Then again, most PF products are 32, 64 or 96 page softcovers, whereas 3.5 and 4E were mostly hardbacks. It seems the market can no longer bear a new hardcover every month or two...
Then again, most PF products are 32, 64 or 96 page softcovers, whereas 3.5 and 4E were mostly hardbacks. It seems the market can no longer bear a new hardcover every month or two...
The market could bear it.
It's just more profitable to sell less content in a cheaper form factor for more money (when aggregated).
A Paizo AP is $20. It's 96 pages. Softcover.
That makes two APs 192 pages, softcover, for $40.
The last couple hardcovers were $40, with 256 pages.
Other lines have a higher disparity.
For example, Campaign Setting products (softcovers) are 64 pages for $19.99, so 128 pages for $40.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They have been sort of forced too by the fact that 4e didn't quite hit the mark with the D&D gaming community.4e has probably (we shall see) in the long term killed D&D, it was that bad - imo.These are very bold opinions.
Since 2008 I've played 4e exclusively and haven't played PF once. Of the three 'general' gamer forums I frequent -- WotC (well, used to), ENworld, and rpgnet -- 4e has its share of fans and detractors. PF is largely viewed as a 3.5 clone, and often elicits comments like "Why play PF when I have my own house rules?" Should I take this to mean that PF didn't hit the mark within the D&D community, or that it's just that bad?
I hope you'd agree that this would be a huuuge assumption based on limited anecdotal experience.
Some people still play 1e, but I think we'd agree commercially that game is deader than a-line flared trousers with pockets in the knees?
I don't in fact 'play' PF, I prefer another system personally, but I do regularly buy PF books as they are extremely mineable for plot ideas, characters, interesting monsters, adventures, settings, locations etc etc. Everything that I've found 4e to basically ignore.
People used to say those of us stating 4e seemed to be failing were making 'huge assumptions' and relying on 'anecdotal evidence' ... and yet here we are, 4e's quickly seeming deader than corduroy, and 5e's on it's way. Sometimes personal anecdotes and opinions seem to be correct.
EDIT - I'm not certain D&D is dead, indeed in the short term it's not - 5e will inevitably create some degree of lift for it - I was saying long term 4e has probably killed it's previously monolithic overshadowing of the hobby. 5e will have to be something incredible to win back those of us who haven't bought a wotc book in the past 2-3 years.
Some people still play 1e, but I think we'd agree commercially that game is deader than a-line flared trousers with pockets in the knees?
Funny how you didn't mention that you're speaking commercially when you commented that 4e is a "complete failure" and "that bad." If I didn't know any better, I'd think you're trying to backtrack after taking a couple of petty edition potshots.
People used to say those of us stating 4e seemed to be failing were making 'huge assumptions' and relying on 'anecdotal evidence' ... and yet here we are, 4e's quickly seeming deader than corduroy, and 5e's on it's way. Sometimes personal anecdotes and opinions seem to be correct.
Again, there was always going to be a 5e. To think otherwise is naive.
But yes, these are very bold opinions. People do make those kinds of things from time to time. Me too!
Fair enough; and here's mine. 5e will be followed by another radical edition change after about five years, thus adding to the mound of evidence that radical edition changes every five-ish years is WotC's MO. And yes, WotC will still be in the D&D business.
At approximately the same time, Paizo will switch to PF 2e. There will be gnashing of teeth by some fans, and joyous shouts from other fans; thus will PF will 'split its fanbase' as every other lasting rpg has done. Some PF fans will think "The fanbase is split, has PF begun an inexorable downward spiral?!" But those of who've seen a few edition changes will just grunt "Welcome to the edition treadmill."
And lastly, some D&Der with a chip on his shoulder will click on a thread entitled "PF 2e: a Sign of Paizo's Distress?" and comment that "PF 1e must be that bad to be running Paizo into the ground." But that won't be me, because I'll have finally learned to not get involved with petty edition BS.
Good gaming,
I'm outta here.
That really depends on how it will be done. If the new system will be a clean thing that will keep certain features in place, allow easy conversion of at least core material in it and it's stat blocks will make sense to those who didn't convert, then I think that there wouldn't be much fuss about it. Oh and the PRD for 1.0 will be kept running.
|
If the new system will be a clean thing that will keep certain features in place, allow easy conversion of at least core material in it and it's stat blocks will make sense to those who didn't convert, then I think that there wouldn't be much fuss about it.
