TheRPGSite

Didn't see a thread for this yet:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG

QuotePaizo Publishing® Announces the Pathfinder RPG™
Pathfinder™ to continue under the 3.5 rules.

Tuesday, March 19th, 2008

Paizo Publishing today unveiled the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, a tabletop fantasy roleplaying game that will serve as the anchor for the company's popular line of Pathfinder adventures, sourcebooks, and campaigns. Today marks the beginning of a year-long Open Playtest of the new rules, which are based upon the popular 3.5 rules available under the Open Game License. The Pathfinder RPG is designed with backward compatibility as one of its primary goals, so players will continue to enjoy their lifelong fantasy gaming hobby without invalidating their entire game library. The first Pathfinder RPG Alpha release is available now as a free 65-page PDF download at paizo.com/pathfinderRPG. Until the finished Pathfinder RPG's release as a hardcover rulebook in August 2009, all of Paizo's popular Pathfinder-brand products will continue under the current 3.5 rules set.

"I'm really excited to work with the playtesters to make this the best game possible," said Jason Bulmahn, Paizo's Lead Designer. "In the spirit of the Open Game movement, the Pathfinder RPG is really your roleplaying game. It's a huge thrill to get to lead the design process."

Paizo will issue additional Pathfinder RPG Alpha releases in the coming months, covering new changes and additions to the 3.5 rules. Gamers can download, read, and participate in the free open playtest by setting up a paizo.com account and joining the discussion with Paizo's design staff at paizo.com/pathfinderRPG. The Pathfinder RPG will be backward-compatible with the 3.5 rules, and the staff has kept this goal as a primary focus since design began in 2007.

This coming August, Paizo will release a massive, full-color, softcover Pathfinder RPG Beta release for $24.99. This book will be available on paizo.com, at Gen Con, as well as through hobby distribution at local game stores. Just like the Alpha releases, the Beta release will be available as a free PDF download on paizo.com. As Wizards of the Coast's core 3.5 rulebooks are expected to go out of print with the release of 4th Edition, Paizo will use the Pathfinder RPG as a replacement for the 3.5 core rules. The Pathfinder RPG Beta release will represent Paizo's first published take on an updated 3.5 system, and playtesting will continue through spring 2009, when Paizo will incorporate the open playtest feedback and create a hardcover Pathfinder RPG for release in the hobby trade, bookstores, and paizo.com in August 2009.

Paizo hopes to support 4th Edition with fan-created online conversions of its Pathfinder products and a complete line from its partner company, Necromancer Games, a trend-setter in the original Open Gaming movement. Necromancer has already announced a new 4th Edition version of their award-winning Tome of Horrors monster encyclopedia, and has plans for additional player and GM support products.

Today, Paizo also announced the hiring of Nicolas Logue to run the Pathfinder Society organized play campaign, a massive mega-campaign to launch at this year's Gen Con. The Pathfinder Society will feature events at major conventions, retail stores, and home play as a way to involve thousands of players in a constantly evolving campaign environment fueled by downloadable scenarios released by Paizo. Nicolas Logue is a long-time Paizo contributor to the print versions of Dragon and Dungeon as well as the Pathfinder Adventure Paths and Pathfinder Modules line. He also co-runs an annual competition at Gen Con called Iron DM that will continue to be co-run by Nicolas Logue and his Iron DM compatriots. Nick begins working at Paizo in April.

"Nicolas Logue is one of the most energetic, personable gamers I have ever met," said Erik Mona, Paizo's Publisher and the co-founder during his tenure at Wizards of the Coast of Living Greyhawk, the largest organized play RPG campaign in history. "Running a successful organized play campaign involves a magical combination of cool ideas, organizational skills, and enthusiasm. Nick is absolutely the perfect man for the job, and I'm thrilled that he will be joining us here at Paizo."

Additional information on the Pathfinder Society campaign can be found at paizo.com/pathfindersociety.

Crap, you just beat me to it.

Interesting that 4th will be supported by fan created conversions.

Huh. I'm actually mildly surprised at this. I'm also looking forward to seeing the finished product. Paizo is a class act, and their products are outstanding. A very interesting alternative to 4e.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonHuh. I'm actually mildly surprised at this.

Myself as well.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonPaizo is a class act, and their products are outstanding.

Definitely.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonA very interesting alternative to 4e.

This one I'm on the fence about. I think it'll depend on how different the Pathfinder RPG is from 3.5. If it's very different, folks may have no reason not to switch to 4e.

Seanchai

What little I've been able to glean from the pdf they've posted indicates that their RPG will be a lot closer to 3.5 than 4e looks to be.

Very interesting indeed!

Intriguing.  It's not clear to me from the text whether this will be basically 3.5 OSRIC, "3.75", or some kind of alternate 4th ed that maintains more back-compat.

I am not surprised though, as of the publishers out there, they were one of the biggest out there that was still focusing on D&D3, as opposed to some other game that happened to use the same dice mechanic.

Kinda surprising.  But Paizo has no reason to be supportive of WOTC after having Dungeon and Dragon taken from them.

Yea, and if you read the CEO and others blurbs in the linked news item, it does seem like a kick in the pants.

Is open source taking real hold of 3.5? Are we going to see other 3.75 a likes that keep 3.5 alive for the long term. Could D20 turn into the RPG equivalent of linux? D20 sticking around forever? Ha! This is the real promise of the OGL.

I play RedHat D&D. Well I like Ubuntu D&D, thank you very much.

Ryan Dancy, more of your chickens are hatching.

Quote from: darI play RedHat D&D.

Red Box.  ;)

I've looked through the pdf and - while I like many of the changes - it looks like quite bigger changes than the 3.0-3.5 conversion...

Lots of variant feats, lots of variant spells, skill overhaul, several variant classes, many changes to each race, changes to HPs, and mechanical changes like to wizard specialization and domain class features...  It's pretty substantial.

In other words, "This is not the 3.75 you're looking for."

Apart from changing skills to be more Saga-Like, it's all added complexity, not reduced whatsoever.

-O

I haven't kept up with things at the Paizo message boards lately, yet this development doesn't surprise me in the least. They're smart to do this. D&D is just gonna keep morphing until it eventually becomes something barely recognizable to its core fanbase.

Hasbro is leaving the 3.x fanbase behind, so Paizo wants to dominate the remaining 3.x market (which is sizable), and there'll still be a market for it in the years to come.

Interesting to note that Wayne Reynolds did the cover art for Pathfinder as well as 4e.  I think his work on the Pathfinder cover is much better than the 4e covers...

Quote from: obrynI've looked through the pdf and - while I like many of the changes - it looks like quite bigger changes than the 3.0-3.5 conversion...

Lots of variant feats, lots of variant spells, skill overhaul, several variant classes, many changes to each race, changes to HPs, and mechanical changes like to wizard specialization and domain class features...  It's pretty substantial.

In other words, "This is not the 3.75 you're looking for."

Apart from changing skills to be more Saga-Like, it's all added complexity, not reduced whatsoever.

-O

I do agree that they need to simplify things a bit. That's the only thing that bugs me. They need to trim the fat from the system, not add to it. :pundit:

From the sound of the original post, this is Alpha.  It might be a throw-it-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks release at this point.

Very very interesting. I'm glad. Perhaps if one person (Paizo) is willing to do it, others will as well. The diversification continues...

Quote from: obrynI've looked through the pdf and - while I like many of the changes - it looks like quite bigger changes than the 3.0-3.5 conversion...

Lots of variant feats, lots of variant spells, skill overhaul, several variant classes, many changes to each race, changes to HPs, and mechanical changes like to wizard specialization and domain class features...  It's pretty substantial.

In other words, "This is not the 3.75 you're looking for."

Apart from changing skills to be more Saga-Like, it's all added complexity, not reduced whatsoever.

Er, huh?

It looks like by and large, the feats and spells were change to accommodate other changes in the system, like skill modifiers to accommodate the change in skill categories, and change in black tentacles to accommodate the change in the grapple rules.

For those who are glad - are you glad because you want Paizo (or anyone) to stick it to WotC or are you glad because you want to give their incarnation of 3.75 a chance?

Honest question. :)

Like I said from way back, what I'm looking for is a decent trimming of the 3.5 rules - like a Saga-fication for the Star Wars d20 rules set.  I was hoping to get that out of 4.0, but I'm skeptical I will.

This isn't it.  I mean, I like a lot of this - but I think the compatibility they're advertising with 3.x is dramatically overstated.

-O

Quote from: Caesar SlaadEr, huh?

It looks like by and large, the feats and spells were change to accommodate other changes in the system, like skill modifiers to accommodate the change in skill categories, and change in black tentacles to accommodate the change in the grapple rules.

Er... yeah?

Just because it's the domino effect, doesn't make the change any less significant or reduce the system's overall complexity.

-O

Quote from: obrynFor those who are glad - are you glad because you want Paizo (or anyone) to stick it to WotC or are you glad because you want to give their incarnation of 3.75 a chance?

I'm glad becuase it means a thriving supported community for a game I am interested in.

I'm sure 4e will be plenty successful and Paizo won't change that.

Gotta say I like this sounds rather encouraging.

I'm glad cause there may be a larger base of 3.5 players. I actually do not mind 3.5 and would keep playing it. This way I can.

I actually started to consider buying other 3.5 books again.

There will be playtesting. The release as is, is beta. Anybody know what Paizo playtesting is like? How much change to the beta is possible?

Quote from: obrynEr... yeah?

Just because it's the domino effect, doesn't make the change any less significant or reduce the system's overall complexity.

Man, what? Somehow, by simplifying things, they are making "variants" out of them and making them more comlpex? :confused:

Quote from: Caesar SlaadMan, what? Somehow, by simplifying things, they are making "variants" out of them and making them more comlpex? :confused:

Right, I'm not seeing the simplifications - except, as I mentioned, with the skills.

The classes they've modified have increased in complexity (including making the fighter more complicated), the races have new (and more) features, in addition to unbalanced modifiers, and enough is different that the 3.5-Pathfinder conversion seems less smooth than 3.0-3.5 (and I didn't think it was that smooth).

Perhaps I'd have a different view if I saw everything in one book - but this is my current impression.  I don't think it ever simplifies things to have your main rulebook heavily modified by another rulebook in this many fundamental ways.

-O

Quote from: obrynRight, I'm not seeing the simplifications - except, as I mentioned, with the skills.

The classes they've modified have increased in complexity (including making the fighter more complicated), the races have new (and more)

Gotcha. I was more focusing on the comment with regard to feats and spells, which I've already stated my case for.

Classes. Well, "dead levels" have been rued, and most recent D20 spinoffs have made sure to have a named feature at every level. I think it's a good move. (And if you are updating to 4e, one you will be familiar with.)

The only thing I really hate is ditching skill ranks. I know SAGA has its fans, but I think its a truly wretched idea.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadGotcha. I was more focusing on the comment with regard to feats and spells, which I've already stated my case for.

Classes. Well, "dead levels" have been rued, and most recent D20 spinoffs have made sure to have a named feature at every level. I think it's a good move. (And if you are updating to 4e, one you will be familiar with.)

The only thing I really hate is ditching skill ranks. I know SAGA has its fans, but I think its a truly wretched idea.

Well, I may or may not upgrade to 4e.  I know that I'll give it a shot - either as player or GM - but WotC makes me alternately happy and sad with each announcement.

Like I said - when all of this is put into one big book, maybe I'll see things differently.

Right now, it looks more like an opportunity for the Paizo guys to publish their house-rules.  That may or may not be a fair assessment, and I certainly think their changes are overall good (like, for instance, the skill changes and the feat-every-odd-level).  If they want to make 3.5-compatible materials, though, they should maybe put a bit more effort into compatibility.

-O

I think Paizo is going to fail. Here are a few reasons:

1-The timing is downright horrible. If they wanted to make a stand, they had to decide much earlier, at the time Wizards announced 4e. Get the playtest going then and be ready to compete with 4e with a full release before the end of 2008 (preferably something like July). This Alpha/Beta playtesting thing? It's going to die quietly in June, when 4e is released. All the D&D/OGL/D20 excitment will turn towards 4e-related matters.  

2-It seems they are listening to an extremely vocal minority of gamers. Most people will jump to 4e, including most so-called "haters".

3-Old D20-related products are already losing value, including recent releases. Publishers are experimenting a drop. We're going to see more and more old D&D material and 3rd party stuff in the bargain bin. This mean that effectively, Pathfinder needs to compete not just with 4e but with a FUCKING HUGE back-catalog of 3.x products. Everything that could possibly be written for D&D3.x was probably already written. And much of it will be on sale. They're basically supporting a system that's not only dead but doesn't need any support whatsoever.

4-The raison d'être of this product implies that it is doomed. On one hand, they are refractary to change and to a new edition. But their way of countering that is... with a new fucking edition? On one hand, they can't stray too far from 3.5 because they want to be compatible. On the other hand, if they are too similar, who the fuck is going to buy the books with all those 3.x books still around? It makes no sense.

5-I downloaded their Pathfinder Alpha. It's an amateurish collection of houserules for 3.x. It sucks. At the very least, they should get a few more companies on board and hire a few big guns. You pool ressources with some heavyweights like Green Ronin, Privateer, Troll Lord, Goodman. You get Pramas and Kenson involved. You get a few more names, perhaps even old school guys for consultation (Gygax and Arneson come to mind if we go back to 4e's announcement many months ago). You make a clean system, strip it down a little. You target old school gaming. Not an alternative to what we had last week.


On the positive side:

-It's free
-It doesn't hurt anyone to have a new option
-The art in the free product is already better than most art in published books costing a lot of dollars
-Competition helps keeping everyone on their toes. I'm all for that as a consummer

But it's still going to fail unless they change the plan somehow.

This idea of pathfinder 3.x doesn't seem like a good one.

They're cutting themselves off from thier main support base: D&D players.

T20, M&M, and such have survived because they altered the SRD to the point that they've become their own game.

A revised 3.x without the D&D label is just someones D&D houserules. When put up against the real thing it will fall short.

Pazio was a Suckerfish feeding off of the leavings of the big D&D Shark. Leaving their meal ticket doesn't make much sense.


.

I've just given the alpha a quick scan and rather like it. The cleaned up (and more useful) feats are cool, as is the CMB (Combat Manever Bonus) rule that underpins all the tricky and sometimes headache-inducing stuff like grapple. It'd be pretty easy to extrapolate a more freeform stunting system from it.

I'll still be buying 4E, but it's cool to see a company that's passionate about the system trying to create a niche for itself in a changing market. Whether or not they will be successful with this I couldn't say.

I like that Pathfinder thing. I will still buy 4e. And play it. If Pathfinder RPG is worth anything we will see in 2009. Till than I guess they will lost any customers left though.

I think the Pathfinder rules look like an improvement to 3.5, and closer to my idea of "D&D" than 4e.  The artwork is better too.  (What's with that -- it's the same artists?!)

