D&DNext - D&D 5th edition, a light version of PF in my humble opinion.


4th Edition

51 to 100 of 326 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Keep us posted please. :)


Sunderstone wrote:
Keep us posted please. :)

I will. I'll be running it from level 1 while my group takes a break from their regular game. I am going to use my regular homebrew campaign setting as opposed to the set adventures. I want to see how the rules perform in an environment that's a bit less controlled than a canned adventure. Assuming I can get everybody on board for it. I'm reading through the rules at the moment, so we'll see.


The last packet ruined it for me. I did not like the cantrips or spell progression at all.

Liberty's Edge

Arnwolf wrote:
The last packet ruined it for me. I did not like the cantrips or spell progression at all.

I'm not going to say ruined but with each 'addition' my initial (extreme) glee over D&D Next is getting a little bit of a beating.


Stefan Hill wrote:
Arnwolf wrote:
The last packet ruined it for me. I did not like the cantrips or spell progression at all.
I'm not going to say ruined but with each 'addition' my initial (extreme) glee over D&D Next is getting a little bit of a beating.

That was sort of my impression too. The attractive simplicity of the early playtests seems more like it was just because we were only seeing a small piece, not because the simplicity was a goal of the design.


Based on the latest L&L article, I wouldn't worry too much. I think the basic version of D&D Next will be perfect for those of us that are looking for the simplest expression of the game.

I don't think the new generation of players, raised on 3E, really understands the beauty and freedom of playing with fewer and simpler rules. The more rules and complexity you add, the more D&D becomes about the system and less about the world and the characters.

Fortunately, I expect D&D Next will have all the complexity and fiddly bits anyone could want. On the other hand, I expect that the default version of D&D at most tables will be the basic version with a handful of add-ons. I seriously doubt you'll see a majority of tables playing the kitchen sink version.


Sebastrd wrote:
I think the basic version of D&D Next will be perfect for those of us that are looking for the simplest expression of the game.

From what I've seen, their goals are ambitious, but laudable. Here's hoping they can pull it off.


It's possible, but I've been skeptical of that goal all along.

I haven't looked closely at the most recent playtest, but I haven't got a feel from the previous ones of how they are planning to handle the basic/kitchen sink thing they've been talking about from day one.
Lots of articles and speculation, but nothing in the actual rules we've seen.


Sebastrd wrote:

Based on the latest L&L article, I wouldn't worry too much. I think the basic version of D&D Next will be perfect for those of us that are looking for the simplest expression of the game.

I don't think the new generation of players, raised on 3E, really understands the beauty and freedom of playing with fewer and simpler rules. The more rules and complexity you add, the more D&D becomes about the system and less about the world and the characters.

Fortunately, I expect D&D Next will have all the complexity and fiddly bits anyone could want. On the other hand, I expect that the default version of D&D at most tables will be the basic version with a handful of add-ons. I seriously doubt you'll see a majority of tables playing the kitchen sink version.

As a person that sees GURPS, Rolemaster, and Twilight 2000 as the best of the RPGs the more complex the game is the better the role playing.

Maybe it's the people I have played with but the more time you invest in your character the less the player plays a version of themselves.

Then again as awful a system Paladium is I have never had an un-fun game. I would play Rifts, Ninjas & Super Spies, TNMT, or Robotech at the drop of a hat.

On the otherhand 1stED, BECMI, 2ndED to get me to play there would have to be a good GM and players I knew would make it a fun game and an assurance that it would be a one off. I think what a lot of people see as the freedom of minimum rules will also find they hit the restriction of not enough rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Sebastrd wrote:

Based on the latest L&L article, I wouldn't worry too much. I think the basic version of D&D Next will be perfect for those of us that are looking for the simplest expression of the game.

I don't think the new generation of players, raised on 3E, really understands the beauty and freedom of playing with fewer and simpler rules. The more rules and complexity you add, the more D&D becomes about the system and less about the world and the characters.

Fortunately, I expect D&D Next will have all the complexity and fiddly bits anyone could want. On the other hand, I expect that the default version of D&D at most tables will be the basic version with a handful of add-ons. I seriously doubt you'll see a majority of tables playing the kitchen sink version.