So basically, if it's Pathfinder 2.0: The Reprint Cash Grab Edition. Frankly, despite the inevitable wailing that will accompany it, I'd like to see Pathfinder 2E fix the inherently broken d20 system. And by "fix" I mean throw that crap out and start from scratch.
Oh and the PRD for 1.0 will be kept running.
That's an assumption on your part.
If the new system will be a clean thing that will keep certain features in place, allow easy conversion of at least core material in it and it's stat blocks will make sense to those who didn't convert, then I think that there wouldn't be much fuss about it.So basically, if it's Pathfinder 2.0: The Reprint Cash Grab Edition. Frankly, despite the inevitable wailing that will accompany it, I'd like to see Pathfinder 2E fix the inherently broken d20 system. And by "fix" I mean throw that crap out and start from scratch.
Nope. More like knowing that stealth skill translates to X just from looking and that I can make my barbarian from "whatever replaces fighting classes" that way without going through oo many loops, being able to recreate vancian wizard and so on. I believe that it is possible to do in an elegant way and stay compatible.
Oh and the PRD for 1.0 will be kept running.That's an assumption on your part.
That was part of the clauses that would help to lessen the outcry in my oppinion. Perhaps i should have said "PRD would have to be kept running", but you can't expect me to think clearly during my insomnia periods, just to keep cephalopodoid heads understanding me, can you? :P
|
At approximately the same time, Paizo will switch to PF 2e. There will be gnashing of teeth by some fans, and joyous shouts from other fans; thus will PF will 'split its fanbase' as every other lasting rpg has done. Some PF fans will think "The fanbase is split, has PF begun an inexorable downward spiral?!" But those of who've seen a few edition changes will just grunt "Welcome to the edition treadmill."
There is a big difference between spitting in the face of your loyal customers, which is what 4e did by focusing on coaxing new players to D&D from MMO, and some player turnover due to changes in a new edition.
I don't think anyone expects Paizo to go indefinitely without creating a new edition, but I suspect Paizo brings in far more money from AP subscriptions than from new rulebooks. The fact that pretty much everything is available om-line through the PFSRD is a pretty good indication that rulebooks are not a key to Paizo's success.
|
There is a big difference between spitting in the face of your loyal customers, which is what 4e did by focusing on coaxing new players to D&D from MMO, and some player turnover due to changes in a new edition.
I don't think anyone expects Paizo to go indefinitely without creating a new edition, but I suspect Paizo brings in far more money from AP subscriptions than from new rulebooks. The fact that pretty much everything is available om-line through the PFSRD is a pretty good indication that rulebooks are not a key to Paizo's success.
Ah, the old "it's OK if Paizo do it, bad if WotC do it" argument. That said, I'd actually be quite surprised if there is a new edition of PF any time soon as they have a different business model to WotC. As for the "spitting in the face" and MMO stuff - get a grip (and maybe look around you - it's not 2007 anymore). They released a new edition which referenced changes in the RPG (of all types) market, which wasn't to everone's taste, with marketing that wasn't to everyone's taste. That's about it.
|
|
The more I see from WotC about 5E, the more it looks like an attempt to re-package the basic ideas of 4E into something that will appeal to more pocketbooks. I believe it IS a sign of distress, because if it doesn't sell, Hasbro might well shelve the game.
The problem is that while the distress is making 5E's designers somewhat desperate, it isn't making them wise. They seem to be repeating mistakes; in my opinion, 5E is going to be too alien to appeal to a majority of fans. The closer to deadline things get, the more it looks like Custer at the Little Big Horn.
At this point, I just want them to get it over with; I have lost interest in 5E. They need to stop dragging things out, stop trying to make us believe our playtests make a difference, and put out the design they decided on before Cook left.
Or maybe, like a lot of people, they think that 4e is a better-designed game than 3e. After all, even PF has incorporated a few things that bear a degree of resemblance to 4e. So incorporating elements of 4e is hardly surprising from the company that designed it in the first place, in the same way that 3e incorporated stuff from 2e and so on. I'd be deeply irritated if 5e turns out to be 3e-lite - that already exists.
I'd be deeply irritated if 5e turns out to be 3e-lite - that already exists.