The open playtest is a good idea.  The Pathfinder Society, especially if people can easily convert over character from 3.x Living Greyhawk -- that could be successful as well.

If I were in Paizo's position this is exactly what I would be doing.  WotC is going for the D&D = Epic Superhero Action Fantasy, which leaves lots of room in the place 3.x used to occupy for many gamers.

It's still more rules heavy than I like -- I'm more on the B/X, C&C end of things... but for anyone who wanted to stay with 3.5 or was looking for an evolution from there rather than a completely new game, I think they'll be very interested in this.

Most of the art in that beta pdf is recycled from the first six issues of Pathfinder. It's great stuff, regardless.

The thing that excites me about Paizo's announcement isn't the rules mod (I haven't read the PDF yet), but that this is a declaration of intent about not following the crowd to 4E.

I like that, it has the smell of revolution about it.

Quote from: darThere will be playtesting. The release as is, is beta. Anybody know what Paizo playtesting is like? How much change to the beta is possible?

I don't know what their in-house playtesting is like, but the whole point of throwing the alpha version of the rules out at this time is to let everybody take part in the playtesting process: anyone who wants to can download the rules, play with them, and send feedback to Paizo, which they'll take a look at. That's pretty damn nice of them, for my money.

(Also, this means that all of you guys who want Pathfinder to be less complex than 3.5 should start writing in now. Make sure you cite specific rules in the Pathfinder PDF to back up your points. If they hear enough intelligent-sounding feedback, they'll take it into account, and the sooner you get your word in the sooner you can influence the design process.)

I think it's clear that Paizo has been paying attention to the PR fumbles of WotC and are intent on doing a better job.  

They put a dragon on the cover.  They didn't add Eladrin and Dungeonfurnaces and kept the Gnome and Half-Orc.  They're avoiding MMO jargon.  Instead of bashing older editions and telling fans they need to start from scratch, they're saying an important priority is making their new game backwards compatible. Instead of "You can shake your fists at the clouds..." they're inviting everyone to participate in the playtesting and telling the community "we're interested in what you have to say".

I had to sign up for a Paizo account to get the PDF... but I might start offering some advice on their Pathfinder RPG forum too:

http://paizo.com/pathfinder/messageboards/pathfinderRPG

The three things that would make the game better would be:

1) Streamline / Simplify the rules and avoid scope creep with skills, feats and powers.
2) Improving Player Choices (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20040310/fullerton_01.shtml)
3) Avoid skills, feats and powers that lead to a Wuxia / Superhero style Epic Fantasy -- WotC is already doing that

This is a good thing, in general.

 As I said in some other thread - I really like the gorgeous maps that they do.

My regular customers like their products pretty much all around.

 This has a big WIN! written all over it.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI think Paizo is going to fail. Here are a few reasons:

1-The timing is downright horrible. If they wanted to make a stand, they had to decide much earlier, at the time Wizards announced 4e. Get the playtest going then and be ready to compete with 4e with a full release before the end of 2008 (preferably something like July). This Alpha/Beta playtesting thing? It's going to die quietly in June, when 4e is released. All the D&D/OGL/D20 excitment will turn towards 4e-related matters.

While I see your point, speaking for myself and my gaming group, we wouldn't have been that interested when 4e was first announced, as we were willing to give 4e a chance, it wasn't until the gag order was lifted and we saw the reviews and started to learned just how divorced from what we liked much of the rules were, that we started to realize 4e wasn't gonna be for us. So, for us at least, this Alpha/Beta phase thing is striking our group while the iron's hot.

Quote from: Consonant Dude5-I downloaded their Pathfinder Alpha. It's an amateurish collection of houserules for 3.x. It sucks. At the very least, they should get a few more companies on board and hire a few big guns. You pool ressources with some heavyweights like Green Ronin, Privateer, Troll Lord, Goodman. You get Pramas and Kenson involved. You get a few more names, perhaps even old school guys for consultation (Gygax and Arneson come to mind if we go back to 4e's announcement many months ago). You make a clean system, strip it down a little. You target old school gaming. Not an alternative to what we had last week.

Dude, didn't you get the memo? Or have I misinterpreted what you just wrote?

I like the way they're doing it - the alpha playtest forum's buzzing with constructive criticism.

Blogs and other forums seem pretty enthusiastic as well.

A bit weird that ENWorld didn't include it in their news on the homepage even though their forums are buzzing with the news.

The more I think about it, the more the alpha/beta test thing seems like a stroke of genius.

- It's an excellent way to give people a sense of community about the game - anyone can download the playtesting files for free, play a bit, and give feedback, so by the end of the process everyone who did that can feel like Pathfinder is "our game".

- It's a useful self-correcting process to stop the game drifting too far away from where it's supposed to be aiming: a revised and improved version of 3.5. It's very obvious that most of the people playtesting are going to be 3.5 fans who don't want to upgrade to 4E, or at the very least want Pathfinder to scratch a different itch, and therefore would naturally have a clear idea of what does and does not have a 3.5 "feel" to them.

- Because of the above two factors, they're going to have a bunch of playtesters who a) have an emotional stake in the project and b) have a great deal of sympathy with the aims of the Pathfinder project. They're therefore quite likely to be able to give useful feedback - or at least, more useful than the feedback you'd get from some random guy who doesn't much care about the project and/or doesn't understand what it's intended to do.

Info on the actual print book -- a bit sooner than 2009:

QuoteAugust of 2008 will mark the Pathfinder RPG Beta release, a softcover book to be released at Gen Con. This $24.99 book can be downloaded as a free PDF then as well

Let's hope they keep it one book and with a softcover option for the final release as well.

I don't agree with CD - and here's why (http://www.d20haven.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=63).

In short, the plan will not make it fail. Only a 4e that enough 3.x folks can embrace will cause it to fail.

Quote from: jeff37923I like that, it has the smell of revolution about it.

Yeah. Now all they have to do is convince a few million people that Pathfinder is better than the official D&D.





Good luck.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanI like the way they're doing it - the alpha playtest forum's buzzing with constructive criticism.

Which is another problem. Nothing quite like a few hundred people all trying to out design the same RPG.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiWhich is another problem. Nothing quite like a few hundred people all trying to out design the same RPG.

I understand what you're saying but at least they're into 3.5 - it's not like getting Storygames to overhaul Forward to Adventure!

Quote from: Consonant DudeMost people will jump to 4e, including most so-called "haters".

Most people who primarily playing D&D versions previous to 3.x are unlikely to "jump" to 4e.  If they didn't "jump" for 3.x -- I don't see them doing it for 4e.

People playing D&D 3.x could move to 4e... but they might decide to stick with their game of preference.  I don't think it's a guarantee that you'll see most 3.x players switch to 4e completely.  It's all speculation at this point.

Anyone certainly could buy 4e and give it a try.  But they could also keep their older version D&D games running, and add to that with what Paizo is publishing.

I applaud Paizo for giving it the ol' college try.  I think it's the only reasonable move they can make.  Their bread and butter is supporting D&D, right?  And it looks like the powers that be are making that a chump deal for the new edition.

This is a big, big decision.

The lack of the GSL to date has probably prompted them to this. They must be surviving on a fraction of the income they commanded 6 months ago.

From scanning the pdf, i have to ask, why bother?

I think they'd be better off releasing setting splats, racial splats and miscalaneous splats to complement their Pathfinder adventures, rather than make a few cosmetic changes to 3.5 and calling it a new game.

Whatever way you cut it, i think that they'll be losing customers from the numbers they had during the days of plenty. They are just trying to mitigate that loss as best they can.

People are calling the decision ballsy. I'm not sure. Really ballsy would be using their good reputation garnered from the WotC partnership to make a new game. Cut the apron strings.

Quote from: StuartPeople playing D&D 3.x could move to 4e... but they might decide to stick with their game of preference. I don't think it's a guarantee that you'll see most 3.x players switch to 4e completely. It's all speculation at this point.

Add in that a fifth of the 3.x is still quite a bit bigger than the entire market for almost all other games.  A fifth is pure speculation but it's a ballpark estimate.  The exact number is unknown but you can bet that there will be a large number of 3.x players two years from now, maybe more than the number of AD&D players.  Paizo is probably thinking that they have more to gain if they can set themselves up as the primary publisher for this segment than as a secondary supplier for 4th ed. material.

Instead of looking at Paizo and comparing them to WotC -- how does this place them compared to other 2nd tier companies like White Wolf?

Do you think people are more likely to trade in their 3.x PHBs for new copies of Exalted -- or hold onto their 3.x and go with the Pathfinder RPG from Paizo?

See, I'm probably one of the 'haters' but IF they streamline it, I'd give it a shot.

Other than the game that yous tell me off for mentioning ;)  I reckon this is the ONLY other interesting RPG design process happening - cuz there's only so much you can get from Billy No-Mates , the auteur-designer, sitting in his ivory tower doing his own meisterwerk - change the record, this could be fucking awesome if they do this with talent and integrity.

(edited - ranting)

Quote from: SeanI understand what you're saying but at least they're into 3.5 - it's not like getting Storygames to overhaul Forward to Adventure!

True. But I've literally seen this in action and have a decent amount of experience with more traditional playtests. I'd never, never choose to use for the for any game I created, nor would I recommend it.

Playtesting via forum is...well, it's a bunch of geeks all trying to out geek each other by coming up with the cleverest idea. Some of the ideas are good, but there are plenty more bad ones and the originators and adherents for the bad ones have to shout down challengers. Everyone is trying to please daddy by being his special helper.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiWhich is another problem. Nothing quite like a few hundred people all trying to out design the same RPG.

Sure. The trick is coming to a playable consensus. I don't deny it will be a challenge.

That said, the feeling that they are in touch with their existing audience is a feel I am not getting from wizards these days.

I reckon as long as the developers think though the ideas and don't just listen to the coolest/loudest posters, then they'll be alright.

- BUT, what could happen:

'i've invested so much thought in this process but you've killed it by ignoring me'

Quote from: StuartMost people who primarily playing D&D versions previous to 3.x are unlikely to "jump" to 4e.  If they didn't "jump" for 3.x -- I don't see them doing it for 4e.

I'd say that was 100% accurate.

However, there are 4,281 registered users on Dragonsfoot. WotC says there are 4,500,000 D&D players. So we're talking about .09%. Not 9%, but less than 1%. The number of people who are sticking with old versions of D&D compared to those have moved on is far, far, far from impressive.

Quote from: StuartPeople playing D&D 3.x could move to 4e... but they might decide to stick with their game of preference.

But is there game of preference really the 3.x rules set or is it the official D&D game? Given the game's past history, I'd say betting on nearly everyone moving to the new version is a damn safe bet.

Seanchai

Quote from: NicephorusAdd in that a fifth of the 3.x is still quite a bit bigger than the entire market for almost all other games.  A fifth is pure speculation but it's a ballpark estimate.

Dude, you're on crack.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiHowever, there are 4,281 registered users on Dragonsfoot. WotC says there are 4,500,000 D&D players. So we're talking about .09%. Not 9%, but less than 1%. The number of people who are sticking with old versions of D&D compared to those have moved on is far, far, far from impressive.

Comparing registered users to WotC's figures is comparing apples to unicorns.  How many people are registered at Gleemax?

Quote from: SeanchaiHowever, there are 4,281 registered users on Dragonsfoot. WotC says there are 4,500,000 D&D players. So we're talking about .09%. Not 9%, but less than 1%. The number of people who are sticking with old versions of D&D compared to those have moved on is far, far, far from impressive.

That's totally flawed reasoning.  You can't take membership of a single forum as a count for number of players.  For example, membership at Gleemax:Members: 343,016, Active Members: 41,380, less than a 10th (or 100th if you go by active) of the total estimate player base.  Second, there are aspects of Dragonsfoot that drive some people away even if they do play AD&D.
 
It's hard to say, but many feel that the transition rate will be significantly lower than last time.  AD&D was definitely feeling its age by the time 3.0 cam around.

Quote from: SeanchaiBut is there game of preference really the 3.x rules set or is it the official D&D game? Given the game's past history, I'd say betting on nearly everyone moving to the new version is a damn safe bet.

I guess it depends on whether you believe people actually like the products they're buying or whether they just like paying for a particular brand -- and the absolute newest item to come out under that brand at that.

I doubt the folk at WotC are as arrogant as to think everyone moving to the new version is a damn safe bet -- otherwise they wouldn't have spent half as much effort on trying to design a good game.

Quote from: NicephorusThat's totally flawed reasoning.  You can't take membership of a single forum as a count for number of players.  For example, membership at Gleemax:Members: 343,016, Active Members: 41,380, less than a 10th (or 100th if you go by active) of the total estimate player base.  Second, there are aspects of Dragonsfoot that drive some people away even if they do play AD&D.

You also need to sign up for a Gleemax account if you want to view a lot of the articles they post -- or if you were interested in checking out the features they were telling everyone about.  Just being registered doesn't mean that much.  I'm registered there.  I haven't used the account since last year.

Dragonsfoot on the other hand doesn't require you to register to do anything with the site.  You can view all the threads and download all the content.  The only thing you'd register for is if you wanted to post.  Lots of people don't post on any forum -- but they lurk and check out the discussion (Hi Guys!!!)

Like Jeff said -- Apples and Unicorns. :haw:

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThat said, the feeling that they are in touch with their existing audience is a feel I am not getting from wizards these days.

It's a nice feeling, but that's all it is. Especially if you're thinking we're necessarily the audience in question.

Seanchai

Quote from: NicephorusThat's totally flawed reasoning.

No, it's fine.

Seanchai

Quote from: StuartI doubt the folk at WotC are as arrogant as to think everyone moving to the new version is a damn safe bet...

It's not arrogance, it's history. The number of folks playing older versions of D&D are a tiny, tiny fraction of those playing the current edition. It's going to happen again when 4e comes out.

Seanchai

Seanchai, I think the problem is... you're a hater. :haw:

Quote from: StuartA bit weird that ENWorld didn't include it in their news on the homepage even though their forums are buzzing with the news.

They've included the news today. Which almost surprises me because ENWorld these days seems like little more than a WotC mouthpiece.

Quote from: SeanchaiIt's not arrogance, it's history. The number of folks playing older versions of D&D are a tiny, tiny fraction of those playing the current edition. It's going to happen again when 4e comes out.

Prove it. :)

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThat said, the feeling that they are in touch with their existing audience is a feel I am not getting from wizards these days.

I'm of the opinion that we are NOT WoTC's target audience...I think they're out of touch on purpose.

Quote from: joewolzI'm of the opinion that we are NOT WoTC's target audience...I think they're out of touch on purpose.

Then who is the Podcast for, and why is Mike Mearls reading this site? :D

Quote from: TrevelyanDude, didn't you get the memo? Or have I misinterpreted what you just wrote?

I got the memo, unfortunately :(

While awkwardly written, what I meant is that Paizo should have gotten their D&D variant going soon after 4e's announcement. Involving Gygax and Arneson at that time would have been a good idea.

Involving Mr. Gygax is no longer a possibility, sadly.

