I thought this old horse was flogged to death a few years back... but have fun with it.
I was reading a 4E blog the other day, and stumbled on an interesting discussion in the comments.
Do you think Pathfinder would exist if WotC had not released Fourth Edition?
Actually we know it would not be here as it was expressed by Lisa, Vic, Erik and others. Also, if WotC was more cooperative with 3rd party publishers when making transition to 4th edition or if they did not decided to make DDI, instead leaving Dungeon and Dragon magazines in Paizo hands, Pathfinder probably wouldn't be made.
|
I was reading a 4E blog the other day, and stumbled on an interesting discussion in the comments.
Do you think Pathfinder would exist if WotC had not released Fourth Edition?
Just scanned that thread: two people who are both acting like this guy. It may be the least edifying thing I have read for a while.
Actually we know it would not be here as it was expressed by Lisa, Vic, Erik and others. Also, if WotC was more cooperative with 3rd party publishers when making transition to 4th edition or if they did not decided to make DDI, instead leaving Dungeon and Dragon magazines in Paizo hands, Pathfinder probably wouldn't be made.I was reading a 4E blog the other day, and stumbled on an interesting discussion in the comments.
Do you think Pathfinder would exist if WotC had not released Fourth Edition?
This is just me blathering and should probably be ignored, but my sense is Pathfinder RPG would maybe not exist if the GSL had not been so draconian.
It is true, Pathfinder as a brand name would (maybe) not exist if Dungeon and Dragon hadn't been revoked from Paizo's care. Because the Pathfinder Adventure Path came about to replace the adventure paths and other material published largely in Dungeon. And, more to the point, the Pathfinder Adventure Paths were published under the OGL.
I could see an alternate universe where the GSL was written more openly along the lines of the OGL, and the Pathfinder APs might (might) have been converted to 4th Edition under the GSL. (Please note I said )
The fact that the GSL was written with some very restrictive clauses (IIRC, Wizards retained the right to sue over any GSL product they felt like just because if they wanted to) was IIRC one of the actual kicking points -- since the GSL proposed very tricky to deal with, it was easier to stick with the much more forgiving OGL.
But since the actual rulebook that on which the OGL System Reference Document was based was put out of print shortly before the release of 4th Edition, THEN Pathfinder RPG was put out so that the APs could still be OGL material but also be supported by a living RPG ruleset.
TL;DR: One of the main points of the matter was less the release of 4E per se, and more the release of the GSL that came with it.
Of course it's possible the GSL could have been equally open as the OGL and Paizo still decided to stick with the latter and do a 3.x revision many players were in fact clamoring for, but it's hard to say.
Anyway, done blathering.
Geraint, I dunno, the guy who refused to acknowledge the difference between an announcement date and a publication date was kind of funny.
Pathfinder would not have existed if the OGL had not existed. The GSL is pretty meaningless in this discussion. The Paizo folks had already said that the 4e wasn't the type of system they wanted to use for telling stories.
I think the creation of 4th ed had a direct effect on many creations in pen and paper gaming in the last few years.
And I think this effect was positive.
In many ways, 3.5 D&D had a stranglehold on pen and paper gaming. Sure, other systems existed, but you could ALWAYS find 3.5 D&D being played somewhere.
Several publishing companies were pushing out 3.5 settings, 3.5 rule accessories, all the while WotC was doing a decent job milking their own customer base by starting with the whole "PHB 2, DMG 2" nonsense.
When 4th came out, so many of us didn't like it that many of these companies saw a big old hole in the market, and they stepped in to fill it.
Now when I go to a local game shop, or look online for games, the rule selection is more robust. Now I see 3.5 games, PF games, 4.0 games, the occasional other D20 variant, Mouseguard (I don't see many Burning Wheel based games other than MG a lot).
Sure, this is entirely my own anecdotal experience, but it definitely APPEARS that 4th edition was GOOD for PnP. Not because the system itself was good, but because it was so polarizing to the PnP playerbase that it created new markets to be exploited.
I actually dont know the story behind Paizo to well. with out bashing any body. can some body fill me in minus the abbreviation?
The origins of both the Pathfinder CS, AP, and the Pathfinder RPG, as well as the reasoning behind them, is no secret. Anyone that was part of the community at the time knows that Paizo was very open as to why they took the steps they did. The brief version is:
The AP, and in turn the CS, were the result of WotC taking full control of Dungeon and Dragon magazines. Paizo needed a new product, and the AP was the result.
The RPG was the result of two primary factors: WotC not providing 4E materials in time for Paizo to publish 4E products for GenCon, and the terms of the 4E third-party publisher license. This led to the decision not to support 4E, and the need for both an update to the 3.5 rules and the publishing of independent source books to support the resulting update.
As a result, we now have Pathfinder in all its forms. There's nothing really to discuss.
Oh my dear god. Was that guy 'sperging?
If 'sperging means what I think it means, I'm stealing that term.
It would be depressingly useful in my day to day forum discussions.
|
I actually think that some form of Pathfinder would have come into existence regardless of the presence of 4th edition.