As a person that sees GURPS, Rolemaster, and Twilight 2000 as the best of the RPGs the more complex the game is the better the role playing.

Maybe it's the people I have played with but the more time you invest in your character the less the player plays a version of themselves.

Then again as awful a system Paladium is I have never had an un-fun game. I would play Rifts, Ninjas & Super Spies, TNMT, or Robotech at the drop of a hat.

On the otherhand 1stED, BECMI, 2ndED to get me to play there would have to be a good GM and players I knew would make it a fun game and an assurance that it would be a one off. I think what a lot of people see as the freedom of minimum rules will also find they hit the restriction of not enough rules.

I've had the most fun and seen the most characterization in games like CoC, Amber and Feng Shui. The less you have to focus on the mechanics of the character the more you play the character not the stats.

Different strokes.

Shadow Lodge

The 8th Dwarf wrote:
As a person that sees GURPS, Rolemaster, and Twilight 2000 as the best of the RPGs the more complex the game is the better the role playing.

You must love F.A.T.A.L.

The 8th Dwarf wrote:
On the otherhand 1stED, BECMI, 2ndED to get me to play there would have to be a good GM and players I knew would make it a fun game and an assurance that it would be a one off. I think what a lot of people see as the freedom of minimum rules will also find they hit the restriction of not enough rules.

You make it sound like having a crappy GM for GURPS, Rolemaster, or Twilight 2000 (a crappy GM can be assumed for F.A.T.A.L.) wouldn't really effect the resulting game.


This is my point of view and I am not saying people should treat it as gospel. As everybodies tastes and experiences vary.

In my rambling way I was trying to say games with less rules are more fun with good (read experienced and mature) GMs and players.

Less rules leads to a greater reliance on GM fiat and an inexperienced or a tactically focused GM can either be too permissive or too stifling.

A well set out comprehensive rules system provides both players and GMs a robust framework to build long term campaigns and time to build the experience to run a rules lite game.

And NO I do not Like FATAL........

Rolemaster is in an open Beta test now in an attempt to unify all of its previous editions, it might be worth comparing the Next and the RM Unified play tests.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Less rules leads to a greater reliance on GM fiat and an inexperienced or a tactically focused GM can either be too permissive or too stifling.

A well set out comprehensive rules system provides both players and GMs a robust framework to build long term campaigns and time to build the experience to run a rules lite game.

I definitely can't argue with that. I credit my experience running 3E with forcing me to examine and understand system mathematics and design.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
The 8th Dwarf wrote:
So it's closer to 2E..... There was a lot wrong with 2E, that's when I stopped playing D&D and started playing Rolemaster and GURPS because they were better games.
There's a lot wrong with Pathfinder (and d20 in general) as well.

Yup. But it's OGL. And that is the thing that means it will keep winning.

Until Hasbro gets this, they aren't getting back on top.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You can stick the OGL on the end of anything, that doesn't automatically make it good or profitable. We saw ample evidence of this during the 3.5 era. Hell, you could stick the OGL onto the back of FATAL...it would still be a piece of crap.

Not to mention the number of successful games that don't bother with the OGL. It is not a requirement for success, and I really doubt it's even much of an aid towards success.

The industry is litered with the corpses of hundreds of OGL games. Paizos success is due to the setting and adventure support they have delivered, not the system or a legal addendum that 95% of players could give less of a damn about.

Liberty's Edge

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

As a person that sees GURPS, Rolemaster, and Twilight 2000 as the best of the RPGs the more complex the game is the better the role playing.

We already have that 800 pound Gorilla and it is called Pathfinder in the d20 area. If WotC are thinking that they can go head to head with Paizo in a d20/3.5e-type_game competition, well, I honesty think that ship has sailed. WotC need a point of difference, keeping it simple seemed to me to be that point of difference. Paizo have the TSR/previous-WotC old boys club in their corner. I can't see me dropping PF to play a WotC revamped d20/3.5e game. Now if WotC release a 'basic'/2e new D&D then I'm likely to pick up a copy. Some days you just don't feel like getting flayed over putting together a monster that doesn't adhere to the 3.5e/PF rules. Other days the micromanagement of 3.5e/PF appeals. But I don't really need two current games filling exactly the same niche.

