, or the experience track, but I do that even when I run Pathfinder material in Pathfinder. The fact is, when I go to roll an attack or mark off NPC hit points, I have those numbers in exactly the place they would be found, 3.5 or PF.
I kind of view "backwards compatibility" as a neccessary at the time launch gimmick to get the evolving version of Pathfinder off the ground and in the hearts of the target market.
It is still necessary. And though it may not be the kind of compatibility you desire, it is more than a gimmick. The original 4 Pathfinder APs can be played with little effort in the new system. That's backwards compatible.
Another way to phrase this: The rules are not backwards compatible, but the new rules are compatible with the old content. That's much more important to me than being able to bust out an old 3.5 splatbook and have it "work" with my new PF splatbooks.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of view "backwards compatibility" as a neccessary at the time launch gimmick to get the evolving version of Pathfinder off the ground and in the hearts of the target market.
I think it was one of the main selling points, myself, and will remain so. Lots of people had masses of 3.5 material, and no game to play it in. Paizo gave them a game they could port in whatever material they wanted to, and they still can. You could upgrade mid-campaign, and carry right on without breaking step.
That was and is a big deal for a lot of people. If there is a pathfinder II, I hope it basically restricts itself to fixing little tweaks here and there (and the monk) and keeps the basic engine the same.
I get the impression that there were things Paizo would have liked to have fixed/changed, but that they had to be conservative to ensure backwards compatibility, since they had no idea the Pathfinder game would take off.
I am betting that at some point, probably far off for now, they will publish a new edition, and backwards compatibility with 3.5 will be less a concern.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At that point, however, they'll have a bigger back catalog of PfRPG products than they ever did of 3.5 material, so backward compatibility with PfRPG will be a definite financial concern, both for not getting stuck with a warehouse full of obsoleted material and due to their business model which is predicated on monthly subscriptions to product that isn't on the verge of being outdated. I can't imagine that PF 2.0 can afford to be the radical re-imagining of the ruleset that some people seem to be expecting.