Quote from: StuartThen who is the Podcast for, and why is Mike Mearls reading this site? :D

Maybe he's stalking jrients.

Quote from: StuartThen who is the Podcast for, and why is Mike Mearls reading this site? :D

Oh, I'm sure they are "in touch" with some of their audience. Just not the part that happens to include me. :cool:

Quote from: James J SkachI don't agree with CD - and here's why (http://www.d20haven.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=63).

Hey James!

There were some interesting comments you added. I'll probably register to the Haven later today. Talk about subtly luring people over there :D

Quote from: NicephorusMaybe he's stalking jrients.

Ha!

Quote from: SeanchaiYeah. Now all they have to do is convince a few million people that Pathfinder is better than the official D&D.





Good luck.

Seanchai

I'd say that 4E has already done that. Most of the support for this move will be from 3.x gamers who think that 4E will not support the gaming fun they enjoy.

Quote from: StuartSeanchai, I think the problem is... you're a hater. :haw:

Naw, the problem is that you want to believe that everyone dislikes WotC and 4e as much as you do. They don't.

Seanchai

Quote from: StuartThen who is the Podcast for, and why is Mike Mearls reading this site? :D

Penis envy?

Quote from: NicephorusMaybe he's stalking jrients.

Quite possible. I am.

Quote from: StuartProve it.

There are 4,281 folks registered at Dragonsfoot. There are 343,016 at Gleemax. You're right to hem and haw that some folks are registered but aren't active, are registered for tangential reasons, etc., but it's still a massive, massive lead. I mean, 99% of the total registered users are at Gleemax.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiNaw, the problem is that you want to believe that everyone dislikes WotC and 4e as much as you do. They don't.

You're not keeping up with where people stand. :)

I've said I think 4e looks like tons of fun -- but you have to approach it as a different kind of game.  From what I've seen of the rules so far I think they would be awesome for a superhero game -- like Teen Titans.

A great deal changed since 2000, both in culture and in technology, such that it is now viable for Paizo to attempt something like this and reasonably expect to succeed.  The old rules do not neccessarily apply due to these changes, changes that have turned the business of the gaming world greatly across all product categories, and as such I expect Paizo to succeed.

Mechanically speaking, it doesn't seem overtly offensive to me.  The mechanics are by and large pretty much the same, but tweaked, and the tweaks seem cool enough to me.

The art is going to make the "OG 4e is anime/WoW" shit exactly the same bricks though.

Quote from: Consonant DudeHey James!

There were some interesting comments you added. I'll probably register to the Haven later today. Talk about subtly luring people over there :D

There's nothing subtle about it :haw:

But thanks for checking it out, and I welcome your input. I don't think the points you made were badly reasoned - just that there are parts with which I don't agree and some that are not limited to Paizo's move.

Come on over and give it a whirl. I'm trying to post more there, but with Sett's imposition that I spend more time prepping my kids game ;) (see here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9402)  or the AP here (http://www.d20haven.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=61)) it's tough...

Quote from: jeff37923I'd say that 4E has already done that. Most of the support for this move will be from 3.x gamers who think that 4E will not support the gaming fun they enjoy.

And, to extend, why would one need a few million? I doubt Paizo intends to compete directly (in terms of sales) with WotC. Half a million would put them in the higher end, would it not?

If one defines success as getting 4 million, it is probably correct to state that Paizo will fail.  If one sets expectations a bit more realistically, perhaps not.

Quote from: jeff37923I'd say that 4E has already done that. Most of the support for this move will be from 3.x gamers who think that 4E will not support the gaming fun they enjoy.

Huh. Folks must not have gotten the memo. Pre-orders for the $63 boxed set of 4e corebooks is currently ranked #65 in books on Amazon.com. It's #4,886 on Barnes & Noble.

There are absolutely folks who won't switch to 4e. There were folks who didn't switch to AD&D. There were folks who didn't switch to 2nd edition. There were folks who didn't switch to 3e. Why people believe that the folks who stay behind will change the course of the RPG market is beyond me, however.

Seanchai

Quote from: James J SkachAnd, to extend, why would one need a few million? I doubt Paizo intends to compete directly (in terms of sales) with WotC. Half a million would put them in the higher end, would it not?

A tenth of that would put them above all but a handful of games and would be a reasonable goal.
 
The question isn't whether Paizo will be able to compete with WOTC - they won't.  The question is whether Paizo will sell more supporting 3E under the OGL or supporting 4E under its license.  Actually, they can do both.  This announcement is just a signal that they are going to try to work with 3E.

Quote from: SeanchaiHuh. Folks must not have gotten the memo. Pre-orders for the $63 boxed set of 4e corebooks is currently ranked #65 in books on Amazon.com. It's #4,886 on Barnes & Noble.

I'm not sure what you're arguing... that people will buy the core books... or that people will stop playing previous editions and just play 4e?

Hey, can we talk about the game instead of how much bigger 4e's penis is than Pathfinder's penis?

'Cause I'm a lot more interested in bits I may have missed from my quick skim through than silly dichotomies and prickwaving.

Chirs Pramas (http://www.chrispramas.com/2008/03/question-answered.html) thinks they would be successful with just 20K fans. It sounds like he thinks they'll get more.

Quote from: StuartThen who is the Podcast for, and why is Mike Mearls reading this site? :D

I can't speak for Mike Mearls, but the podcast could be a sort of low-cost, light touch, pat on the head for us in the hard core.  They know we're going to buy 4e, they know a great majority of us are going to buy 4e.  They don't have to market to us very hard, they've got us and they know it.  They want to expand their audience, not keep selling only to us.

I'm not saying we're part of their strategy, but I don't think we're the main target audience.

They streamlined the skills list a bit, which I think was a good idea.

Some of the feats are still a bit silly -- like the one where you can switch which hand your weapon is in so that when you're fighting with 2 weapons you can use your best weapon for both attack rolls and damage.

Um.  Yeah.  :raise:

Quote from: J ArcaneHey, can we talk about the game instead of how much bigger 4e's penis is than Pathfinder's penis?

The skill list is streamlined but there are some odd skill groupings as well as skills that weren't grouped but should have been.

I noticed a feat having the same name as a skill right at the beginning. Also, still an army of useless Feats giving +2/+2 to skills.

I haven't noticed any changes regarding streamlining the combat system to make it quicker but I might have missed it.

But without a doubt, what I noticed most is that there is a subtle but tangible power escalation. Several of the proposed rule changes would make conversion work required:

There is a plethora of options for starting hit points.

Classes get new powers. Spellcasters are more potent, fighters are more lethal.

These two items alone mean dropping 3.75 characters in an "old school" D20 product, or dropping 3.5 characters in a new pathfinder product, might require some work. Nothing major but just enough to annoy me.

It's just a personal preference but I'd rather if Paizo wasn't on the fence:

-If compatibility is such a concern that you would keep old artifacts, make conversion seamless.

-If you want to improve on 3.5, drop pretense of full compatibility and do whatever is required to improve the product.

A final observation: A lot of what I see in class revision seems to be tacking new bits on the existing construct. I think that's not a good way to construct a game.

Fighters - options at every level, Rogues and Wizards get new abilities
Cantrips - as many as you want to do.
'Arcane Bond' to objects - so don't have to do Spellcraft checks as long as you have the object
i like what they did with turning undead - the damage/fleeing/healing living

(OOPs -xpost)

Quote from: SeanFighters - options at every level, Rogues and Wizards get new abilities
Cantrips - as many as you want to do.
'Arcane Bond' to objects - so don't have to do Spellcraft checks as long as you have the object
i like what they did with turning undead - the damage/fleeing/healing living

(OOPs -xpost)

That last bit's kinda wierd, and ultimately makes negative energy clerics pretty damn uber, as it means they basically get an AoE damage from level 1.

I don't know that I care for that really.  And the excuse for it seems pretty pansy.

Quote from: StuartI'm not sure what you're arguing... that people will buy the core books... or that people will stop playing previous editions and just play 4e?

Let's see...

"Now all they have to do is convince a few million people that Pathfinder is better than the official D&D."

"I'd say that 4E has already done that."

"Pre-orders for the $63 boxed set of 4e corebooks is currently ranked #65 in books on Amazon.com. It's #4,886 on Barnes & Noble."

Seems easy to follow to me.

Seanchai

QuoteA final observation: A lot of what I see in class revision seems to be tacking new bits on the existing construct. I think that's not a good way to construct a game.

Bollocks.  That's the attitude that leads to shit like 4e.  It's a perfectly fine way to approach a game, if you come from a base assumption that the game as it stands is fine, if in need of a tweak or two.

Quote from: Consonant DudeBut without a doubt, what I noticed most is that there is a subtle but tangible power escalation.

Wow. Third level is the new 1st level in 3.75.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiWow. Third level is the new 1st level in 3.75.

Seanchai

Did you even read the thing, or are you just being a pig ignorant troll?

Why don't you fuck off if you can't contribute anything but pointless wankery?

Quote from: J ArcaneThat's the attitude that leads to shit like 4e.  It's a perfectly fine way to approach a game, if you come from a base assumption that the game as it stands is fine, if in need of a tweak or two.

If it works, it's a perfectly fine way. Just tacking on a bunch of shit...

But I don't know that's the case with Pathfinder. I barely looked at it. As I said up thread, Paizo produces quality stuff. I'm not too worried about what the final product will look like.

Seanchai

Quote from: J ArcaneBollocks.  That's the attitude that leads to shit like 4e.  It's a perfectly fine way to approach a game, if you come from a base assumption that the game as it stands is fine, if in need of a tweak or two.

But 4e will be D&D. "Pathfinder" will not!

It isn't the Conan rpg, or Mutants and Masterminds. Or even WHFRP, Runequest or anything else with its own brand identity.

It's D&D with the serial numbers filed off.

For heavan's sake, games that are nothing more than D&D with the serial numbers filed off get ruthlessly mocked and derided on the net.

Why is "pathfinder" getting a pass???

Looks like D&D to me.  Don't know what the fuck you're on about.  

This doesn't say D&D on it either:  http://d20srd.org

But I'd laugh all day long if you called it anything but that.

Quote from: JaegerBut 4e will be D&D. "Pathfinder" will not!

4e will have the D&D trademark on it because it's being published by the company that owns the rights to use that trademark.

Everything beyond that gets subjective.

Quote from: JaegerBut 4e will be D&D. "Pathfinder" will not!

It isn't the Conan rpg, or Mutants and Masterminds. Or even WHFRP, Runequest or anything else with its own brand identity.

It's D&D with the serial numbers filed off.

For heavan's sake, games that are nothing more than D&D with the serial numbers filed off get ruthlessly mocked and derided on the net.

Why is "pathfinder" getting a pass???

I really could give a crap what you call it.

Most fantasy heartbreakers dutifully tell me that what I like about D&D sucks, and go about "fixing" it.

4e, similarly, dutifully tells me that what I like about D&D sucks, and goes about "fixing" it.

So from where I'm standing, the mockery of fantasy heartbreakers is the mockery I hold for 4e.

Pathfinder, it appears, is telling me what I like about D&D rocks.

Quote from: J ArcaneBollocks.  That's the attitude that leads to shit like 4e.

That's also the attitude that led to 3e, which you seem to like very much.

Quote from: J ArcaneIt's a perfectly fine way to approach a game, if you come from a base assumption that the game as it stands is fine, if in need of a tweak or two.

It isn't a fine way, it's never been and it never will be. It's the kind of thing that might lead to a game that reads better but will probably play worse. You need to be able to understand and manipulate the core. Otherwise, you end up like the many second and third edition of games from the 80s, 90s and 00s that were actually less elegant than their predecessors.

Stacking shit on top of existing classes isn't anything new. There are dozens of supplements from companies like Malhavoc that already did that. That's not designing (or even revising) a game properly.

It's just the Alpha, so there's still hope. But I sure as shit am glad you aren't in charge of this thing.

Quote from: JaegerWhy is "pathfinder" getting a pass???

It's not. It's just the vocal anti-4e folks like it. Or think they do. For now.

4e will come out and almost everyone wills switch again. Folks who like 4e and Pathfinder will have to decide which one they're going to invest their time and money in.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiFolks who like 4e and Pathfinder will have to decide which one they're going to invest their time and money in.

They might not have to decide. Paizo is courting hardcore gamers, like most companies that aren't named WotC. Many hardcore gamers will have no problem buying both if both appeal to them.

How likely this is, and for how many people, I do not know.

Y'all are bringing up some interesting points about the choices that were made. A streamlined skill list is probably a good idea - as long as the list is right.

I agree with J Arcane that perhaps the discussion about business decisions is separate from whether or not this change or that change is good. I figure the best way to discuss them is in separate threads for each of the areas (like Races (http://www.d20haven.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=65), Classes (http://www.d20haven.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=66), Skills (http://www.d20haven.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=67), etc.). :D

We wouldn't want to clutter up TheRPGSite's front page with all d20/Pathfinder talk all the time... ;)






Alright - it's a transparent shill; but I happen to think d20 Haven is a good place to have the *ahem* discussions about specifics without making this place all about d20.

My comments are:

1)  I think the open playtest is a great idea.  Whether or not it contributes anything it still serves the purpose of the company actually listening to the fans.

2)  I am totally blown away by the number of people at Gleemax.  Makes me think of PT Barnum.  Either that or I'm seriously missing something really cool.

Quote from: Stuart4e will have the D&D trademark on it because it's being published by the company that owns the rights to use that trademark.

That's the way it has always been. And that makes it D&D.

Quote from: StuartEverything beyond that gets subjective.

Brown box D&D was different from the OD&D red box. Which was Different from AD&D, which was different than AD&D2nd ed.

And 3.x made more things different. But they were all D&D.

And so is 4e.

Classes? Check.
Races? Check.
Levels? Check.
Hit Points? Check.
Dungeon crawling? Check.
Monsters R Us? Check.
"D&D" on the front cover? Double CHeck.

Looks like a Duck to me.

A platypus has a duck-bill and lays eggs.  Doesn't make it a duck.

Quote from: James J SkachA platypus has a duck-bill and lays eggs.  Doesn't make it a duck.

Nice. :haw:

Quote from: JaegerThat's the way it has always been.

Modern copyright and trademark law is pretty different from what it was historically.  

Quote from: JaegerClasses? Check.
Races? Check.
Levels? Check.
Hit Points? Check.
Dungeon crawling? Check.
Monsters R Us? Check.
"D&D" on the front cover? Double CHeck.

Looks like a Duck to me.

The only one on your list that separates 4e from Pathfinder is "D&D on the front cover"...

Quote from: James J SkachA platypus has a duck-bill and lays eggs.  Doesn't make it a duck.

A platypus also has venomous barbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus_venom) that, if you pick the cute little thing up, will stab you leave you writhing in agony!

Don't buy 4e! Cancel your pre-order now, or you too will be writhing in agony!

:cool:

Aren't analogies fun. :D

I should apologize - the snark meter was high...