So I'm not saying complex games can't be good (in fact played some Spacemaster 2 the other weekend) just WotC have lost that sector to Paizo in the D&D arena.

S.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

Hell, you could stick the OGL onto the back of FATAL...it would still be a piece of crap.

We tried playing F.A.T.A.L once (and only once) working on the idea that the more we drank the more likely the potential of the game being fun might be realised. We were so wrong. The most fun of that evenings gaming was throwing up a combination of beer, tequila, vodka, and McDonald's on the outside deck while it was raining.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

You can stick the OGL on the end of anything, that doesn't automatically make it good or profitable. We saw ample evidence of this during the 3.5 era. Hell, you could stick the OGL onto the back of FATAL...it would still be a piece of crap.

Not to mention the number of successful games that don't bother with the OGL. It is not a requirement for success, and I really doubt it's even much of an aid towards success.

The industry is litered with the corpses of hundreds of OGL games. Paizos success is due to the setting and adventure support they have delivered, not the system or a legal addendum that 95% of players could give less of a damn about.

All true...

...but not relevant to the argument that, in order to succeed in the current fantasy RPG market, OGL compliance is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition.


bugleyman wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

You can stick the OGL on the end of anything, that doesn't automatically make it good or profitable. We saw ample evidence of this during the 3.5 era. Hell, you could stick the OGL onto the back of FATAL...it would still be a piece of crap.

Not to mention the number of successful games that don't bother with the OGL. It is not a requirement for success, and I really doubt it's even much of an aid towards success.

The industry is litered with the corpses of hundreds of OGL games. Paizos success is due to the setting and adventure support they have delivered, not the system or a legal addendum that 95% of players could give less of a damn about.

All true...

...but not relevant to the argument that, in order to succeed in the current fantasy RPG market, OGL compliance is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition.

I'd have to see some evidence for that argument. Beyond PF and 4E.

4E may have had problems, but AFAIK it did better than anything else for most of it's career. PF outsold it, but only by some measures and only as 4E was winding down. Does anything else even come close?

Of the runners-up are any of them OGL? Are there actually games out there that use the OGL that aren't derived from D&D/D20?

Shadow Lodge

bugleyman wrote:
...but not relevant to the argument that, in order to succeed in the current fantasy RPG market, OGL compliance is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition.

I dunno about that. Why should fantasy RPGs play by different rules? Lets look at a couple of other genres...scifi and horror. The two biggest RPGs in scifi have arguably been Traveller and the Warhammer 40K games. Neither of which use the OGL. For horror we have the World of Darkness and Call of Cthulhu...again, no OGL in sight.


Kthulhu wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
...but not relevant to the argument that, in order to succeed in the current fantasy RPG market, OGL compliance is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition.
I dunno about that. Why should fantasy RPGs play by different rules? Lets look at a couple of other genres...scifi and horror. The two biggest RPGs in scifi have arguably been Traveller and the Warhammer 40K games. Neither of which use the OGL. For horror we have the World of Darkness and Call of Cthulhu...again, no OGL in sight.

Mongoose Traveller is published under the OGL. It's about as close to the game I think of as Traveller as D20 is to B/X D&D, but it has its own SRD.

It's also worth considering that, going by the playtest packets thus far, you'll be able to publish D&DNext compliant stat blocks under the OGL, whether or not you're allowed to use the name Dungeons and Dragons and various WotC intellectual properties.


I don't think OGL will make or break a game. The most tangible benefit I have noticed from OGL is that it allows 3rd party companies to flesh out material that is unlikely to be of interest for one reason or another to the main publisher (say Pathfinder), or allow support for new campaign settings that the publisher doesn't have to spend resources to produce.

On the other hand, it also means that if you decide to move your product to a different system that the fanbase is not happy with, you automatically produce a potential for a competitor to scoop up your customers

See 4E versus Pathfinder...