I say this because the problem with 4th edition is not primarily that the system is a bad one, per se, but rather that Wizards of the Coast (WotC) really seemed to discount the player base in many ways, especially with regards to some of their mid. to late Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 releases, many of which were entirely game breaking of not strictly controlled by the DM, which they were.
In fact, WotC recognized this flaw in their design philosophy, which is why they've been very open about not only playtesting, but in providing information regarding 5th Edition, which I forsee being a much larger success for them simply because, at least from what they've released to the public, they seem to be more community oriented, as opposed to building up a big secret and subsequently realizing that the community is not fond of the product.
It is this philosophy, one of servitude and gratitude to the player base, which Paizo seemed to realize was lacking, and subsequently filled with their Pathfinder Roleplaying Game release. 4th Edition D&D was the straw that broke the camel's back for many, but really the issues brought about by 4th edition were already present in the minds of many games.
Again, I think the two are equally valid games with their own pros and cons, but the design philosophy between the two games is part of what caused the great divide between players.
It's an allusion to a person with Asperger's Syndrome's inability to let stuff go, and kind of keep arguing for arguing's sake.
In short it's a rant about a specific thing the person is passionate about, and doesn't understand how to preface it in a socially acceptable way. They can't help it, really.
I did not coin the phrase, but if some find it offenseive, I won't use it further.
To be slightly fair to WotC, I think a lot of the terrible customer milking practices are the fault of Hasbro, who now owns WotC.
It didn't seem to get this bad until Hasbro bought them out.
It's an allusion to a person with Asperger's Syndrome's inability to let stuff go, and kind of keep arguing for arguing's sake.
I did not coin the phrase, but if some find it offenseive, I won't use it further.
In the course of a 3 year period I had a very unlucky string of having to work with or deal with people with extreme Asperger's.
You feel terrible not liking a person based on something they largely cannot control, but man talk about a disorder tailor made to make you a social outcast.
So while I could see some people being offended by "sperging" it is depressingly useful on the internet.
I think the number of undiagnosed people with mild to severe Asperger's is a lot higher than people think, and internet forums are a very good example of this.
Either that or forums have some ability to bring forth one's inner aspie.
Nah, it's G.I.F.T. usually.
|
|
'Spergers, I do not like.
Terms like that can end up turning back on the original people in a negative way.
Step 1. Name given to a diagnosed condition.
Step 2. That name applied to people without that condition that exhibit one of the negative aspects of that condition.
Step 3. That term used as a broad insult.
Step 4. That term used to insult, demean and belittle those suffering from the condition by focussing upon the negative aspects, placing it in the realm of insulting terminology and explicitly defing people with such a condition by the their condition.
That might seem unlikely but it happened here in the UK with the word Spastic. I still have some old stickers with "Supporting the Spastic Society" written on them.
You can't use that term anymore in the UK, it went from a broad medical description to a slang insult. It became a term which disparaged those it originally only described a condition they had.
People, especially teenagers, called each other 'spastics' to insult individuals as stupid, slow or ignorant: "God, you're such a spastic!"; "Shut up, you spaz!"; "Don't be such a spaccie git."
Then people with a range of conditions started being called 'spastics' and 'spazs'.
The Spastic Society had to change their name in the end, the charity is now called SCOPE.
I was not even aware the word spaz had origins in an actual mental health condition.
Language is weird like that.
Most people don't realize "gypped" is a racist term.
You're saying you got "gypsied".
|
|
I was not even aware the word spaz had origins in an actual mental health condition.
Language is weird like that.
Most people don't realize "gypped" is a racist term.
You're saying you got "gypsied".
In Britain Spastic/Spaz is widely known, it is generally seen as a very disturbing term and has fallen out of use because the user is so looked down upon. If you use it to insult someone, you'll end up backpedalling as people tell you not to be such a git.
As a Welshman I'm not really bothered by Welsh Rabbit/Rarebit (basically an insulting nickname for cheese-on-toast, suggesting the Welsh were either too poor or too incompetent to get meat) because it is so ancient and absurd.
However, I dislike the suggestion that people who avoid paying their debts are 'welching' because Welch is just a variant spelling of Welsh.
You never really see or hear the word in the UK, but it crops up in US films, books and other media every so often.
Hmm. The term is used to describe a behavior, not a person.
Most people I've seen don't use negative names for people with Asperger's, or refer to them as simply autistic, or by name if it's known.
I can see the slippery slope side of it, but wow.
Anyhoo, if you're offended I shan't use it again.
Interesting article.
I thought this old horse was flogged to death a few years back... but have fun with it.Ehh, sorry to dredge up old material. I won't do that again.
Would anyone like to discuss how monks are stupid?
DocG, sorry for being a bit of a butt about it. Anyone who was around these forums knows the answer to that question and, at the time, it was pretty much beaten to death. Of course, not everyone was here for that, and the ensuing reignition of the edition wars, and I should simply have laid out the answers as several other posters did. Sorry for getting grouchy about it. The reaction was fueled by the facts relating to the question's answer. Matters of opinion, like Monks, are always fair game for endless repitition :)