I'm just trying to say that what defines D&D for people varies widely as is evidenced by the various communities that have grown up around different versions - usually because other version "don't feel like D&D" to the folks in a given version's community.

It is true that the only true D&D games are those with the trademarked branding. But this takes on a completely different meaning with 3.x and the OGL. That was, for all intents and purposes, a version of D&D. It muddies the waters a bit - IMHO.

Quote from: James J SkachA platypus has a duck-bill and lays eggs.  Doesn't make it a duck.

Neither does wishful thinking on Pazio's part.

.

Quote from: StuartModern copyright and trademark law is pretty different from what it was historically.  



The only one on your list that separates 4e from Pathfinder is "D&D on the front cover"...

And that's all it takes.

There is many a game in my FLGS used bin that suffer from the same affliction.

.

Quote from: walkerp2) I am totally blown away by the number of people at Gleemax. Makes me think of PT Barnum. Either that or I'm seriously missing something really cool.

I think someone else had the right idea - most of the members signed up for some free something or other at various points.  the number of active users is not so astounding.  They might have also automatically rolled all old Wizards boards accounts over to it when it became the main forum.
 
 
I think that if someone could have legally announced in 1999 or so that they were going to keep supporting AD&D, they could have maintained a decent business.  Not the majority of players, but enough to be in the top 10 companies.
 
The OGL makes this semi-possible for current transition.

Quote from: JaegerAnd that's all it takes.

There is many a game in my FLGS used bin that suffer from the same affliction.

.

Those games don't use the actual written mechanics of D&D.

Again, regardless of name, this is still D&D 3.5:  http://d20srd.org

Quote from: James J SkachI should apologize - the snark meter was high...
.

No problems, it's the internet. I can, have, and will been guilty of the same.

Quote from: James J SkachIt is true that the only true D&D games are those with the trademarked branding. But this takes on a completely different meaning with 3.x and the OGL. That was, for all intents and purposes, a version of D&D. It muddies the waters a bit - IMHO.

OGL does muddy things a bit - but to me the OGL games that have had a notable success in the D&D shadow have been ones that have created a unique brand identity. Conan and M&M come to mind with T20 touting itself as a generic system.

With a D&D clone like pathfinder that unique identity will be hard to come by. For its intended goals it must lack the qualities that other fantasy rpgs like Runequest or WHFRP have that separate them from D&D.

I just have a hard time seeing how a straight up clone can compete. Especially since so much of thier customer base comes from D&D players. The vast majority of whom will switch to 4e.

Unique OGL games will continue on, but with the announcement of 4e, 3.x has become a dead system. And dead systems just don't get played that much. Especially when they no longer have the D&D name attached.

Quote from: JaegerWith a D&D clone like pathfinder that unique identity will be hard to come by. For its intended goals it must lack the qualities that other fantasy rpgs like Runequest or WHFRP have that separate them from D&D.

I just have a hard time seeing how a straight up clone can compete. Especially since so much of thier customer base comes from D&D players. The vast majority of whom will switch to 4e.

Unique OGL games will continue on, but with the announcement of 4e, 3.x has become a dead system. And dead systems just don't get played that much. Especially when they no longer have the D&D name attached.

While true, vast majority will switch to 4e, there will be many who don't, just as there have been in the past, only this time thanks to OGL and Paizo continuing to support the game albeit under a new name, it won't be dead, and there may well enough people continuing to play it to keep Paizo a successful company. It's a gamble on their part but one I'm glad they are taking, I wasn't planning on switching anyway, but I will be picking up Pathfinder.

Quote from: JaegerOGL does muddy things a bit - but to me the OGL games that have had a notable success in the D&D shadow have been ones that have created a unique brand identity. Conan and M&M come to mind with T20 touting itself as a generic system.

And if the Pathfinder RPG can continue the existing Paizo brand of Pathfinder? I think that's why they aren't referencing 3.x, but the OGL/SRD - to break that connection.

Quote from: JaegerWith a D&D clone like pathfinder that unique identity will be hard to come by. For its intended goals it must lack the qualities that other fantasy rpgs like Runequest or WHFRP have that separate them from D&D.

Well, come on over to d20 Haven and discuss the "clone" - because I think, even from what I've seen so far, it's not a clone of 3.5. How far it wanders (and if it will even appeal to me, personally) remains to be seen. It will be interesting to watch it's development, IMHO.

Quote from: JaegerEspecially since so much of thier customer base comes from D&D players. The vast majority of whom will switch to 4e.

AD&D players are D&D players; OD&D players are D&D players; many of whom never switched. I don't doubt most will switch - how many remains to be seen. I think they hope the will retain customers and build from other bases. I'm not so sure their marketing is working too well on that. Which is one of the reasons, IMHO, why I think someone like Paizo can even consider doing this.

Quote from: JaegerUnique OGL games will continue on, but with the announcement of 4e, 3.x has become a dead system. And dead systems just don't get played that much. Especially when they no longer have the D&D name attached.

Is AD&D and "dead" system? It doesn't seem that way to me. Does it have millions of customers? Nope.  But I'd bet there are 10,000 at least. The question is, can Paizo live on 10 or 20 thousand customers. If so, what happens if they are able to build on that? This was the short-sighted mistake of the SRD/OGL - nothing based on it can be considered dead just because of a new version. Anyone can support 3.x without fear of the lawyers...

Quote from: Consonant DudeThey might not have to decide. Paizo is courting hardcore gamers, like most companies that aren't named WotC. Many hardcore gamers will have no problem buying both if both appeal to them.

True, but how many of them are there? Obviously, I'm one and I'll buy it. I'd say a lot of the folks here and on TBP are as well. But what's that going to net them, a couple thousand copies?

Paizo can decide what they consider a success. I'm sure a couple thousand copies of a product keeps many companies a float.

But the folks who are talking as if Pathfinder will be a revolution in gaming, displace WotC, become the new 4e, etc., really? I mean, really? Not to be rude, but are you on crack?

Seanchai

QuoteI just have a hard time seeing how a straight up clone can compete.

It won't be a "straight up clone" of the current edition once 4e is out.

That's the point.

Pathfinder keeps ALL Gygaxian Spells & Items, as well as nearly all Monsters, with abilities that can be directly traced to their Gygaxian originator.

So it´s definitely MORE D&D than 4e will be.

QuoteAnd dead systems just don't get played that much

in my experience, good systems get played. Those that have hogged the limelight for years attracting an emotional investment from those who've delved into the system - even more so.

great artwork, playable setting, all the PC races are usable, no GleemaxDDI necessary, ONE rulebook.

and it bears repeating....ONE rulebook.

Hunh.  I downloaded the preview, and it looks kind of neat, frankly.  I'm not crazy about some of the "style" names that have been given to familiar feats, but that's not a great strike against it.

Hooray for Paizo.

!i!

QuoteAccording to Kim Mohan: “All three of the 4th Edition core rulebooks are now at the printer"

- on WOTC

the die is cast, no last minute changes -so, timely announcement by Paizo ?

Quote from: Sean- on WOTC

4e at the printer?

I wonder what kind of errata will be needed for the first printing...

Makes me wonder how much input from D&D experience made it into the design, ya know? From my experience (admittedly it's not in books, but catalogs for auto parts), if it's at the printer, it's been in finished for a bit.

Well, this is a kind of a litmus test for the viability of one of the big publishers to go with a blatant clone of 3.5 within the letter of the OGL. I'm very interested in how it all plays out.

Quote from: James J SkachMakes me wonder how much input from D&D experience made it into the design, ya know? From my experience (admittedly it's not in books, but catalogs for auto parts), if it's at the printer, it's been in finished for a bit.

Well, when you think about it... it's not just D&D experience. It doesn't look like the game changed one bit since the announcement last year. Not saying whether it should or not. Just my impression that the core work was probably done a while ago.

I also get the impression that this edition is rushed somehow. Might be just my perception but I think their plans changed during the last quarter of 2006/first half of 2007.

You can stand there shaking your fists at the clouds... but these books are going to the printers.  The books zey are going to zee printers.

:haw:

Quote from: StuartYou can stand there shaking your fists at the clouds... but these books are going to the printers.  The books zey are going to zee printers.

:haw:

Wait...did you just do a complete rehash of WotC's entire PR and marketing up to this point?

More importantly, where the hell is your NDA?  :haw:

Quote from: Nicephorus...
I think that if someone could have legally announced in 1999 or so that they were going to keep supporting AD&D, they could have maintained a decent business.  Not the majority of players, but enough to be in the top 10 companies.
...

I've had this thought as well.  If something like Castles & Crusades had been published in 1999 (a game that, despite a new rule set, is compatible with 1e and 2e AD&D), it would probably would have been the second or third biggest FRPG over the past decade.  (As it is, C&C still has been quite successful, comparable, I believe, to Conan OGL in terms of sales.)

The Pathfinder RPG will be an interesting experiment.  

People keep pointing out that it will not be a serious competitor for 4e.  But I don't think anybody sensible is claiming this (including Paizo).  Rather, Paizo is gambling that there will be enough people who want to stick with something like 3e for it to be a viable business plan.  It seems like a good move for them, especially if Paizo's wants greater autonomy.

Quote from: Jaeger...
With a D&D clone like pathfinder that unique identity will be hard to come by...

:confused:
It seems that TLG has done well with Castles and Crusades.

Is there an officially stated reason why Paizo aren't going to develop and publish material for 4E?

I mean, does anybody seriously think 4E will tank so badly it wouldn't be worth supporting?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIs there an officially stated reason why Paizo aren't going to develop and publish material for 4E?

I mean, does anybody seriously think 4E will tank so badly it wouldn't be worth supporting?

I don't think they think that at all. First off, Joshua Frost confirmed that this only pertains to Pathfinder; nothing keeps them from selling other 4e products (and quite likely, if the GSL permits it, they me port pathfinder stuff to 4e.)

For Pathfinder, here's something Erik Mona said:

Quote from: Erik MonaThe printing presses wait for no man. We blew two book trade solicitation periods waiting for the OGL/GSL and a first look at the new rules. Eventually, the train needed to leave the station one way or the other, so we made the "rules decision" based on the preview material leaked thus far, which is quite substantive in toto.

I would have preferred to have had weeks or even months to get acquainted with the 4.0 rules, but it became obvious that was not going to happen months ago.

So we looked at what we knew, we looked at what our customers were telling us, and we did our best to look forward and gauge where we thought the industry would be in the short term and the near term, and we made the decision that we believed best served Paizo's interests and the interests of the largest cohort of our customer base.

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/general/welcomeToThePathfinderRPG&page=2

Short version: 1) they are behind the eight ball anyways waiting for the GSL & rules and 2) whether or not they think it sucks, enough of their existing customers think so that they'll have someone to sell it to.

Sounds like they got left so far out of the loop they decided it wasn't worth it to try and keep up.

It definitely seems abundantly clear that WotC didn't give a flying fuck about the third parties when it came to 4e.

So wait, 4E is at the printer, but no one has seen the GSL yet???

If so: What do WOTC think they're doing?

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo wait, 4E is at the printer, but no one has seen the GSL yet???

If so: What do WOTC think they're doing?

Giving the big fat finger to a third party industry they never wanted in the first place.

Well yes, but stringing your old business partners along like that? They might have said "no way" late last year.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWell yes, but stringing your old business partners along like that? They might have said "no way" late last year.

Speculation is that there is some internal schism over the matter.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWell yes, but stringing your old business partners along like that? They might have said "no way" late last year.

They weren't really business partners anyway.  Wizards didn't really make any extra money off the aftermarket, despite what Dancey claimed.  Nobody was going to buy a corebook just to use that Mongoose book they saw at the store, it was more the other way around at best, and Wizards realized pretty quickly that there was far more money in just making the sourcebooks themselves.

Quote from: J ArcaneThey weren't really business partners anyway.  Wizards didn't really make any extra money off the aftermarket, despite what Dancey claimed.  Nobody was going to buy a corebook just to use that Mongoose book they saw at the store, it was more the other way around at best, and Wizards realized pretty quickly that there was far more money in just making the sourcebooks themselves.

Exactly.

You have to wonder what kind of hard drugs they were on when they thought of D20 and worse, of the OGL. It was an extremely dumb idea (business-wise) from the start. The rammifications of a completely open system forever could be seen from a mile away. To see that kind of stuff from a mid-size company would have been mildly surprising but coming from a Hasbro branch, it was just downright stunning.

It is as predicted: D20 and the OGL were dumb ideas for 3e, are significantly hampered/slowed down for 4e.

Next step: 5th edition won't have any trace of this stuff. And the game will not use a system even remotely similar to D20.

But the OGL will still be forever.

Quote from: darWell, this is a kind of a litmus test for the viability of one of the big publishers to go with a blatant clone of 3.5 within the letter of the OGL. I'm very interested in how it all plays out.

:D Your sharp wit launches another zinger.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIf so: What do WOTC think they're doing?

This is beginning to sound like a Mantra.  Obviously things are F'd up there.  They just booted their president, so it didn't go unnoticed by Hasbro either.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadSpeculation is that there is some internal schism over the matter.

I think in a few years we'll hear stories that rival those from TSR.

Quote from: Consonant DudeYou have to wonder what kind of hard drugs they were on when they thought of D20 and worse, of the OGL. It was an extremely dumb idea (business-wise) from the start. The rammifications of a completely open system forever could be seen from a mile away. To see that kind of stuff from a mid-size company would have been mildly surprising but coming from a Hasbro branch, it was just downright stunning.

I think they wanted to emulate the open source model in software development that's worked well for companies in that field.  They also used the d20 and OGL licenses to try and extend control over things that are not copyrightable (game rules) or already in the public domain (most fantasy tropes).

Quote from: Consonant DudeNext step: 5th edition won't have any trace of this stuff. And the game will not use a system even remotely similar to D20.

If it uses a system that's not even remotely similar to D20... it won't be remotely similar to D&D -- and that is the catch-22 WotC is in here.

Quote from: StuartIf it uses a system that's not even remotely similar to D20... it won't be remotely similar to D&D -- and that is the catch-22 WotC is in here.

I know I lampooned people when the idea came up earlier, but I do begin to think that 4E might actually be intended as a "bridge" from 3.5 to a non-D20 version of D&D. So long as 5E has mechanics which are recognisable from 4E, they can at least claim a line of descent via 4E to 3.X way back to OD&D, even if nothing resembling OD&D mechanics remains.

I think you could be right, and it might have to do with maintaining control of the Trademark.  Although the way they're using the Trademark a bit unusual compared to other industries.  

If they change 4e/5e so that it's very different from previous versions you could end up with people talking about "Playing Dungeons & Dragons" and meaning a lot of different games.

Another thing is muddiyng the waters: The close ties and networks in Seattle. Can we trust the Paizo guys as "Keepers of the Flame" when they are at the same time writing for WotC?

And the other way round: Aren´t many WotCites close friends with the third party-3e supporters?

So I really don´t trust anyone (except one Seattle-guy) right now as being frank & honest with the fans as much as they could.