Hitdice wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
...but not relevant to the argument that, in order to succeed in the current fantasy RPG market, OGL compliance is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition.
I dunno about that. Why should fantasy RPGs play by different rules? Lets look at a couple of other genres...scifi and horror. The two biggest RPGs in scifi have arguably been Traveller and the Warhammer 40K games. Neither of which use the OGL. For horror we have the World of Darkness and Call of Cthulhu...again, no OGL in sight.

Mongoose Traveller is published under the OGL. It's about as close to the game I think of as Traveller as D20 is to B/X D&D, but it has its own SRD.

It's also worth considering that, going by the playtest packets thus far, you'll be able to publish D&DNext compliant stat blocks under the OGL, whether or not you're allowed to use the name Dungeons and Dragons and various WotC intellectual properties.

Reading down the new posts on this thread I came across Kthhulu's post and thought "Mongoose" right away. It's a bit different but it's still recognizably Traveller. It has support from several companies as a result of the OGL. And it is supposed to be compatible with T5 from Marc Miller, the core book of which should be hitting my doorstep in about a month :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
I dunno about that. Why should fantasy RPGs play by different rules? Lets look at a couple of other genres...scifi and horror. The two biggest RPGs in scifi have arguably been Traveller and the Warhammer 40K games. Neither of which use the OGL. For horror we have the World of Darkness and Call of Cthulhu...again, no OGL in sight.

The difference is that the fantasy market is already dominated by an OGL game. Which in turn replaced another OGL game (3.5). Which in turn replaced another OGL game (3.0).

For some reason, people keeping reading what I type and somehow coming away with the idea I think the OGL is unbeatable. Then they kindly give counter-examples to disprove an argument that I'm not making.

The OGL isn't much of a factor in an RPG's success...UNLESS the genre is dominated by an OGL game. In fact, a market-leading OGL game has NEVER been displaced by another game -- except another OGL game.


bugleyman wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
I dunno about that. Why should fantasy RPGs play by different rules? Lets look at a couple of other genres...scifi and horror. The two biggest RPGs in scifi have arguably been Traveller and the Warhammer 40K games. Neither of which use the OGL. For horror we have the World of Darkness and Call of Cthulhu...again, no OGL in sight.

The difference is that the fantasy market is already dominated by an OGL game. Which in turn replaced another OGL game (3.5). Which in turn replaced another OGL game (3.0).

For some reason, people keeping reading what I type and somehow coming away with the idea I think the OGL is unbeatable. Then they kindly give counter-examples to disprove an argument that I'm not making.

The OGL isn't much of a factor in an RPG's success...UNLESS the genre is dominated by an OGL game. In fact, a market-leading OGL game has NEVER been displaced by another game -- except another OGL game.

Of course, you're working with a very limited number of examples.

And actually, your contention is wrong. 4E (non-OGL) replaced 3.5 (OGL) as the market leader and held that position for quite some time.
PF may have replaced it, but it's not entirely clear. IIRC, we have data for one section of the market, not all sales. This also happened as 4E was winding down and starting work on the next version.

It would be a simpler hypothesis to say that D&D 3.x was and is really popular and that the OGL makes it harder to force your fanbase to your next version, since another company can try to keep them.


thejeff wrote:


Of course, you're working with a very limited number of examples.

And actually, your contention is wrong. 4E (non-OGL) replaced 3.5 (OGL) as the market leader and held that position for quite some time.
PF may have replaced it, but it's not entirely clear. IIRC, we have data for one section of the market, not all sales. This also happened as 4E was winding down and starting work on the next version.

It would be a simpler hypothesis to say that D&D 3.x was and is really popular and that the OGL makes it harder to force your fanbase to your next version, since another company can try to keep them.

True, but... 4E dominated the market by default in the absence of a 3.5 D&D or any other significant competitor. Pathfinder came later and had to play "catch up". It's also true that we have only partial data (hobby sales). We do not have figures on DDI for WotC or PDF sales data for Paizo.

Paizo and Pathfinder seem to be doing very well. The market, while it might have grown a bit, has not undergone a major expansion. Pathfinder's success had to come at 4Es expence.

