Speaking as someone who is playing in the current alpha Next playtest, it plays very easy, much more easily than PF. If Next knocks it out of the park with adventure paths and support, they will crush PF. For example, Alpha Next can be played with or without a map, PF absolutely requires it. PF is more like 4E than Next is - Next resembles games like Swords and Wizardry but with more options. 2E modernized is an apt description. Despite what people may think, the game is WOTCs to lose. Right now, it's between rounds in the boxing match.

If Next wins big, I can see PF making a licensing deal with WOTC so that folks can play Next in Golarion with dual statted products. Paizo is a business that has worked with WOTC before and I can see them doing it again.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;747572Speaking as someone who is playing in the current alpha Next playtest, it plays very easy, much more easily than PF. If Next knocks it out of the park with adventure paths and support, they will crush PF. For example, Alpha Next can be played with or without a map, PF absolutely requires it. PF is more like 4E than Next is - Next resembles games like Swords and Wizardry but with more options. 2E modernized is an apt description. Despite what people may think, the game is WOTCs to lose. Right now, it's between rounds in the boxing match.

If Next wins big, I can see PF making a licensing deal with WOTC so that folks can play Next in Golarion with dual statted products. Paizo is a business that has worked with WOTC before and I can see them doing it again.

So the counter to this argument is that PF and 3.X both have a heavy character building components that are almost a game in and of themselves.  That's something you can do without even having a group and leads to sales of books.  More folks buy character building books vs adventure paths.  PF is a pain to DM but the AP's mitigate that to large extent.  Regarding maps the question is do people really care if you can play without a map?  

I personally dont have a horse in this race.  I dont own any pathfinder products and I will probably pick up DDN after it goes into half price books.

WOTC is not competing with Paizo, because they've opted to focus on the brand over the RPG this round.  They honestly don't seem to care if the RPG is first or second place, as long as the brand overall is making lots of money.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;747572For example, Alpha Next can be played with or without a map, PF absolutely requires it.

This has always been a bullshit statement, both about PF and about 3E/3.5.

Quote from: Mistwell;747635WOTC is not competing with Paizo, because they've opted to focus on the brand over the RPG this round.  They honestly don't seem to care if the RPG is first or second place, as long as the brand overall is making lots of money.

That's my perception as well.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;746989The Origins event list is out.

There is 1 BASIC D&D game.
There are about 23 1st ed games.
There are 7 3.5 games.
There are 4 4e games.
There are 206 Pathfinder games.

I think that just shows how much RPGs have shrunk at Origins. When they ran the Temple of Elemental Evil event back in 2001, there were 40 to 50 tables of 3.0 running per slot, well over 400 total for the convention.

Quote from: Chairman Meow;747645I think that just shows how much RPGs have shrunk at Origins. When they ran the Temple of Elemental Evil event back in 2001, there were 40 to 50 tables of 3.0 running per slot, well over 400 total for the convention.

Depends how many overall RPG games are running I guess not just D&D-esque fantasy (I can't get t the list from here).

we all know the position of D&D as the Alpha Big dog that comsumes 80% of the entire market are done but that doesn't mean that there is nothign else stepping up.

As you yourself would no doubt say Chairman, "Let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend"

Quote from: kythri;747641This has always been a bullshit statement, both about PF and about 3E/3.5.

I've done 3e ok without a battlemap, yup. It is pretty much true of 4e, though - squares are built into the 4e combat engine, you need a battlemap.

Quote from: Mistwell;747635WOTC is not competing with Paizo, because they've opted to focus on the brand over the RPG this round.  They honestly don't seem to care if the RPG is first or second place, as long as the brand overall is making lots of money.

Wotc says that because apparently they are not the "indisputable" this time around. When 4e had been getting published, distributors embraced it and compiled orders big time. When Mike Mearls was talking about success and doing two reprints of the PHB, MM, DMG I am not sure it was about actual customer sales or distributor orders that could have very well been made with the option of returns to the publisher-and if that has been the case how many returns would have been made.

But nowadays distributors may very well want to promote Pathfinder in place of D&D. In this kind of environment with no actual product to cash in, I bet Wotc does not want to spend a dime to compete with Pathfinder without being sure that it will win the competition and also make some money over it. Imagine if Wotc competed and came second at this point. Yes, it would hurt the brand more than it has been hurt already. So it is better for them to exhibit to the public that they are above competing for tabletop rpgs and just focus on "big business". Man, how ludicrous all this seems.

Quote from: kythri;747641This has always been a bullshit statement, both about PF and about 3E/3.5.

You can do it, but it's not easy. Go through the list of feats and remove any that require you to know the specific location of opponents in relation to one another. That is, anything the involves attacks of opportunity, flanking, tumbling, extra attacks on adjacent opponents, etc. Then consider how removing those feats affects various classes - especially the rogue.

It's a pain in the ass. I know - I've tried it.

Quote from: Haffrung;747780You can do it, but it's not easy. Go through the list of feats and remove any that require you to know the specific location of opponents in relation to one another. That is, anything the involves attacks of opportunity, flanking, tumbling, extra attacks on adjacent opponents, etc. Then consider how removing those feats affects various classes - especially the rogue.

It's a pain in the ass. I know - I've tried it.

the last time I played 3e a couple years ago we went map free.  It's slightly a pain in the ass, but not impossible.  AoO were the biggest hang up, and we ended up ignoring them for the most  part.

Quote from: Haffrung;747780You can do it, but it's not easy. Go through the list of feats and remove any that require you to know the specific location of opponents in relation to one another. That is, anything the involves attacks of opportunity, flanking, tumbling, extra attacks on adjacent opponents, etc. Then consider how removing those feats affects various classes - especially the rogue.

It's a pain in the ass. I know - I've tried it.

I think the argument is whether or not "specific location" really requires a battlemat.

I actually agree that I don't think PF works entirely gridless, but for about half of the things you mentioned a generic sense of "you're next to this guy" works just fine. Maybe requiring markers but not really a five-foot grid...

Quote from: Sacrosanct;747784the last time I played 3e a couple years ago we went map free.  It's slightly a pain in the ass, but not impossible. AoO were the biggest hang up, and we ended up ignoring them for the most  part.

I have played plenty of 3X without a map.

It helps that I dislike attacks of opportunity; makes it easy to toss them in the trash.

Flanking's easy without a map. Just require two enemies be engaged with one foe, and don't over analyze it.

Quote from: S'mon;747660squares are built into the 4e combat engine, you need a battlemap.

I've done it. It's not ideal, but it's playable.

Quote from: Haffrung;747780You can do it, but it's not easy. Go through the list of feats and remove any that require you to know the specific location of opponents in relation to one another. That is, anything the involves attacks of opportunity, flanking, tumbling, extra attacks on adjacent opponents, etc. Then consider how removing those feats affects various classes - especially the rogue.

It's a pain in the ass. I know - I've tried it.

It's really not.  I know - I regularly do it (both as DM and PC).

It certainly requires a bit more abstraction and a bit of hand-waving, but it works rather easily and rather well if your DM and players aren't completely anal-retentive about all of that.

There's no need to remove any feats or anything like that.