Everything we´ve seen so far from 4e is reeking terribly like "Lorrainne Williams is back, but in sa suit!".

Quote from: WarthurI know I lampooned people when the idea came up earlier, but I do begin to think that 4E might actually be intended as a "bridge" from 3.5 to a non-D20 version of D&D. So long as 5E has mechanics which are recognisable from 4E, they can at least claim a line of descent via 4E to 3.X way back to OD&D, even if nothing resembling OD&D mechanics remains.

I think I might have been the first one here, at the very least among the first, to posit this idea - that 4e was a bridge, a stop-gap to keep afloat until they get their feet under them and can get 5e in the state they wish it to be (a computer-based *NOT MMO* game for which a subscription is paid) while at the same time introducing some of the concepts they foresee being a part of that system.

:pundit:

:D

Quote from: AkrasiaIt seems that TLG has done well with Castles and Crusades.

How many full-time employees does TLG have?  I believe the answer is zero.

From the Wired article:

QuoteThis is what Gygax thinks his legacy should be. People playing games together in the flesh, with a real, live dungeon master guiding them. That's what he thinks is wrong with the new direction for Dungeons & Dragons with its new 4th Edition. "D&D is not an online game," he says. "There is no role-playing in an online game that can match what happens in person."

I think here Gygax was talking about MMO or computer games, not the virtual tabletops people use to play games online.

But here I have to smirk at my own vindication....  

Some people agreed with me, and some people shouted me down, but I believe what I said (just a few days ago) was something like "build a game that does what D&D does, but do it better*, and you will find a large audience quickly".

Well, here is proof

*( for all values of 'better'-- and I specifically defined a game about "characters with levels and hit points who find adventure in a world of danger". So in this case, better could just be "different")

Quote from: SettembriniAnother thing is muddiyng the waters: The close ties and networks in Seattle. Can we trust the Paizo guys as "Keepers of the Flame" when they are at the same time writing for WotC?

I don't know how your workday goes, but I have rabid debates with my co-workers about the way the project will go.

You start talking about people who get their paychecks from different companies, all bets are off.

QuoteAnd the other way round: Aren´t many WotCites close friends with the third party-3e supporters?

Sure. Do I consult my close friends on my business decisions? Most of them, no.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI think here Gygax was talking about MMO or computer games, not the virtual tabletops people use to play games online.

He was talking about the virtual tabletop part of D&D Insider.  This was earlier in the article:

QuoteThe 4th Edition of the D&D rules will appear in June. Wizards of the Coast's latest strategy is to meet online games like World of Warcraft halfway. The company has launched a social networking site called Gleemax, which aims to be Facebook for tabletop gamers. And when the 4th Edition of the rule set appears this summer, it will launch alongside D&D Insider, a monthly subscription service that will allow people to use the Web for many aspects of D&D, from map creation to rule books to dice rolling.

Grown men who can no longer gather in a friend's basement every Friday night may want to reconnect via voice chat...or they may discover that World of Warcraft is simply more compelling. "Fourth Edition is far more than a new set of rules," wrote Slashdot Games editor Michael Zenke after the new products were announced. "It's WotC's lunge toward mainstream acceptance. WotC is going to make it big or break the tabletop industry trying."

Slaad:
I´m talking about design philosophies and gaming preferences. And there I´m not sure who is the champion of what right now. That´s all I´m saying.

Quote from: StuartHe was talking about the virtual tabletop part of D&D Insider.  This was earlier in the article:

He was also talking shortly after Gencon while under the, at that time wide spread, misapprehension that DDI, and in particular the online tabletop, would in some way be a necessary part of 4E rather than just an optional extra for those who wanted to get a gruop together online for whatever reason. Context is everything, people.

As far as the whole Pathfinder thing goes, I think it's a gutsy decision with just the right level of public appeal to get the online response that they've received - online playtests and open information vs. WotC with their pretty tight PR release schedule makes for good vibes amongst the forum set. Whether this approach is a viable way to design/modify a game remains to be seen. It's also worth noting that it's a far easier approach to take using the existing OGL than it would have been for WotC with a substantially revised edition of the game and the desire to prevent the preemptive publication of 4E "clones", which is one of the many reasons why lambasting WotC for adopting the same approach is a little silly.

Paizo clearly don't need to compete directly with WotC/4E on this since a large pool of players might still be interested in both among their current market. I expect that they know better than we do how many customers they need to retain, and made the deterimination that they could reasonably expect at least that many before they made this announcement.

What I do believe is that, long term, they'll find that 4E gathers rather more support from existing sceptics than many people think, and that the 3E market may well dry up to the point where extensive efforts are no longer economically viable. But if this process takes a few years then it may be something Paizo have already considered, and the whole Pathfinder RPG exercise may prove to be more like a limited run PR exercise and attempt to wring the last dregs of income from the 3E market than a genuine attempt to provide ongoing support for 3E players over more than a 3-4 year period.

Quote from: J ArcaneNobody was going to buy a corebook just to use that Mongoose book they saw at the store, it was more the other way around at best, and Wizards realized pretty quickly that there was far more money in just making the sourcebooks themselves.

This was the final straw that lead me to buy 3.5. I liked that third parties could support it in this way. Maybe I'm just the exception that proves the rule, but there are other WOTC customers like me that very much liked the idea. In fact I even like what I'm hearing about 4e but if they flub the OSL sufficiently it may very well sour me on WOTC. I very much wish other companies would go OGL. I know that in the end WOTC decided it was not a great idea.

Quote from: Akrasia(As it is, C&C still has been quite successful, comparable, I believe, to Conan OGL in terms of sales.)

Sure. And yet it's hardly taken the market by storm. Or, apparently, made enough for Troll Lords to expand their operations, get out the books they've been saying they're going to get out, etc..

Quote from: AkrasiaBut I don't think anybody sensible is claiming this (including Paizo).

Rather big brush you're tarring folks with there. Plenty of folks have said the very thing or implied as much. For example, "I smell a revolution."

Seanchai

Quote from: SettembriniSlaad:
I´m talking about design philosophies and gaming preferences. And there I´m not sure who is the champion of what right now.

Right. I consider the design philosophy of the bulk of the staff at Paizo to be different from the bulk of the staff at Wizards.

Quote from: SeanchaiRather big brush you're tarring folks with there. Plenty of folks have said the very thing or implied as much. For example, "I smell a revolution."

Depends on what you call a revolution, I guess.

I think that it may shore up a shrinking minority and make it sustainable. I wouldn't call that a revolution, but I think its significant and could shape the way I game over the next 3 years.

Those who think that Paizo are going to rob WotC of a major chunk of their market share are, I think, pinning their hopes on a long shot. But how many people really think that?

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThose who think that Paizo are going to rob WotC of a major chunk of their market share are, I think, pinning their hopes on a long shot. But how many people really think that?

I don't think that's what they are doing at all.  I think Paizo is trying to position itself as the premier alternative for the 3.x fan who doesn't want to switch to 4e.  That's a much smaller slice of the pie, but it may be big enough for a smaller company to prosper.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadRight. I consider the design philosophy of the bulk of the staff at Paizo to be different from the bulk of the staff at Wizards.

That´s what Paizo wants the audience to think. I beg to differ.
I do think that Paizo would whole-heartedly endorse 4e if they had been treated better, and without some of the background decisions.

Look at the Adventure Paths, most of the Adventures are totally, utterly dedicated to "THE ENCOUNTER!" as a set-piece. It´ll be way easier to DM and to play the APs with an 4e-style encounter-centered rules system.

EDIT: And most of the "Differentistas" have gleefully written proto-Encount4rded stuff for WotC, too (Delve Format, AIEEEE!). I don´t trust anybody right now in regards to what their REAL preferences are. Especially not Necromancer´s Clark.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThose who think that Paizo are going to rob WotC of a major chunk of their market share are, I think, pinning their hopes on a long shot. But how many people really think that?

It's fairly obvious; those who are pinning their hopes on this support neither WOTC nor Paizo. The hope is that both will be diminished.

But I don't see that happening!

I think the trend towards adventure gaming will continue to grow and the 'setting exploration/improvisational theatre performance artist/let's tackle these societal issues" games will continue to diminish. What people are discovering and will continue to discover as we get past these geek shame issues (and really, I have to give thanks to Matt Snyder for illustrating exactly how fucking stupid and pathetic it is to still live in that world) is that gaming can be actual fun; not "activist fun" or "cathartic satisfaction" fun or "therapy" fun. I mean actual fun.

I predict this: The next generation of successful games will all be adventure games that will not be derived from the D&D3.5 srd.  

In other words: Who is going to write the new Rifts? You want to be make a million bucks as a game designer? Write that. Make it fun.

Quote from: SettembriniThat´s what Paizo wants the audience to think. I beg to differ.
I do think that Paizo would whole-heartedly endorse 4e if they had been treated better, and without some of the background decisions.

Look at the Adventure Paths, most of the Adventures are totally, utterly dedicated to "THE ENCOUNTER!" as a set-piece. It´ll be way easier to DM and to play the APs with an 4e-style encounter-centered rules system.

EDIT: And most of the "Differentistas" have gleefully written proto-Encount4rded stuff for WotC, too (Delve Format, AIEEEE!). I don´t trust anybody right now in regards to what their REAL preferences are. Especially not Necromancer´s Clark.

The Paizo dudes (seem to me) to be actually very good friends with the WOTC dudes. I mean, when the WOTC guys went out to toast Gygax, Jason Buhlman from Paizo came along as well. They hang out socially. I have to think they are gunning for what they see as a legitimate market.

In direct relation to the Pathfinder alpha test: My son loves it.  He stole it from me this morning to share with his friends on the bus.  One of the things he immediately zeroed-in on was the clarified descriptions of player character races -- the entries were less cryptic, had more distinctive racial mods, and actually explained what the mods were supposed to represent.  Granted, one 8-year-old kid doesn't make a trend, but I'd venture the guess that Paizo and Jason Bulmahn are onto something here.

!i!

QuoteIt's fairly obvious; those who are pinning their hopes on this support neither WOTC nor Paizo. The hope is that both will be diminished.

Taking the reigns from Seanchai in the ignorant troll department now, are we Maw?

Take your wierd persecution fantasies elsewhere.  My interest in Pathfinder is purely because I fucking love 3.5 and am glad to see it continue.  I honestly hope this is the start of an almost Linux-like movement to continue the game, creating a whole variant industry much like what has happened with the old-school stuff of late.  

And if Pathfinder hadn't come along, someone else would've done it.  I seriously considered doing it myself.

I also see nothing whatsoever in this thread from anyone else that supports your ludicrous paranoid fantasy world scenarios, so I suggest you take a nice cup of shut the fuck up, and stop ascribing silly motives to people that aren't there.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaIn direct relation to the Pathfinder alpha test: My son loves it.  He stole it from me this morning to share with his friends on the bus.  One of the things he immediately zeroed-in on was the clarified descriptions of player character races -- the entries were less cryptic, had more distinctive racial mods, and actually explained what the mods were supposed to represent.  Granted, one 8-year-old kid doesn't make a trend, but I'd venture the guess that Paizo and Jason Bulmahn are onto something here.

!i!

I really love that they finally made half-orcs not suck.  I love half-orcs.  But I never play them (usually played straight orcs of some version or another), because mechanically, they sucked.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe Paizo dudes (seem to me) to be actually very good friends with the WOTC dudes. I mean, when the WOTC guys went out to toast Gygax, Jason Buhlman from Paizo came along as well. They hang out socially. I have to think they are gunning for what they see as a legitimate market.

That´s my impression, too. And I think the Paizo-Fanboy crowd is way more susceptible to like 4e paradigms than they think themselves. That´s my argument here.

If you stick to 3.x to play AP-style stuff, you are doing something not thought to it´s logical end. Alas, it´s a hobby and nobodyis obliged to think things through to their logical end...

Quote from: SettembriniThat´s what Paizo wants the audience to think. I beg to differ.
I do think that Paizo would whole-heartedly endorse 4e if they had been treated better, and without some of the background decisions.

Nice speculation, but I still don't buy it. I can't really speak to what secret anger exists in the hearts of Mona and Stevens. What I can say, having known some of these people and their work for some years (before the mags were ever cancelled) is that I see somewhat more of the "setting driven design" faithful at Paizo and a lot more of the "let's go dungeon bashing" designers at WotC.

Quote from: J ArcaneTaking the reigns from Seanchai in the ignorant troll department now, are we Maw?

Take your wierd persecution fantasies elsewhere.  My interest in Pathfinder is purely because I fucking love 3.5 and am glad to see it continue.  I honestly hope this is the start of an almost Linux-like movement to continue the game, creating a whole variant industry much like what has happened with the old-school stuff of late.  

And if Pathfinder hadn't come along, someone else would've done it.  I seriously considered doing it myself.

I also see nothing whatsoever in this thread from anyone else that supports your ludicrous paranoid fantasy world scenarios, so I suggest you take a nice cup of shut the fuck up, and stop ascribing silly motives to people that aren't there.

You misunderstand me I am afraid. I too support Paizo. What I am saying is that people who are pinning their hopes (dude go back and read it) on the idea that WOTC loses audience over this are very likely the same people that hope that both lose out.

I'm also saying, it won't happen. I see this as a win for both Paizo and WOTC, because adventure gaming is what most people really want to do. This goes back to my idea that designers that avoid trying to do what D&D does (the Fantasy Heartbreaker" stigma) are missing out on a ready audience. An entire generation of "game designers" shamefully conceded 85% of the existing hobby audience directly to D&D because they thought they knew better.

You remember what the biggest game in 1997-1998 was? It was huge. It was massive. It was wildly popular, producing something like 52 books over a year- thats nearly 1 book a week.

It was Deadlands. Fucking Deadlands!!!! Can you believe that? But you know what Deadlands is about? It's about dudes going adventuring!

Quote from: Caesar Slaad...I see somewhat more of the "setting driven design" faithful at Paizo and a lot more of the "let's go dungeon bashing" designers at WotC.

This was my impression as well.

Quote from: J ArcaneTaking the reigns from Seanchai in the ignorant troll department now, are we Maw?

:haw:

Why? Jealous? ;)

Quote from: jrientsI don't think that's what they are doing at all.  I think Paizo is trying to position itself as the premier alternative for the 3.x fan who doesn't want to switch to 4e.  That's a much smaller slice of the pie, but it may be big enough for a smaller company to prosper.

It might be. But having a retro D&D clone doesn't seem to have done wonders for others.

Seanchai

Quote from: Caesar Slaad...I see somewhat more of the "setting driven design" faithful at Paizo and a lot more of the "let's go dungeon bashing" designers at WotC.

That's the vibe I'm getting. Of course, it seems like Paizo is creating just one setting.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiIt might be. But having a retro D&D clone doesn't seem to have done wonders for others.