Having the D&D Next playtest I can tell you it reaches back into older versions of D&D (imo). WotC is, apparently, planning on resuming PDF sales of older versions of D&D (or so the word is) as well as printing collectors editions of them. 4E seems to be shuffling off the stage a bit early as well. None of WotCs recent moves seem to be shouting approval of 4Es performance. Through a series of mistakes they alientated a large part of their player base and lost a dominant position in the hobby. It will be interesting to see how DDN does and what the licensing system will be like.


R_Chance wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
...but not relevant to the argument that, in order to succeed in the current fantasy RPG market, OGL compliance is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition.
I dunno about that. Why should fantasy RPGs play by different rules? Lets look at a couple of other genres...scifi and horror. The two biggest RPGs in scifi have arguably been Traveller and the Warhammer 40K games. Neither of which use the OGL. For horror we have the World of Darkness and Call of Cthulhu...again, no OGL in sight.

Mongoose Traveller is published under the OGL. It's about as close to the game I think of as Traveller as D20 is to B/X D&D, but it has its own SRD.

It's also worth considering that, going by the playtest packets thus far, you'll be able to publish D&DNext compliant stat blocks under the OGL, whether or not you're allowed to use the name Dungeons and Dragons and various WotC intellectual properties.

Reading down the new posts on this thread I came across Kthhulu's post and thought "Mongoose" right away. It's a bit different but it's still recognizably Traveller. It has support from several companies as a result of the OGL. And it is supposed to be compatible with T5 from Marc Miller, the core book of which should be hitting my doorstep in about a month :)

We'll have to get together at some point just so we can admire each other's TAS membership cards. :P


Hitdice wrote:


We'll have to get together at some point just so we can admire each other's TAS membership cards. :P

That was one Kickstarter I could not say "no" to. Huge core book, PDF, and all the other goodies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Folks seem to be operating under the flawed assumption that the OGL is a significant contributor to Pathfinder's success. It is, if anything, capitalizing on sentiment.

Pathfinder is successful because it is built on the framework of the most successful RPG of all time and because of the reputation Paizo built for itself over years of producing quality product.

That Pathfinder is OGL is of little consequence outside of the fact that the OGL allowed for its existence in the first place.


Sebastrd wrote:


Folks seem to be operating under the flawed assumption that the OGL is a significant contributor to Pathfinder's success. It is, if anything, capitalizing on sentiment.

Pathfinder is successful because it is built on the framework of the most successful RPG of all time and because of the reputation Paizo built for itself over years of producing quality product.

That Pathfinder is OGL is of little consequence outside of the fact that the OGL allowed for its existence in the first place.

I take it you are not a big fan of 3PP? As you've pointed out PF wouldn't exist without the OGL. The relative ease of using / converting material from other OGL games is a bonus as well. And without that compatibility a lot of people, including me, would be playing 3.5 still. While you are correct about the D&D pedigree and Paizo's quality work it's difficult to understand how the OGL can be discounted as the enabler and contributer to the game. It's like saying "if Paizo owned D&D it would still be a great game". Sure thing, but that's not what happened or how it works.

*edit* For that matter the OGL has been used outside of D20 based games (for Mongoose Traveller) and has contributed to the success of that game.


R_Chance wrote:
For that matter the OGL has been used outside of D20 based games (for Mongoose Traveller) and has contributed to the success of that game.

Don't forget that the OGL also helped enable several of the retro-clone games integral to the OSR movement.

I also think that saying "The OGL is negligible to Pathfinder except for the fact that it allows the game to exist" (paraphrasing Sebastrd's comment) is a pretty big "except for".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Stefan Hill wrote:


We tried playing F.A.T.A.L once (and only once) working on the idea that the more we drank the more likely the potential of the game being fun might be realised. We were so wrong. The most fun of that evenings gaming was throwing up a combination of beer, tequila, vodka, and McDonald's on the outside deck while it was raining.

Oddly enough, I think that's pretty much the same process they used when designing it.


Abbasax wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:


We tried playing F.A.T.A.L once (and only once) working on the idea that the more we drank the more likely the potential of the game being fun might be realised. We were so wrong. The most fun of that evenings gaming was throwing up a combination of beer, tequila, vodka, and McDonald's on the outside deck while it was raining.