I'd be happy. One man's garbage is another man's treasure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a big difference between spitting in the face of your loyal customers, which is what 4e did by focusing on coaxing new players to D&D from MMO, and some player turnover due to changes in a new edition.
I don't think anyone expects Paizo to go indefinitely without creating a new edition, but I suspect Paizo brings in far more money from AP subscriptions than from new rulebooks. The fact that pretty much everything is available om-line through the PFSRD is a pretty good indication that rulebooks are not a key to Paizo's success.
Ah, the old "it's OK if Paizo do it, bad if WotC do it" argument. That said, I'd actually be quite surprised if there is a new edition of PF any time soon as they have a different business model to WotC. As for the "spitting in the face" and MMO stuff - get a grip (and maybe look around you - it's not 2007 anymore). They released a new edition which referenced changes in the RPG (of all types) market, which wasn't to everone's taste, with marketing that wasn't to everyone's taste. That's about it.
I bolded the important part. You guys seem to both be arguing "No, you're wrong! Paizo isn't going to release a new system soon, just one day in the future!"
I mention that because, you know, it was odd reading your quotes in succession.
Now, as far as PF 2.0 or whatever? Okay. It's going to come some day. Is it going to be soon? No. Paizo's said as much. While sieylianna (man, that's a hard name for a dyslexic!) may have used hyperbole (no one literally spat in my face in order to bring in MMO players during the 4E turnover), WotC handled their current customers... badly. I was rebuked by them... for asking questions... through the channels they told me to ask questions (specifically a rules-question-box, the kind where you fill it in with a question, hit the submit button, and wait for a few days or weeks to see if your question is answered by email or shows up on the FAQ). Not "why would you do this?" questions, but actual game system "how does this work now" questions. I was told nothing I didn't already know, to never use that email for "those kinds" of questions (and why would I ever do that?), and to just "use my imagination" because, "how hard is that?" (after all, I was helpfully informed, this isn't 3rd edition, they don't support that system anymore - note, this was a clearly labeled request for 4E rules).
I received a very similar email twice, from two different employees at WotC, telling me pretty much the same thing. That? Well, it's not a literal spit-in-the-face, but it's as close as you can get. My question boiled down to (it's been years now, so you'll forgive my lack of exact wording), "Are there any 4E rules that cover clerics, alignments, and a cleric changing gods" (I think, if you wish to get technical, I cited a few pages that hinted at some things, but didn't have any clear details). Telling me that they don't support 3rd edition (which I knew and wasn't asking about) and to "just use my imagination" (with the added question, "how hard is that?" tacked on just for good measure) is rude, to say the least. To tell me I submitted the question in the wrong place (the rules section, when I was asking about rules) is also rude.
That I was sent a similar email by no less than two employees? That's... very... disappointing as a customer. I was made to understand then that they were definitively not interested in having me as a customer. I continued my patronage of 4E for a while. I've purchased the first three Player's Handbooks, two Draconomicons (chromatic and metallic), the Manual of the Planes, ten pre-published adventures (the nine "linked" modules going from first level to thirtieth level, and one FR one), the Monster Manual 1, the DMG (the first one), the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide, the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, and the Eberron Player's Guide. That's a lot of money to a system and company who's made it quite clear that they don't care about me as a customer. As a business, of course they do, really. But I didn't feel that, and they seemed to work pretty hard at burning their bridges.
So yeah, I well understand the feeling.
And that is what sieylianna (copy/paste! ... why didn't I do that before) is talking and complaining about. 4E was not being asked for by D&D's fans. The changes were not things that the current players wanted. Any feedback they'd received that was negative was ignored. After the fact, they treated their former fans rudely.
By contrast, when Paizo first put out their rules-revisions, they had an open alpha which allowed completely unmitigated feedback about everything. They listened to the input, generated a beta, and repeated the process. PF is the result of this. Is it perfect? Absolutely not! But it's part of a dialogue that Paizo created with their fanbase as a whole, a dialogue that they've continued to this day.
So no, it's not "bad when WotC does it, but good when Paizo does it", so much as it is, "WotC has a (recent) history of doing it badly, and Paizo has a (recent) history of doing it right".
I'd be deeply irritated if 5e turns out to be 3e-lite - that already exists.
I'd be happy. One man's garbage is another man's treasure.