This isn't quite the same scenario, I think.  There's a presently served audience who is losing that service.  A parallel scenario would be in 1989 Mayfair announcing that they had bought the rights to first edition AD&D, which they intended to fully support.  They already had a fanbase that likes 1st edition and some of whome feel put out by the edition change.  Or Judges Guild sticking with OD&D back in 70's would have been a similar situation.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadWhat I can say, having known some of these people and their work for some years (before the mags were ever cancelled) is that I see somewhat more of the "setting driven design" faithful at Paizo and a lot more of the "let's go dungeon bashing" designers at WotC.

What kind of setting is this, though? Not knowing the first thing about it, still my intuition says: 2E.

I once asked if the Adventure Path isn't really Dragonlance for gamists, and I don't recall any crushing refutations. Would it be fair to say a Paizo setting is likely to be that, or perhaps to combine the two? Implementing a script immunity that's driven both by "story" and "build"?

Quote from: mhensleyHow many full-time employees does TLG have?  I believe the answer is zero.

Well, your belief is false.  They have 3!
 :cool:

Quote from: jrientsThis isn't quite the same scenario, I think.  There's a presently served audience who is losing that service.  A parallel scenario would be in 1989 Mayfair announcing that they had bought the rights to first edition AD&D, which they intended to fully support.  They already had a fanbase that likes 1st edition and some of whome feel put out by the edition change.  Or Judges Guild sticking with OD&D back in 70's would have been a similar situation.

Or upstart Wizards buying TSR... er, wait. ;)

No, not that I really think Paizo is well positioned to do this (I'd believe Peter Adkison sooner...), but if you follow that logic to its conclusion, be careful where it leads you. ;)

Some folks have pushed forth a lot of parallels. The one I see is a lot less astonishing: AMD vs. Intel. AMD was once a manufacturer for intel. They never overcame Intel and became processor king, but they kept them in check to the benefit of consumers.

And they are still around. Again, not saying this is the way things will go, but I find it more plausible than most comparisons.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI once asked if the Adventure Path isn't really Dragonlance for gamists, and I don't recall any crushing refutations. Would it be fair to say a Paizo setting is likely to be that, or perhaps to combine the two? Implementing a script immunity that's driven both by "story" and "build"?

If I ever heard you use that anology, I'm not sure what I would have made of it. Heck, I'm not sure now. Dragonlance suggests to me such evils as novel driven metaplots and strictly structured stories. And for gamists? How so?

I guess if I read the Dragonlance metaphor more generously -- which is to say, setting informing adventure design without the implication of metaplot forcing the players' hand--I guess that's accurate. Not sure how gamist fits into it. They got dungeons, and they got challenges, so if that's a gamist to you, yeah. But they seem to want to immerse characters in interesting stories and situations (rate of success varies here...), which seems less than totally gamist to me.

Quote from: SeanchaiIt might be. But having a retro D&D clone doesn't seem to have done wonders for others.

Seanchai

You mean like Palladium?

Quote from: SeanchaiIt might be. But having a retro D&D clone doesn't seem to have done wonders for others.

Seanchai

Well, C&C has done 'wonders' for TLG, in the sense that it does well enough to provide a living for the main guys at TLG, and has a decent number of fans (the PHB has gone through 3 printings, and is set to have a 4th).  Yes, TLG has been slow in getting certain products out, but that seems to be the result of having too many projects on the go, not a lack of demand.

Of course, C&C is a mouse compared to the 3e elephant.  But nobody was under any illusion that C&C would be a serious competitor to 3e.  

Similarly, I don't think that anybody at Paizo thinks the same thing about Pathfinder (viz. that it will be a RPG comparable in size to 4e).  However, given that Pathfinder RPG will be taking off just as 3e becomes OOP, it is well positioned to retain the necessary fan base to be a very successful FRPG (certainly larger than C&C, I should think).

As a consumer being able to choose between 4e D&D and Pathfinder D&D is a good thing.  Having competition between companies is a good thing as well.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadIf I ever heard you use that anology, I'm not sure what I would have made of it. Heck, I'm not sure now. Dragonlance suggests to me such evils as novel driven metaplots and strictly structured stories. And for gamists? How so?

Well, for "plot" put "string of encount4rs," where the former is driven by the "requirements" of "story," and the latter by "fairness." Leading in both cases to a sense of entitlement to script immunity.

"What do you mean, killed by Black Pudding at level 3? This Adventure Path is supposed to take my build, which took me five days to plan out, from L1 to L20!"

Okay, so you were saying you didn't mean Dragonlance in any sort of generous way.

That said, I've never seen Paizo's adventures ever exactly generous when it came to any sort of guarantees on the part of the players. (The last near-TPK I had resulted because I pulled an interesting looking adventure out of the Age of Worms path...)

One of the interesting aspects, to me, is how much they tie this into the entire AP/Pathfinder adventures thing. What little I've seen/read about them, I sort of agree with Sett (in it's least virulent form) that you could end up with a game closer to 4 than 3.5

However, upon starting to read it in more depth last night, I see things like options for starting HP and different XP tracks - specifically set up (stated as such) to allow specific games to adjust to the style they prefer.

So maybe it's 4e-compatible with the backwards compatible options to play less "cinematic" games?

Now, I already said: The Alpha document is totally NOT encount4rded, whereas the actual APs ARE.

There´s a cognitive gap, and that´s my biggest fear (and criticism):

Paizo not realizing how that they´ve raised their fanboiz to be susceptible to Delve/Encounter-chains with nicely illustrated story segways, that would be  IMMENSELY furthered by an per-Encounter, resource management-free game system like 4e.


To sum it up: The wrong people do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Quote from: SettembriniTo sum it up: The wrong people do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Let me play that out to it's logical conclusion. Pathfinder comes out in final format, and it's not what you fear, but a cleaned up version of 3.5 with options to play in Encounter mode or in Sandbox mode, gritty or cinematic.

Do I care about the reasons? I mean, I know that the ends don't justify the means, but I also know the road to hell is gold as a mother fucker. In the case of game development? Unless Paizo starts sacrificing small animals and children to the demon whores of the 42 layers of gaming hell, I'll live with the means that led to the end of a good game.

Quote from: J ArcaneYou mean like Palladium?

Are you saying Palladium's fantasy game is a big seller?

Thought not.

Seanchai

Quote from: jrientsThere's a presently served audience who is losing that service.

What service would that be? Playing D&D? The folks who play 4e will be playing D&D.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiWhat service would that be? Playing D&D? The folks who play 4e will be playing D&D.

I'm sure you meant "D&D".  Emphasis on the quotation marks.  Jeff was plainly referring to 3e.  You're only making the point that some want 4e to totally supercede 3e, and that some feel their preferred game is being abandoned.

!i!

Quote from: AkrasiaWell, C&C has done 'wonders' for TLG, in the sense that it does well enough to provide a living for the main guys at TLG, and has a decent number of fans (the PHB has gone through 3 printings, and is set to have a 4th).

It's easy to run through printings if the print run is small. Tell them each was a print run of 10,000 and I'll be impressed. Also, selling out to distributors, retailers, etc., doesn't mean folks actually bought the books.

Quote from: AkrasiaYes, TLG has been slow in getting certain products out, but that seems to be the result of having too many projects on the go, not a lack of demand.

Okay. Shrug. The point is that if Castles & Crusades were selling well enough, Troll Lords could expand their operations. Mongoose is an example of what I'm talking about.

Quote from: AkrasiaBut nobody was under any illusion that C&C would be a serious competitor to 3e.  

True, there's WotC and then there's everybody else. (Or maybe WotC and White Wolf, then everybody else.) But I can't imagine Castles & Crusades is a serious competitor on even the "everbody else" tier.

Quote from: AkrasiaHowever, given that Pathfinder RPG will be taking off just as 3e becomes OOP, it is well positioned to retain the necessary fan base to be a very successful FRPG (certainly larger than C&C, I should think).

That's like saying, "A half a gram is bigger than a quarter of a gram." It sure is. But if you're measuring in pounds...

Seanchai

Quote from: SettembriniNow, I already said: The Alpha document is totally NOT encount4rded, whereas the actual APs ARE.

Well, it's your definition, so I'm not sure if I differ with you because I think you are wrong or don't find such a prognosis meaningful.

QuotePaizo not realizing how that they´ve raised their fanboiz to be susceptible to Delve/Encounter-chains with nicely illustrated story segways, that would be  IMMENSELY furthered by an per-Encounter, resource management-free game system like 4e.

(shrug) Well, just browsing through some APs, I don't see how you couldn't use either method to go through either one. I do feel they would play better without per-encounter philosophy, but that's because I think resource-managed adds tension and emotional content. But that could be my biases showing.

But that's nothing new here.

Quote from: SeanchaiAre you saying Palladium's fantasy game is a big seller?

Thought not.

Seanchai

You mean the one that put them on the map and helped build the company that was, until recent management missteps, the #3 company in the market?  

I'd say it did perfectly well, as did it's spinoffs, which, I might note, are still using the same bastardized AD&D with shit bolted on that their parent did.

Quote from: Seanchai...
Okay. Shrug. The point is that if Castles & Crusades were selling well enough, Troll Lords could expand their operations. Mongoose is an example of what I'm talking about...

Um, TLG has expanded their operations.  Moreover, while there are specific reasons for particular products being delayed, viz. CKG and CZ, TLG has produced a lot of material for C&C.

However, I'm not going to defend their management strategies here.  My point is simply that they've produced a successful game that has run through many printings, and have produced a lot of material for it.

Quote from: Seanchai...
But I can't imagine Castles & Crusades is a serious competitor on even the "everbody else" tier.

Then you have a sadly limited imagination, since it has done extremely well precisely in the "everybody else" tier, frequently being in the 'top 10' of RPGs in sales, according to the 'Comics and Games Retailer Magazine' (often outselling the Conan OGL, to use a product of Mongoose).

Quote from: Seanchai...
That's like saying, "A half a gram is bigger than a quarter of a gram." It sure is. But if you're measuring in pounds...

Um, whatever.  The fact is that C&C is a successful 'third-tier' RPG.  It's run through many printings, has produced many products, and so forth.  Other companies -- Goodman Games, for instance -- have ascertained that the demand for C&C is sufficient to produce material for it (in the case of GG, DCC modules).

So my point stands.  If C&C can be successful for TLG, a fortiriori Pathfinder RPG can be successful for Paizo.  To think that a RPG has to be as successful as D&D, or even WFRP, in order to be a 'success' is silly.

Quote from: SeanchaiWhat service would that be? Playing D&D? The folks who play 4e will be playing D&D.

The folks who want to continue buying 3.x product and don't want to enter the world of Warlord Dungeonfurnaces will probably be underserved by WotC.

JJS: I have no fear of the rules. they look great so far. i do fear, that the very same people who are now championing the PathfinderRPG are those who totally are responsible for the 4e design paradigms regarding rules.

Tangent: If any of you has played one of the APs, you might have noticed that there is no strategic layer to them.

Quote from: SettembriniTangent: If any of you has played one of the APs, you might have noticed that there is no strategic layer to them.

Sett, when you say this sort of thing... do you mean the same general thing I do when I'm talking about meaningful player choices vs. hollow, obvious, and uninformed decisions?

Regarding all things not important for the current and the next encounter, yes.

EDIT: The fun part is, that for thinking men, tactics are actually eliminated in 4e, too; along the lines of your hollowness-scale.

Tactics for me are meaningless unless there is a reason to use them.  I tend to  think of the "right" choice as one the player's characters decide to make, not the ones the rules say are most advantageous.  I loath hearing stories of my brother mowing down PCs because he beat them in the mental chess match of the rules.  Have PCs choose the battles they need to win the war, not just to challenge their rules mastery.

:rolleyes:
Tactics is the OPPOSSITE of rules mastery.

Quote from: Settembrini:rolleyes:
Tactics is the OPPOSSITE of rules mastery.

Is it?  I'd have thought that tactics are a way to utilize the rules to best advantage in an RPG as allowed by the GM for the attempted goal whether party or individual.  How do you define them Sett?

Someone with more patience and the testosterone level and blood pressure of a female long distance runner has laid it out in a gaming framework:

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/elements01nov02.html (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/elements01nov02.html)

If you follow that, per-Encounter-abilities (especially the ones we´ve seen so far) diminish resource management and dissimilar assets.

I have a little different take on that, but that should give you an idea. Interestingly enough, the last part, maneuvre is also marginalized in 4e (1-1-1 movement, at will teleport from 1st level).

On a more general level, if it doesn´t involve a optimal (e.g. better-than-your-opponent) sequence of meaningful decisions regarding ressources, movement and use of assets, it´s not tactics. Rules knowledge thusly is only tactics on the meta-scale:

resources: patience of DM, your own time spent reading books and frequenting forae
dissimilar assets: citing books, or the "spirit" of the rules, or faqs or arguieng over houserules
maneuvre: tone and stance of argument, GM-bribing, social bribes, authoritative voice, whining etc.

Quote from: J ArcaneYou mean the one that put them on the map and helped build the company that was, until recent management missteps, the #3 company in the market?

To give this some statistical context: in the C&GR charts that Koltar and I have been dutifully compiling way up in that stickied thread, Palladium are always somewhere in the top 9 RPG companies in terms of market share, even with their recent troubles. Only Wizards of the Coast and White Wolf can say the same. I'd say that's solid evidence that they do pretty damn well for themselves out of their AD&D-knockoff.

A business stays in business because it provides a product or service that consumers will purchase. It is the assessment of a significant portion of 3.x players based upon the current level of knowledge of 4E, that 4E will not provide the gameplay experience that they prefer. Paizo is developing Pathfinder in order to provide a backwards-compatible alternative to 4E that 3.x players will find preferable to 4E.

This is a simple economic decision here. WotC has chosen to create 4E which does not appeal to all its former 3.x customer base. Paizo is launching Pathfinder to provide a product to that customer base of dissatisfied former WotC customers.

Will Pathfinder be the thief to steal all of WotC's customers? No, it realisticly cannot, but it will get enough customers to keep Paizo in business and possibly expand. Of course, as Paizo proceeds, other publishers will follow them and create their own 3.x OGL version. WotC will survive their appearance as well. However, how long will it be before the nibbling of all these Third Party minnows cripples WotC?

Now, if people want to cry foul on Paizo, they really have only WotC to blame. It was WotC's decision to drop 3.x and go with 4E. It was WotC's decision to go forward with this public relations strategy which has annoyed a lot of the fans/product consumers. It was WotC's decision to make radical changes to the Forgotten Realms, one of the most long-standing D&D intellectual properties. It was WotC that decided to pull Dungeon and Dragon Magazine from Paizo and cancel the print versions of those magazines.

Paizo is just watching the market and responding to it. A large enough part of the market wants Pathfinder to make it worth Paizo's effort.

Paizo is wise to embrace the OGL and the 3.x market. They'll sell tens of thousands of copies of Pathfinder. The release of this game is the first major symptom of the future fragmentation of the rpg market. It's debatable whether or not Paizo will be able to maintain this market success, but they have their foot in the door with this announcement, and it's up to them to take advantage of it.