Oddly enough, I think that's pretty much the same process they used when designing it.

All right! Who violated the NDA... :D


Readerbreeder wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
For that matter the OGL has been used outside of D20 based games (for Mongoose Traveller) and has contributed to the success of that game.

Don't forget that the OGL also helped enable several of the retro-clone games integral to the OSR movement.

I also think that saying "The OGL is negligible to Pathfinder except for the fact that it allows the game to exist" (paraphrasing Sebastrd's comment) is a pretty big "except for".

Yep, I'm kind of fond of several OSR games. And, yes, that's a pretty big "except for". I found it... peculiar. Kind of like saying that Gygax and Arneson have had no influence on D&D / RPGs other than creating the genre...


The 5th edition art samples I saw were not to my liking! They looked like Pixar characters from a disney movie. I really hope that isn't what they will use for the final game design.

Silver Crusade

Sebastrd wrote:


That Pathfinder is OGL is of little consequence outside of the fact that the OGL allowed for its existence in the first place.

Every third party product adds value to the 3rd Edition Player's Handbook and the Monster Manual. Did you know that?


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

It depends on perspective, really. The PH is no more valuable to me when someone puts out another supplement. Every time paizo do it actually loses value, as far as I'm concerned.

Shadow Lodge

R_Chance wrote:
Sebastrd wrote:


Folks seem to be operating under the flawed assumption that the OGL is a significant contributor to Pathfinder's success. It is, if anything, capitalizing on sentiment.

Pathfinder is successful because it is built on the framework of the most successful RPG of all time and because of the reputation Paizo built for itself over years of producing quality product.

That Pathfinder is OGL is of little consequence outside of the fact that the OGL allowed for its existence in the first place.

I take it you are not a big fan of 3PP? As you've pointed out PF wouldn't exist without the OGL. The relative ease of using / converting material from other OGL games is a bonus as well. And without that compatibility a lot of people, including me, would be playing 3.5 still. While you are correct about the D&D pedigree and Paizo's quality work it's difficult to understand how the OGL can be discounted as the enabler and contributer to the game. It's like saying "if Paizo owned D&D it would still be a great game". Sure thing, but that's not what happened or how it works.

*edit* For that matter the OGL has been used outside of D20 based games (for Mongoose Traveller) and has contributed to the success of that game.

The OGL isn't a requirement in order to have 3PP as long as the 1PP doesn't mind. 3PP existed almost since the dawn of the game, while the OGL didn't exist until 2000.


Let me clarify.

The existence of the OGL, in that it allows Pathfinder to exist in its current form, is abviously a huge contributing factor.

Pathfinder's OGL compatibility, in that it enables 3PP for Pathfinder, is not.

Pathfinder would be successful regardless of the availability of 3PP because of its reputation and built-in customer base. Every 3PP does NOT add value. There was so much 3E compatible garbage on the market at one point that it seriously turned WotC off to the whole OGL thing. The more crap that gets churned out, the harder it is for the casual consumer to find the good stuff.

Warning - very long aside:

Keep in mind that, very much like Magic: The Gathering, the net savvy hardcore RPG audience (i.e., us) is a small fraction of the customer base. Casual consumers generate a lot of revenue for a companies like WotC and Paizo. That's why they need to keep producing product - to keep the brand on shelves and in front of the eyes of consumers. Paizo specifically pointed out in the past that while subscriptions (to Dungeon and Dragon) were important, casual newsstand purchases were vital to their survival. If casual consumers don't pick up a brand's books or magazines, the stores stop putting them on shelves, and the revenue dries up.


Also, and to prove my point, ask yourself this:

If F.A.T.A.L. were OGL, and companies started producing 3PP for it, would people start playing it? Could it ever compete with D&D?


Sebastrd wrote:
Pathfinder's OGL compatibility, in that it enables 3PP for Pathfinder, is not.