Aubrey, PF isn't 3e-lite, if that's what you mean. It's 3e-different, but not 3e-lite (at least by any connotation of the word "lite". As for 5E... I don't really want a 3.X-alike either. I love the d20/3.X/PF system. I love how it handles reality relatively smoothly over-all. I like the fact that everything runs by the same rules. I enjoy the over-all experience. But I have that. I have my 3.0 PH (bought for me by my players*!), my 3.5 PH/DMG/Monster Manual, and my PF Core Rulebook, and far too many supplements to note. I've got 3.X-style stuff down. I'd be very interested in seeing a new system, however.
* I, the first-time GM, was mooching, prior to that. Really they did it for themselves, those rascals! Also, my other old stuff just fell apart. Then got thrown away by a concerned parent when I was at college. Dark times.
|
The more I see from WotC about 5E, the more it looks like an attempt to re-package the basic ideas of 4E into something that will appeal to more pocketbooks. I believe it IS a sign of distress, because if it doesn't sell, Hasbro might well shelve the game.
The problem is that while the distress is making 5E's designers somewhat desperate, it isn't making them wise. They seem to be repeating mistakes; in my opinion, 5E is going to be too alien to appeal to a majority of fans. The closer to deadline things get, the more it looks like Custer at the Little Big Horn.
At this point, I just want them to get it over with; I have lost interest in 5E. They need to stop dragging things out, stop trying to make us believe our playtests make a difference, and put out the design they decided on before Cook left.
I would like to know exactly what you have been seeing about 5E? Everywhere I look I hear 4e fans sounding the alarms because there is no 4E in 5E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that it's more likely that PFRPG 2.0 will be compatible with current rules and somewhat keep ties to 3E, than not. If nothing else it would keep older modules relevant and thus allow new system to have access to a large amount of scenarios from the start and it would also keep the older material more attractive to buyers.
To continue slightly off topic, my guess is that PF 2.0 in comparison to PF will look a lot like PF when compared to, say, 3.5, or maybe - even more radically - when compared to 3rd (3.0).
The thing is: I can still use those 3rd edition modules with PF. I can literally take PF characters, drop them in the 3.0 modules, and run everything without problems. The PF characters will have more hit points and a few more feats and other options (and won't have as many 'trap' skills like, say, Scry), but that's hardly a barrier. The 3.0 stuff will be slightly on the easy side for them, but the 3.0 adventures also tended to be slightly more brutal with what they did with characters (starting off with just a hint of the 2E "more deadly" feel), but again, it doesn't really affect the game in the long run.
Similarly, although it would be more difficult, if I took most of my old 3rd edition characters (psionics notwithstanding), I could mostly easily transition them. Generally: a few more hit points and skill points (due to less skills to spend them on), a few more feats, and a few more class powers. Occasionally a better saving throw in one category. Spellcasters tend to be a bit trickier with spells that have vanished, blended, or altered.
From 3.X in general, there are several non-core base classes that don't exist anymore (the artificer and warlock, for example), and some that have similar names but are completely different (the Samurai), though some can be folded into a new one (Duskblade and Hexblade, for example, are basically just Magus archetypes, while Knight looks like a primitive Cavalier and a Dragon Disciple seems at least vaguely like a proto-inquisitor with a breath weapon instead of spells) or an archetype (Spellthief -> Bard archetype). But in exchange we get several nifty new options, too, such as alchemist, summoner, and witch as prime examples.
This is pretty much what I expect from PF 2nd (or whatever it's called when it finally does come out). I also expect this after PF's been out for around 10 years.
More on topic:
Although, while I've heard many 4E fans lament about the lack of 4E, from others, I've heard an outcry about the fact that they're taking 4E rules, making them "bad" and/or "hiding" them in a bad way, and soldiering on.
I've read most of these and have a good argument for WOTC's side.....but why would I ever defend them.
They are money hungry. Thats what it boils down to. Every single game they make, thats the thought behind it.
Not the pleasure that thousands of peopele enjoy their product, but how much profit will this turn?
I quit everything WOTC:
- MTG (mystic rares, lol really, an 8 casting cost blue guy? perfect i needed an 8 drop blur mystic rare)
- D&D (I personally like the dark feel from 2nd. I love Pathfinder though, played every saturday for 2 years straight)
I'll be quiet now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are money hungry. Thats what it boils down to. Every single game they make, thats the thought behind it.