This issue is discussed at RPGnet, and I made a couple detailed posts about the situation there. I actually reposted one of them in another thread here, but the discussion on 4e and Pathfinder is actually related in this discussion.

Behold post #18....

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=385115&page=2

...and post #136.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=385115&page=14

Edit: If anyone is banned there, I can simply repost the threads here. They're long posts, which is why I avoided rewriting them in their entirety, but I think I made some very good points there, which is why I'm bringing them up...:)

Quote from: AkrasiaWell, your belief is false.  They have 3!
 :cool:

Really?  I was under the impression that the owners of TLG kept their day jobs.  If they are working full time on C&C, I don't see how they have been unable to produce the CKG when supposedly they have been working on it for a couple of years now.

Quote from: mhensleyReally?  I was under the impression that the owners of TLG kept their day jobs.  If they are working full time on C&C, I don't see how they have been unable to produce the CKG when supposedly they have been working on it for a couple of years now.

I owned a business for 10 years. I never quit my "day job" and employed up to..let's see...I think the max was 6 people at one point.

My only point being that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Quote from: mhensley... I don't see how they have been unable to produce the CKG when supposedly they have been working on it for a couple of years now.

The thing is, they haven't been working on the CKG for a couple of years now.  They only started recently.  By a mistake, the CKG was posted on Amazon a few years ago, which created the impression that it was imminent.  But it never was.

Quote from: J ArcaneYou mean the one that put them on the map...

Yeah, their fantasy game put them on the map. Any other revisionist history you want to throw at us?

Seanchai

Quote from: Sacrificial LambThe release of this game is the first major symptom of the future fragmentation of the rpg market.

The irony of which, of course, is that this is precisely what WotC was attempting to reduce with the release of the OGL -- bringing the RPG world under their broadly-embracing umbrella.

!i!

Quote from: AkrasiaUm, TLG has expanded their operations.

Yeah, all the way up to three guys. I'm impressed!

Quote from: AkrasiaMoreover, while there are specific reasons for particular products being delayed, viz. CKG and CZ, TLG has produced a lot of material for C&C.

When you have more than three guys working out of a basement, you can switch to another product when one gets delayed.

Quote from: AkrasiaMy point is simply that they've produced a successful game that has run through many printings, and have produced a lot of material for it.

Quote from: Akrasia...frequently being in the 'top 10' of RPGs in sales, according to the 'Comics and Games Retailer Magazine'...

You know how those numbers are gathered, right?

Quote from: Akrasia(often outselling the Conan OGL, to use a product of Mongoose).

And yet Mongoose manages to put out products. They've got more than three people working for them. Hell, they were doing so well they bought their own printer.

Quote from: AkrasiaThe fact is that C&C is a successful 'third-tier' RPG.  It's run through many printings, has produced many products, and so forth.

You skipped a bit. You didn't respond to my assertion that the print runs weren't large and hadn't sold out, only sold out to distributors and retailers.

And produced many products? Really? Wanna do a quick comparison between Troll Lords and other companies? Mongood and Goodman Games have been mentioned...

Quote from: AkrasiaOther companies -- Goodman Games, for instance -- have ascertained that the demand for C&C is sufficient to produce material for it (in the case of GG, DCC modules).

Let's talk about Goodman Games. They're doing well enough that they a) have multiple product lines, b) actually release products, and c) have enough werewithal to spend time, money, and effort working with the IP of other companies.

So we've covered Goodman Games - any other companies you want to bring up and shoot yourself in the foot with?

Quote from: AkrasiaSo my point stands.

Sadly, only in the imagination of fanbois.

Quote from: AkrasiaTo think that a RPG has to be as successful as D&D, or even WFRP, in order to be a 'success' is silly.

If you're definition of success is "stuff I like," then you're right, quite a few RPGs are successful. Personally, I'd say if a company's flagship line doesn't do well enough to allow the company to grow, release new products, etc., it isn't all that successful.

Seanchai

Quote from: Sacrificial LambThey'll sell tens of thousands of copies of Pathfinder.

You're definitely, definitely on crack. WotC doesn't sell tens of thousands of its own products.

Seanchai

Quote from: jrientsThe folks who want to continue buying 3.x product and don't want to enter the world of Warlord Dungeonfurnaces will probably be underserved by WotC.

Except 3.x is a product, not a service.

However, that aside, you said the situation was apples and oranges. But that's not the case. When TSR introduced its AD&D service, it stopped serving it's OD&D customers. When it introduced its 2nd edition AD&D service, it stopped serving it's 1st edition clientele. WotC stopped serving its 2nd edition AD&D customer base when it created its 3e service. They ended all service to 3e customers when they rolled out their new 3.5 service plan.

I'm just not seeing what's different with 4e and 3.75.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiYeah, all the way up to three guys. I'm impressed!

When you have more than three guys working out of a basement, you can switch to another product when one gets delayed.

Well, I don't think that they're "working out of a basement"...  

And they have switched to other products when one gets delayed.  They've published quite a few things.  Just go to their website!  You'll see many C&C products.

Quote from: SeanchaiAnd yet Mongoose manages to put out products. They've got more than three people working for them. Hell, they were doing so well they bought their own printer.

:confused:
Yes, Mongoose is a larger company.  They have a number of different games.  I'm not sure what that has to do with my position, since I never claimed otherwise.

(Also, as an aside, Mongoose has abandoned its own printer thanks to the shoddy quality of their products.  They've switched back to their old system.)

Quote from: SeanchaiYou skipped a bit. You didn't respond to my assertion that the print runs weren't large and hadn't sold out, only sold out to distributors and retailers.

I don't know how large the print runs were (companies do not give out that information), but obviously if people weren't buying it, distributors and retailers wouldn't keep ordering the game (certainly not enough to go through 3 -- and soon 4 -- print runs).

Quote from: SeanchaiWanna do a quick comparison between Troll Lords and other companies?

Not really, since it's completely irrelevant to my point.

Quote from: SeanchaiMongood and Goodman Games have been mentioned...

I thought that we were discussing the success of a single game (using C&C in order to speculate about the possible success of the Pathfinder RPG), not entire companies.

I never claimed that TLG was a larger company than Mongoose or Goodman Games.  I merely claimed that C&C was a successful third-party game (comparable, say, to Conan OGL; since Mongoose also has Runequest, Paranoia, etc., they're obviously a larger company).

Quote from: SeanchaiSo we've covered Goodman Games - any other companies you want to bring up and shoot yourself in the foot with?

:confused:
I didn't "shoot myself in the foot" with Goodman Games at all.  My point was that C&C was successful enough for GG to decide to support it.  Obviously GG sees that there is adequate demand for such products to support C&C.  It must be a successful!

So the example of Goodman Games supports my position.  :D

Quote from: SeanchaiSadly, only in the imagination of fanbois.

*sigh* Tiresome ad hominem attacks do not strengthen your position.

Quote from: Seanchai... Personally, I'd say if a company's flagship line doesn't do well enough to allow the company to grow, release new products, etc., it isn't all that successful...

:confused:

Um, TLG's flagship line has done well enough to allow the company to grow, release new products, and so forth.  So you agree with me after all?

Quote from: AkrasiaThey've published quite a few things.  Just go to their website! You'll see many C&C products.

I have to accede this point. I went to my FLGS and there wasn't much. I went to Amazon and there wasn't much. I went to the Troll Lords website and they do indeed have a number of products out for Castles & Crusades.

Quote from: AkrasiaI'm not sure what that has to do with my position, since I never claimed otherwise.

Allow me to help with your confusion: Companies that do well can afford to buy stuff. That includes people's time during the daytime hours.

Quote from: Akrasia(Also, as an aside, Mongoose has abandoned its own printer thanks to the shoddy quality of their products.  They've switched back to their old system.)

Yeah. And they're still going to be around. Wow, imagine how well they must be doing (or have been doing) to say, "Let's buy a printer!," then later abandon it without having to close their doors.

Quote from: AkrasiaI don't know how large the print runs were (companies do not give out that information), but obviously if people weren't buying it, distributors and retailers wouldn't keep ordering the game (certainly not enough to go through 3 -- and soon 4 -- print runs).

Here's a recent thread on TBP with companies giving out that information: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=384367 (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=384367). There have been others.

Also, have you ever noticed how many game stores end up out of business? Have you dropped by a Borders or Barnes & Noble recently and seen all the 3e and 3.5 D&D products they're still cramming onto the shelves, despite the announcement of 4e? So that you're not confused, I'll be more direct: Retailers and distributors (especially retailers) do keep ordering products that no one is going to buy.

Finally, you keep bringing up selling out of prints runs. You say that you don't know how large they were, but do you realize that unless you can provide some kind of estimate of how large the print run was, saying they sold out isn't all that special?

I don't know if you checked out the thread I linked to a few paragraphs ago, but the highest print run total I saw there was 2,200. That's actually damn good these days. If print runs that size of Castles & Crusades kept selling out, I'd be impressed. But, as you noticed if you looked at the thread, most companies sold far, far fewer products.

Quote from: AkrasiaNot really, since it's completely irrelevant to my point.

The way this works is that you make some points and then I get to make some points. Not everything I say will be about your points. Some of what I say will be about mine.

Quote from: AkrasiaI merely claimed that C&C was a successful third-party game...

Which is what I'm disputing by pointing out third tier companies that are actually successful and what their success looks like.

Quote from: AkrasiaMy point was that C&C was successful enough for GG to decide to support it.  Obviously GG sees that there is adequate demand for such products to support C&C.  It must be a successful!

So the example of Goodman Games supports my position.

Well, how about this: Goodman Games has subsequently announced that they're creating a brand new rules-light fantasy game. How great can Castles & Crusades be if they're creating a competitor?

But, really, neither of these are good arguments.

Quote from: Akrasia*sigh* Tiresome ad hominem attacks do not strengthen your position.

Yeah, I wasn't impressed with your whole "Then you have a sadly limited imagination..." line either.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiYeah. And they're still going to be around. Wow, imagine how well they must be doing (or have been doing) to say, "Let's buy a printer!," then later abandon it without having to close their doors.

Um, whatever.  Like I said before, I never doubted that Mongoose was doing well as a company.  You seem to want to turn this into a debate over what companies are bigger than others.  That's not interesting to me, and it is hardly surprising that Mongoose, with many different RPG lines, would be larger than TLG, which has only two.  Likewise, it is hardly surprising that Goodman Games, which has focused on selling 3e modules (and rather good ones at that), is larger than TLG.  
:shrug:

Quote from: SeanchaiHere's a recent thread on TBP with companies giving out that information: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=384367 (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=384367). There have been others.

Hmmm ... After a quick glance, that information all seems to have to do with POD and PDF products.  I don't see any companies like Mongoose or Goodman Games posting there (and I can pretty much guarantee you that they won't post there).

Quote from: SeanchaiFinally, you keep bringing up selling out of prints runs. You say that you don't know how large they were, but do you realize that unless you can provide some kind of estimate of how large the print run was, saying they sold out isn't all that special?

Lots of companies produce books that enjoy only one print run.  Selling out of print runs repeatedly indicates that the book has not been a failure.  If it was a failure, the company would have produced only the first print run, and cut their losses (as happens often in the RPG industry).  This seems obvious.

Quote from: SeanchaiWhich is what I'm disputing by pointing out third tier companies that are actually successful and what their success looks like.

Goodman Games and Mongoose Games are both successful companies.  So is TLG.  All three companies have grown and produced new products in recent years.  Yes, TLG is the smallest of them, focusing on C&C and LA.  But nothing in what you've written demonstrates that TLG been 'unsuccessful'.

Quote from: SeanchaiYeah, I wasn't impressed with your whole "Then you have a sadly limited imagination..." line either.

Okay, fair enough.

Anyhow, I really don't see much point in going around in circles anymore with you.  

My point was pretty simple: C&C has been a success for TLG.  (Going on about how Mongoose is larger than TLG doesn't change that fact.)  Given C&C's relative success, it stands to reason that the Pathfinder RPG would likely be a (far greater) success for Paizo -- especially given that Paizo is a larger company, with an established position with 3e fans thanks to Dragon and Dungeon.  

We seem to have both (a) different interpretations about just how successful C&C has been (and neither of us has the relevant data, although the available evidence suggests to me that C&C could not plausibly be considered a 'failure'), and (b) what would count as a 'success' (you seem to think that selling in league with D&D or WoD or WFRP is necessary for 'success'; I have a more modest understanding of 'success' for third-party RPG companies).

I don't see either of us changing our respective views about (a) or (b), so I don't our discussion progressing any further.
:cheers:

Can we start a new Troll Lords Sux/Does Not/Does Too thread?

Quote from: Caesar SlaadCan we start a new Troll Lords Sux/Does Not/Does Too thread?

I'd rather not.

As I already said:

Quote from: Akrasia... Anyhow, I really don't see much point in going around in circles anymore with you.

My apologies for trying to draw an analogy between C&C and the Pathfinder RPG.  I thought that it was an interesting analogy, but it seems simply to have thrown the discussion off track.

The "most people will switch to the newest edition of the leading game" argument holds truth, but it is misleading in this thread. As a non-gaming analogy, the immense size of transnationals like Siemens hasn't stopped smaller companies from competing with them and doing well by common business standards. Sure, they are not Siemens. But they don't realistically want to be Siemens - they want to succeed by capturing a specific segment of the market and doing a better job satisfying its wishes than Siemens. If Paizo can get a few thousand committed buyers for its game products, they are golden - and I believe Pathfinder has enough market loyalty to make it succeed.

Quote from: Consonant DudeYou have to wonder what kind of hard drugs they were on when they thought of D20 and worse, of the OGL. It was an extremely dumb idea (business-wise) from the start.

Not dumb, selfish. I suspect the motivations of people like Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison were composed of one part business, one part ego and one part starry-eyed gamer goodwill. Adkison, for example, was already rich as hell when he bought D&D, so I don't think he lost too much sleep over a bit of lost revenue. Of course, I don't rule out that drugs might also have been involved. ;)

Moreover, I think the OGL wouldn't have hurt a visionary company with an agressive recruitment strategy, but Wizards went down the safer, more conservative path so we don't know what would have happened.

Quote from: MelanNot dumb, selfish. I suspect the motivations of people like Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison were composed of one part business, one part ego and one part starry-eyed gamer goodwill. Adkison, for example, was already rich as hell when he bought D&D, so I don't think he lost too much sleep over a bit of lost revenue. Of course, I don't rule out that drugs might also have been involved. ;)

You know, you might very well be right.

I hope some day, someone will investigate that. Dancey has been fairly outspoken but at times seems revisionist. Adkison doesn't comment often. I'd like some day for these matters to be discussed by the principals and not slowly fade away like the TSR history has, with vague accounts from distant memory.