This is true and not true at the same time. Pathfinder would do quite well without 3PP support, but I doubt it would be the heavy weight it is with that support. Even if the casual gamer never looks at 3PP and doesn't even know it exists, the difference is noticeable. A key comparison between 3.5 and 4E helps highlight this. With 3.5, it was not hard to find places where 3.5 was mentioned and/or supported in some way that had no formal ties to WoTC whatsoever; with 4E, unless WoTC was actively advertising it, you pretty much never heard about it, even in the game stores, after the excitement of the initial release wore off. This makes a difference when trying to get the attention of new players, and is a big difference why 4E struggled; with word of mouth, no trpg is going to succeed, and even the negative word of mouth was ironically more helpful than no word of mouth at all, which is what ended up happening as time wore on. While 3PP aren't the only part of a successful word of mouth system, they are a big part of it, and the fact that Pathfinder not only allows, but encourages, it is a big part of their success.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Not to mention that 3PP provide character options that Paizo hasn't yet or chooses not to. Psionics specifically come to mind. I would surmise that having options available for the Pathfinder ruleset in niches that Paizo hasn't explored encourages people interested in those types of options to play Pathfinder and buy Paizo products that might otherwise migrate to another ruleset that includes their favored options out of the box.

But that's just conjecture on my part.


Sebastrd wrote:

Also, and to prove my point, ask yourself this:

If F.A.T.A.L. were OGL, and companies started producing 3PP for it, would people start playing it? Could it ever compete with D&D?

You seem to be confusing necessary and sufficient condition.

Sovereign Court

SuperSlayer wrote:
The 5th edition art samples I saw were not to my liking! They looked like Pixar characters from a disney movie. I really hope that isn't what they will use for the final game design.

I got to agree with you this time SS. Fatlings are awfully stupid looking.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I like the monsters. The PC races all look a little 3D-cartoony though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I started out with original D&D back in the dark ages. If artwork alone could run me off I wouldn't still be playing RPGs :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Paizos success is due to the setting and adventure support they have delivered

I have to say that I support this idea! Even if DND Next turns to be a "good" system a significant share of the market will still play PF just be cause the adventure paths and scenarios. However having a system that is stable (not changing too frequently), well known and virtually free also helps!

Liberty's Edge

No one draws breasts like Elmore...

Silver Crusade

Sebastrd wrote:

Let me clarify.

The existence of the OGL, in that it allows Pathfinder to exist in its current form, is abviously a huge contributing factor.

Pathfinder's OGL compatibility, in that it enables 3PP for Pathfinder, is not.

Pathfinder would be successful regardless of the availability of 3PP because of its reputation and built-in customer base. Every 3PP does NOT add value. There was so much 3E compatible garbage on the market at one point that it seriously turned WotC off to the whole OGL thing. The more crap that gets churned out, the harder it is for the casual consumer to find the good stuff.

Perhaps you need to see the graph.


Sebastrd wrote:

Let me clarify.

Pathfinder would be successful regardless of the availability of 3PP because of its reputation and built-in customer base. Every 3PP does NOT add value. There was so much 3E compatible garbage on the market at one point that it seriously turned WotC off to the whole OGL thing. The more crap that gets churned out, the harder it is for the casual consumer to find the good stuff.

I can agree with this for the most part, but there were two sides of the "garbage" heap. 3PPs like Necromancer, Goodman, and Green Ronin turned out some great stuff (adventures/settings), but I would normally tend to stay far, far, away from Mongoose, Malhavoc, and several other 3PPs, because they seemed to be very badly balanced for the most part.

On the other side of that same "garbage" heap lurked the 800 lb. Gorilla that was WotC. They had their own share of badly balanced and sometimes broken sourcebooks, dry adventures, etc. At one point I actually preferred 3PP to "Official" in the case of adventures and settings (though there were some VERY RARE gems like Red Hand of Doom, RttToEE, and the Expeditions to Castles Ravenloft and Greyhawk).

One man's garbage is another man's treasure and all that. :)

OGL and 3PPs in general is valuable IMHO. I can thank the OGL for Paizo, Goodman, Necro, and Green Ronin at least.

51 to 100 of 326 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / D&DNext - D&D 5th edition, a light version of PF in my humble opinion. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.