I've got news for you: Paizo doesn't put out any product unless they think it will make a profit. That's not being money-hungry, that's just avoiding a stupid business decision.
If you really want a company that's putting out a product solely for the love of the game, and not caring one way or the other if they make any money, you're going to want to look at the graveyard of defunct RPG publishers.
They are money hungry. Thats what it boils down to. Every single game they make, thats the thought behind it.I've got news for you: Paizo doesn't put out any product unless they think it will make a profit. That's not being money-hungry, that's just avoiding a stupid business decision.
If you really want a company that's putting out a product solely for the love of the game, and not caring one way or the other if they make any money, you're going to want to look at the graveyard of defunct RPG publishers.
I agree, but where is the line stopped. Games are becoming to expensive to play.
They are money hungry. Thats what it boils down to. Every single game they make, thats the thought behind it.
Not the pleasure that thousands of peopele enjoy their product, but how much profit will this turn?
Just to clarify, I think WotC, as a whole, does care about making good, fun games.
Hasbro, as a whole, cares about its bottom line.
That's not to say Hasbro is some big bogey-man... it's just that as a major corporation of its size, it's got different priorities and concepts behind it than WotC does.
Also, Mike Mearls - while I don't necessarily like the guy - has been pretty firm that he wants to make a game fun, and those who like a given edition should play it.
BUT! We're way off topic, here. This would be a much better place for that topic! (Still a little off, though.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But they make the settings so irresistable!
You know, on the subject of PF sales vs 4E sales, I remember reading an article in ENweekly about PF vs 4E and one of the comments stood out. If Joe Shmoe, someone no one has ever heard of, wrote a book that and made $10,000, that would be a successful book; if Stephen King wrote a book and made $10,000, that would be a dismal failure. It's all about context. So for Pathfinder to come out as a 'third party RPG' and make as much or more money than 4E is representative of a dismal failure by WotC and 4$, and a wild success for Paizo and Pathfinder.
WotC and D&D were the kings of Table Top RPGs. No one could touch them and the D&D name carried more weight than any 5 RPGs combined. But then 4E came out and it lost a lot of the 'old crowd' of players. Many of the returned to older editons, picked up new games, or switched to Pathfinder when it came out.
Now, you have the people with years (if not decades) of Role-Playing experience, playing something other than 4E. New customers would have to figure out the rules and how to play and teach each other along the way. This could result in brand new players playing the game, with the DM himself not knowing how the the rules worked either. This could lead to lots of frustration and confusion.
Meanwhile, the 'old crowd' used their experience with RPGs to adopt new systems fairly easily, and they would gather friends, family (maybe even children) and teach them how to play, all-the-while drawing on their experiences to make more dynamic and exciting stories.
It's no differen than if you were attending a school for a subject you know nothing aobut, and suddenly many, if not most, of the teachers all left the school. Now you have studends teaching students while still learning the subject for themselves.
It's why I think Pathfinder outpaced 4E as the premier Table Top RPG. The 'old crowd' gathered and taught new playes, while 4E relied on new players discovering it in some way, possibly through remaining gamers, advertisement or curiosity.
And I do believe Pathfinder replaced D&D as the leader of Table Top RPGs. I can really only rely on my own experiences, but from what I seen, very few (if any) people play 4E/D&D anymore. I know my cousin and some of his friends still linger on in 1E/2E but in the last few years, I have yet to see a 4E game being run. I also know that from various articles from EN or other gaming sites, this is a trend that isn't just unique to my hometown. People are seeing more people play Pathfinder, than D&D.
|
|
They've ALWAYS been in urgent need to show a profit to Hasbro. 3.5Ed has played itself out as far as Hasbro was concerned and the big sales are in the core rule sets of Players, GM and Monster Guides.
I'm not sure they understand the marketing model here - D&D functions like this - you have a bell curve of new rules purchasing and then you market the setting that the rules are designed to support. They must therefor generate a huge storyline of adventure modules and books and stuff that the basic rules set will support. You do not continuously generate new rules to replace old ones and perpetuate a stagnant setting that isnt evolving or changing. That isn't creativity and it isnt good for the game. The problem is that while everyone buys new rules they dont all buy the same adventure arcs. Some adventure exclusively in waterdeep - others in the dale lands, others further afield.
For a company that is a very bad economic model - the idea of having to generate more content for less profit is a nail in a coffin.
However if they had created a new setting to go with each new generation of rules then:
Mystara - OD&D
Greyhawk - AD&D
Forgotton Realms/Spelljammer - AD&D 2nd ed.
This means they could have kept printing all their generations of rules and adventure product so that they could have been picked up by others interested in settling into the settings.
The difference between paizo/wotc with regard to making a good game/making money is that both the paizo designers *and* management play the games they make, and therefore are on the same page. I have no doubt the design team at WotC wants to make a good game. The problem is that it seems the management of wizards just wants them to make something that sells and they (management) have no vested interest in the quality of the game, and nor do they seem to care.
That disconnect becomes even more evident by the (almost) annual layoffs.
The funny thing is that Paizo would likely never have come close to WotC in terms of sales (and might not have even developed the Pathfinder RPG) if WotC had simply kept the 3.5 PHB,DMG,MM in print :)
|
|
You are right Are. But as some say, what goes around comes around. WotC (Hasbro) made a play for a level of exclusivity. They fired Paizo as publishers of both Dungeon and Dragon Magazines, thinking they could do it themselves with providing on-line content. Then they wanted to control as much of the 4e material as possible. WotC thought that 3x was a dying system, and opened it up to the Open Gaming License (OGL). BIG MISTAKE! It is funny sometimes how when one door closes another opens. Paizo had lost their publishing rights to the Magazines. But with the OGL a door opened. Enter PATHFINDER!
I never understood why WotC decided to stop supporting 3.5. It would be like Microsoft stopping support of Windows XP the day Windows 7 was released. They could have had both 3.5 and 4e. But I am very pleased the way it turned out. Paizo just does it better. And after almost three years of running a 4e campaign, and almost a year playing Pathfinder now, I can honestly say I have never been more pleased with a system than I am with Pathfinder.
Cheers,
Mazra
|
|
WotC thought that 3x was a dying system, and opened it up to the Open Gaming License (OGL).Ah, revisionist history at it's finest.
WotC opened up 3.X with the OGL in 2000, the same year it was published.
I wasn't trying to be revisionist. I did not know that the OGL and 3.x came out at the same time. Interesting! Do you know why they did it? In retrospect it does not appear to have been a good move on their part. Did they do an OGL for 4th edition? I was not familiar with the OGL until around the same time that 4e came out. So it was an incorrect assumption on my part. My apologies.
Cheers,
Mazra
Forgive Kthulhu - he can get very defensive about D&D and Pathfinder, and testy with their respective fan-bases. (Understandable. Once you've said something so often, it gets irritating when you have to say it again.)
"WotC" - even as owners of D&D - is not a single unified group without dissent. Rather, it's a series of employees with various heads and multiple different people in charge. Most of the people in charge with designing and creating 4E? They don't work at WotC anymore.
This is, in part, due to politics, natural life experiences, and Hasbro influences colliding and creating an situation in which Wizards, and the D&D "Team" are not a single, ever-forward set of people.
The same thing is true of the designers of 3rd Edition. When they designed 3rd, they created the Open Gaming Licence to do exactly what it did: encourage 3rd party design and support. They figured with more 3rd party stuff out there, they would be able to sell more of their core rules. And they were right! (Sort of.)
Effectively, the system worked. Feedback occurred, 3rd parties developed stuff well, and WotC kept selling rule systems. However there was also a bit of a glut on the market as far as d20 systems when, by the end of 3.5.
When they switched to 4E, though they switched out for the much more restrictive GSL, it seems because, by this point, (the then-current heads at) WotC wanted people to fall back into their banner and make sure that people used their stuff again, instead of 3rd party. The reason? They really needed to make money, probably to keep Hasbro from shelving D&D.
The very restrictive nature of the GSL turned many people off, however, especially with a "poison pill clause" (as I've oft seen it called) clause that they had added into it, which pretty much stated, "If you ever use the GSL, you can never again go back to the OGL." I'm of the understanding that this has been altered somewhat, but I'm not up on the current history or law enough to tell you for sure.
Basically, the entire hope/design/philosophy behind 3rd Edition is that it would receive the same kind of support that Pathfinder is receiving now. And make no mistake, Pathfinder is reaping the benefits of having 3rd party support. The fact that people are using this, and point to PF as being the big-dog (and are making PF-compatible products that note themselves as such) only helps to secure PF as "that company" that people look at.
Anyway, that's the best I understand of it. Hope that helps!
EDIT: for word choice and clarity
|
|
Thanks Tacticslion. Great explanation. (Cool handle btw.) I still don't get why WotC stopped supporting 3.5. It seems like that was the crucial mistake that left the door open for Pathfinder. They threw all their cards in the 4e basket. And literally threw out the 3.5 baby with the bath water. I guess they believed they couldn't support more than one game system. Though I am very pleased with Paizo, a piece of me is both sad and upset at the direction WotC took with the D&D RPG.
I write this after a great session playing WotC's Dungeon Command. Maybe Wotc should stick to games where you tap cards, and leave Paizo to take care of RPG.
Cheers,
Mazra
|
Well I am sure their reason was something along the lines of this.
The GSL once finally finished and the poison pill clause removed etc. It allowed for support of 4E, adventures, monster books, or other things that could be used with 4E but not replace 4E rules(which could be done under the OGL). If the GSL had been on time and better done at first and if most of the 3pp on jumped onto 4E right out the gate. Then things might look very different today. Of course making the DDI almost a must have to play 4E helped bury 3pp support too, since 3pp couldn't be added to the DDI from what I understand.
Thanks, Mazra! I like my handle, too! (It's actually from an old video game, but that's another story!)
Other problems included the fact that 4E was originally designed for VTT (Virtual Table Top), but that never materialized. I suspect that had the VTT materialized as it was intended (and on time) and that the DDI was able to be integrated into that, it would have also helped greatly.
Pretty much 4E, to me, seems like it was rushed and incomplete, and I think that hurt them badly. That compounded with some things never fully being complete, and how radical a difference it was, plus their rather awful treatment of their current fans at the time (at least in my experience) drove many people away - seemingly* more than it brought in.
I'd agree with Dark_Mistress: IF the third-party groups had bought into the GSL, than it would have been a perfect coup, of sorts, for WotC. The problem was that it was just too restrictive. As it is, this is where we ended up. Personally, though, I'm glad for my sake that people didn't leap onto the GSL. I really like the d20 basic system, and the OGL, and love all the 3PP rules systems that exist out there.
Reference WotC, cards, and RPGs - WotC is known for their publication of collectible card games. So, yeah, that's kind of a specialty of theirs.
* This is completely subjective. I understand that there are factors by which I could be wrong.
Thanks Tacticslion. Great explanation. (Cool handle btw.) I still don't get why WotC stopped supporting 3.5. It seems like that was the crucial mistake that left the door open for Pathfinder. They threw all their cards in the 4e basket. And literally threw out the 3.5 baby with the bath water. I guess they believed they couldn't support more than one game system. Though I am very pleased with Paizo, a piece of me is both sad and upset at the direction WotC took with the D&D RPG.
I think it was at least partly a misunderstanding of how important 3PP had become to the industry. It seems to me (although I wasnt playing D&D at the time) that the OGL really changed the way the D&D market behaved.
.It necessarily resulted in WoTC having a smaller market share (even though it probably resulted in the overall market being bigger). I suspect the people pushing for a restricted 4E licensing scheme misunderstood the impact the OGL had had on the market.
They might also have assumed that any 3PP incarnation of the D20 system would ultimately fail, simply by virtue of not being able to use the "Dungeons & Dragons" brand name, and not having the support of WotC, who were producing an actual "Dungeons & Dragons" game.
They might also have assumed that any 3PP incarnation of the D20 system would ultimately fail, simply by virtue of not being able to use the "Dungeons & Dragons" brand name, and not having the support of WotC, who were producing an actual "Dungeons & Dragons" game.
I'm sure WoTC were of that view. Even the PF designers and developers (as I remember, anyhow) werent speaking about matching D&D's popularity when they launched their game (witness how quickly the first two printings sold out - they were clearly unprepared for the demand).
Yes, I doubt anyone could have predicted that Pathfinder would become as popular as it did.
(except Ryan Dancey, or whoever it was who made a general prediction on a possible 3PP version of 3.X taking large amounts of the market from WotC's next edition.)
Oh, most certainly: WotC banked on the power of the name "Dungeons and Dragons". It was their lynch pin and primary hope, and it probably wasn't even terribly conscious. And really, who could blame them? No one was in D&D's league at the time, and the 3PP stuff was such a mixed bag (and so few people followed it) that they really didn't have much to worry about, from what they could tell.
|
|
I still don't get why WotC stopped supporting 3.5.
The same reason they didn't continue to support 0E, AD&D, 2E, and BECMI/RC once 3.0 was published. Or 3.0 once 3.4 took hold. They support the CURRENT edition. One of the reasons that TSR went out of business was that they split their audience into segments, both with the glut of campaign settings, and with their simultaneous support of both the Basic and Advanced lines.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That seems to be the case Kthulhu. But how is this strategy working for them? If WotC had come out with a system that was a world better than 3.5, then we would not be having this conversation. Truth is they didn't. And now D&D is fading into the sunset. Long live Pathfinder!
Cheers,
Mazra
|
That seems to be the case Kthulhu. But how is this strategy working for them? If WotC had come out with a system that was a world better than 3.5, then we would not be having this conversation. Truth is they didn't. And now D&D is fading into the sunset. Long live Pathfinder!
I really would like to peek into the alternative universe where WotC created a 4e that was just an overhaul to 3.5 (like 3.5 was to 3.0) and reissued new PHB, DMG & MMs and setting books.
I really think WotC would have got slammed for trying to screw the fans out of rebuying the same material with only a few changes.
I believe if WotC released the same content as in Pathfinder they would have got grief for it from a fair size groups of fans (maybe not as much as gave them grief over 4e though). I think Paizo only "got away with it" because fans were railing against WotC and wanted a "saviour" and also because Paizo were perhaps seen as the underdogs and even victims of WotC (withdrawing the magazine licences).
Of course Paizo's quality of physical product and the fact that they created a new setting rather than WotC rehashing a pre-existing setting helped tremendously.
I really think WotC would have got slammed for trying to screw the fans out of rebuying the same material with only a few changes.
....
I think Paizo only "got away with it" because fans were railing against WotC and wanted a "saviour" and also because Paizo were perhaps seen as the underdogs and even victims of WotC (withdrawing the magazine licences).
The thing is, Paizo got slammed for what they did. A lot of people seem to forget all that was going on here at that time.
I don't think that Paizo particularly got any kind of "free pass" from the fan base.
Yeah, WotC would have been slammed for whatever they did, regardless of timing. There's always going to be an element that isn't happy and will complain about changes (that's been happening since 0E).
But with better timing? There would have been less complaining.
|
|
Is that what happened when they released 3.5?
On a smaller scale, but no not as I described.
Why would it have been different?
Because they already had done it once before with 3.5, doing it yet again (3.75?) would have been annoying to those who joined with 3.5 but realllly annoying to those who had already upgraded once from 3.0 to 3.5.
As I say I think Paizo got it easier as they weren't the company responsible for the 3.0 to 3.5 jump and the fans were looking for an alternative to 4e.
I could be completely wrong of course, its only a theory and not one that can be tested (not without a time machine or the concept of parallel dimensions being true) :)
|
|
If WotC had come out with a system that was a world better than 3.5, then we would not be having this conversation. Truth is they didn't. And now D&D is fading into the sunset. Long live Pathfinder!
Cheers,
Mazra
OPINION is they didn't, not "truth". And D&D is hardly fading away.
To show I can agree with SOMETHING out of this, I will also agree with the hope Pathfinder continues to grow and thrive. A good company should be rewarded as such.
That being said though I think Dungeons and Dragons will continue to do well. Having an open-ish playtest of the new system at least shows they're willing to look at what worked for others (even if I don't agree with everything in NEXT, I'll keep testing).
|
|
Do you think Paizo would have put out Pathfinder and have it sell if WotC had continued with a new 3.x version? Would a significant chunk of the market have just continued playing 3.5 with no source of new material?
No, if WotC had done 3.75 PF wouldn't exist most likely, but that is something we can see with hindsight. I imagine, after seeing 3.5 coming to the natural end of its life (how many supplements) WotC could have gone the 3.75 way and possibly get slated or do something bold, take a risk, and try to give the players something genuinely new and exciting.
Unfortunately the risk didn't pay off, but I have to give credit for WotC for having the balls to do something different.
If it was something like D&D Saga Edition (hinting Star Wars of course) then I think the fanbase would be much more content and less fractious ;)