When WotC decided to release the Rules Compendium as the "capping" product of 3e, I was somewhat disappointed. I wish they had released more of a history book on the whole process. I'd buy that :)

Quote from: MelanThe "most people will switch to the newest edition of the leading game" argument holds truth, but it is misleading in this thread...If Paizo can get a few thousand committed buyers for its game products, they are golden - and I believe Pathfinder has enough market loyalty to make it succeed.

It's not misleading. I absolutely think Paizo can get a couple thousand committed buyers for Pathfinder. And I think Paizo (and others) could consider themselves successful with that paradigm.

The contention - and the importance of folks switching so they can play the official version of D&D - lies with the idea that Pathfinder represents a revolution in the D&D/everybody else paradigm, that masses of people will stick with Pathfinder instead of switching to 4e, etc..

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai... I absolutely think Paizo can get a couple thousand committed buyers for Pathfinder. And I think Paizo (and others) could consider themselves successful with that paradigm...

Yeah, that was my point all along.

Quote from: AkrasiaYou seem to want to turn this into a debate over what companies are bigger than others.

No, I want to demonstrate that producing products for an old version of D&D didn't work out for the companies who did so nearly as well as producing products for the current set of D&D rules. And, yes, one company is bigger than the other/

Quote from: AkrasiaAfter a quick glance, that information all seems to have to do with POD and PDF products.  I don't see any companies like Mongoose or Goodman Games posting there (and I can pretty much guarantee you that they won't post there).

Really? 'Cause, for example, Atlas Games has done just that. And more. Not in that thread, but...

But I'm curious - you see Troll Lords as something other than a PDF/POD company? Who do they print with? I ask, but outside of their website, it sure wasn't able to find many of their products. I wouldn't be surprised if they print their core rulebooks traditionally and all those supplements via a POD printer...

Quote from: AkrasiaSelling out of print runs repeatedly indicates that the book has not been a failure.

No, it doesn't. I can whip up a game, get 10 copies at a POD printer, sell out, get 10 more copies, sell out, get 10 more copies, and still

Quote from: AkrasiaIf it was a failure, the company would have produced only the first print run, and cut their losses (as happens often in the RPG industry).  This seems obvious.

It would be obvious if, perhaps, RPG companies were known for their solid business acumen.

Quote from: AkrasiaBut nothing in what you've written demonstrates that TLG been 'unsuccessful'.

Set the bar higher...

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiThe contention - and the importance of folks switching so they can play the official version of D&D - lies with the idea that Pathfinder represents a revolution in the D&D/everybody else paradigm, that masses of people will stick with Pathfinder instead of switching to 4e, etc..

Seanchai

You know, I made that off-handed "revolution" comment about Paizo's decision four days ago (and that's an eternity on a forum) and you still have it rattling around in your thinking. What is it about that concept that bothers you so much, Seanchi?

Quote from: jeff37923You know, I made that off-handed "revolution" comment about Paizo's decision four days ago (and that's an eternity on a forum) and you still have it rattling around in your thinking. What is it about that concept that bothers you so much, Seanchi?

What bothers you so much about saying "I was talking out my ass, there isn't really a whiff of revolution coming off of it"? :)

Re: WotC and drugs. Read!

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/03/23/wizards/print.html

Quote from: blakkieWhat bothers you so much about saying "I was talking out my ass, there isn't really a whiff of revolution coming off of it"? :)

Nice to see that it bothers a troll like you as well.

Quote from: SettembriniRe: WotC and drugs. Read!

:sleeping:
John Tynes interviewed by Ogre Cave (http://www.ogrecave.com/interviews/johntynes.shtml) which includes a bit about that article. The SciFi-Wire article in question (http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2001-04/30/09.00.games).

Thanks, Casey!

Quote from: jeff37923You know, I made that off-handed "revolution" comment about Paizo's decision four days ago (and that's an eternity on a forum) and you still have it rattling around in your thinking. What is it about that concept that bothers you so much, Seanchi?

It doesn't bother me. People keep saying no one is stupid enough to think that Pathfinder would overtake D&D and I have to remind them that yes, there actually are people that stupid.

Seanchai

Quote from: AkrasiaYeah, that was my point all along.

I thought your point was that Castles & Crusade was awesome and undeserving of any criticism.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiI thought your point was that Castles & Crusade was awesome and undeserving of any criticism.

Seanchai

:confused:

Um, no.  Please point out precisely where in this thread I state anything that even remotely suggests this.

Don't know if it's an important indicator.  But there was some  interesting info (http://www.d20haven.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=63) that came across in the Living Greyhawk Yahoo Group.

Quote from: AkrasiaUm, no.  Please point out precisely where in this thread I state anything that even remotely suggests this.

Where you remotely suggested it? You keep going on and on and on about how well Castle & Crusades has done, despite a very different reality, pointing out, for example, over and over and over that it sold out three printings when that, by itself, is not terribly impressive.

I mean, c'mon, it's a little disengenious of your to try and present yourself as anything but a Troll Lord fanboy.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai... You keep going on and on and on about how well Castle & Crusades has done...

Well, none of my comments had to do with the quality of C&C as a game.  And, as for its success, I've only gone 'on and on' in response to your comments.  My original point was pretty simple.  C&C is based on pre-3e D&D (although with other elements as well) and has been a success for TLG.  Based on that, it seems reasonable to think that, if anything, Pathfinder will be a success for Paizo.  

That's it.

As for the success of C&C, based on my interpretation of the data that I have available, C&C has been successful.  Unlike you, I have no problem finding C&C stuff outside of their website (e.g. my FLGS store in Toronto, the main stores in San Francisco and Berkeley, or at Leisure Games in the UK).  I simply find your claims that C&C is a failure implausible.

Quote from: Seanchai... despite a very different reality.....

*sigh* Your interpretations of 'reality' seem to be based on your commitment to a particular thesis (viz. that C&C is a 'failure'), and you interpret the available data in order to support that thesis (e.g. bizarrely taking three printings of the core book to support your claim that the game is a 'failure').  Given your commitment to defending this thesis at all costs, and the fact that neither of us has access to the hard information necessary to resolve this dispute, there's no point in continuing this debate (as I've already said ... I'm just restating points already made it this stage).  

Quote from: Seanchai...
I mean, c'mon, it's a little disengenious of your to try and present yourself as anything but a Troll Lord fanboy...

Hey, I don't deny that I like C&C, but I certainly think that it is far from perfect, and I actually think that TLG could be doing a lot better (e.g. the editing of some of their products, etc.).  I didn't get into my criticisms of C&C and TLG in this discussion because they weren't relevant.  We weren't debating the strengths and weaknesses of the C&C system.  (And, for the record, I quite dislike a number of C&C 'fanboys'.)

My point has always been the same.  Based on the information that I have available, C&C has been a success for TLG.  Based on this fact, I suspect that Pathfinder will be a success for Paizo (as you yourself conceded just earlier).  That's it.

Quote from: Akrasia*sigh* Your interpretations of 'reality' seem to be based on your commitment to a particular thesis (viz. that C&C is a 'failure'), and you interpret the available data in order to support that thesis (e.g. bizarrely taking three printings of the core book to support your claim that the game is a 'failure').

You said there are a lot of materials out for Castles & Crusades. I said there weren't. You said to check out there website. I did and conceded the point.

You said they've sold out three print runs of Castles & Crusades and that it's an indication of success. I said that it wasn't ncessarily an indication of anything, said why, and asked how large the print runs were. You said, "Buwuh?"

You haven't said why selling out a print run of 100 should be considered a success nor have you even hinted at numbers.

That you'd follow that up by suggesting I am the one interpreting reality and the data a certain way is highly ironic. *sigh*

Quote from: AkrasiaI'll let you know if I can work something out.Based on this fact, I suspect that Pathfinder will be a success for Paizo (as you yourself conceded just earlier).

I didn't conceded - I said it 5 five days ago in post #123. In other words, before you started posting to the thread...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai... stuff...

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Akrasia... there's no point in continuing this debate ...

Quote from: Akrasia... there's no point in continuing this debate ...

You're dedicated. You've said repeatedly that you're not going to continue the "debate" (an actual debate would require you to produce an argument or evidence, i.e., print run numbers), then do. And now you go as far as to post with only an emoticon. Unbelievable. You're definitely earned your Castles & Crusades booster stripes.

Seanchai

Quote from: jeff37923Nice to see that it bothers a troll like you as well.

It doesn't bother, it amuses me. :D But nice to see my words cut so close that you stoop to slinging "troll!" mud at me. ;)

Quote from: blakkieIt doesn't bother, it amuses me. :D But nice to see my words cut so close that you stoop to slinging "troll!" mud at me. ;)

It's not stooping when it is the truth. Earlier comments directed towards me (QftI), your smarminess in this post, you're trolling. No mudslinging involved from my end, brother. Live with the label if you're going to act like the label.

Back on topic, Paizo reckon that there have been over 10,000 downloads of the Pathfinder .pdf over the last week.

Means nothing to eventual sales, but it's quite impressive.

Quote from: One Horse TownMeans nothing to eventual sales, but it's quite impressive.

It is indeed.

Of course, they've also already changed the rules, too.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiIt is indeed.

Of course, they've also already changed the rules, too.

Seanchai

Yep. I didn't reckon much of them to be honest.

Quote from: One Horse TownYep. I didn't reckon much of them to be honest.

Much of what to be honest - the rules or the downloads? If the latter, heck, in either case, what do you mean "honest"?

Quote from: James J SkachMuch of what to be honest - the rules or the downloads? If the latter, heck, in either case, what do you mean "honest"?

The rules.

Edit: Erm, honest means honest. It's a term where i come from. Sorry...

Quote from: James J SkachMuch of what to be honest - the rules or the downloads? If the latter, heck, in either case, what do you mean "honest"?

I think he just means he doesn't care for the rules? With "to be honest" at the end? As in implying that he is stating his honest opinion? Perhaps a forgotten comma?

Quote from: One Horse TownThe rules.

And the second question? I'm truly curious as to what you mean by rules that aren't "honest"..

Ahhh...beejazz helped me...missing comma. That makes sense now...

Quote from: beejazzI think he just means he doesn't care for the rules? With "to be honest" at the end? As in implying that he is stating his honest opinion? Perhaps a forgotten comma?

This.

My grammar radar has been off for a day or two. I don't think i've ever edited so many posts.

Quote from: SeanchaiOf course, they've also already changed the rules, too.

Which, I believe is in keeping with the whole notion of the "alpha" playtest they mentioned up front.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaWhich, I believe is in keeping with the whole notion of the "alpha" playtest they mentioned up front.

Yeah. We certainly knew the rules we were looking at were far from the final ones. If what we're see now is a gigantic playtest that's basically open to the public, it's a just a touch odd to change the playtest rules day into the process.

But maybe it's not that.

I wonder if they'll update the playtest documents frequently.

I wonder if there'll be a lot of errata and post-production changes to the final product.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiYeah. We certainly knew the rules we were looking at were far from the final ones. If what we're see now is a gigantic playtest that's basically open to the public, it's a just a touch odd to change the playtest rules day into the process.

They probably had a flood of feedback coming in when they released the first draft - it's no wonder they're already finding things to tweak. I suspect many of these alterations are due to overwhelming popular demand.

QuoteI wonder if there'll be a lot of errata and post-production changes to the final product.

If they do this whole open playtest shebang right, there really shouldn't be too many post-production changes. If they can get even a fraction of the people who've downloaded the playtest document to run test games and give feedback, they'll have plenty of opportunities to iron out the kinks.

Quote from: WarthurIf they do this whole open playtest shebang right, there really shouldn't be too many post-production changes. If they can get even a fraction of the people who've downloaded the playtest document to run test games and give feedback, they'll have plenty of opportunities to iron out the kinks.

I wonder what the largest playtest has ever been - and will they, in a bit of a twist, get to claim the largest, most open playtest ever...

Assuming, as you say, enough people do so, of course...

Quote from: James J SkachI wonder what the largest playtest has ever been - and will they, in a bit of a twist, get to claim the largest, most open playtest ever...

Assuming, as you say, enough people do so, of course...

I think the open playtest is also a great marketting tool done in response to WotC's required NDA's and poor marketting of letting people just get enough of a hint of what's coming in 4E to start arguements.

They've claimed over 10,000 downloads of the Alpha Playtest document so far, right? That's no small number.

Quote from: WarthurThey probably had a flood of feedback coming in when they released the first draft - it's no wonder they're already finding things to tweak. I suspect many of these alterations are due to overwhelming popular demand.

Yeah, but that's kind of the problem.

The whole Pathfinder thing is predicated on the idea that Paizo knows what D&D want out of their games, will buy, etc.. They've spent months modifying 3.5 to a product they presumably feel will appeal to a wide number of folks.

They release an alpha version, then soon after, based on feedback, release corrections and updated.

If they really understand what the public wants, shouldn't the alpha be able to stand up to public scrutiny for a bit?

But, really, that's just a nagging thought on my end about the whole thing. I'm sure it'll be a solid product once its released, etc..

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiIf they really understand what the public wants, shouldn't the alpha be able to stand up to public scrutiny for a bit?

Spin it around a little. Paizo believe they have a vague idea of what the public want, but they aren't so hubristic as to assume that they're 100% correct. That's the whole point of having an open playtest process. Their willingness to respond to feedback is not only refreshing, it's absolutely vital if a wide-open playtest like this is going to work in the first place.

Really, if they didn't change the document, you'd take them to task for not responding to playtesting feedback.

Quote from: WarthurPaizo believe they have a vague idea of what the public want, but they aren't so hubristic as to assume that they're 100% correct.

We know that isn't the case. They're betting pretty heavily on knowing that the public wants their version of 3.5 instead of 4e.

Quote from: WarthurReally, if they didn't change the document, you'd take them to task for not responding to playtesting feedback.

Naw. Check up thread - I don't think it's wise of them to be having an open playtest.

But I was thinking: Maybe the timing of the latest update is PR-related, a quick demonstration that they will change based on public feedback.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiWe know that isn't the case. They're betting pretty heavily on knowing that the public wants their version of 3.5 instead of 4e.

You're overstating it.  They're betting pretty heavily on a profitable percentage of the public wanting a version more like 3.5.

10,000 downloads is pretty impressive in this short of time, to my thinking.  I  wonder how many before its all said and done?

So...thoughts on the tweaks thus far?

Haven't had a chance to look at 1.1 fully but do like that they made an alternate version available that's easier on the printer. No need to print out a full color version for just early playtests, especially if a new version is out each month or so.

Quote from: SeanchaiWe know that isn't the case. They're betting pretty heavily on knowing that the public wants their version of 3.5 instead of 4e.

Their public per definitionem wants 3.5 revised more than 4th edition. The only question is, how large is that public and how can Paizo make them stick. Nothing more is needed. They don't need the whole pie, nor can they realistically expect to have it.

Quote from: jrientsYou're overstating it. They're betting pretty heavily on a profitable percentage of the public wanting a version more like 3.5.

Sure, sure. But that "profitable percentage" has to be fairly large to support their operation. If Paizo were a tiny company that decided to produce their own 3.75, no one would care.

Seanchai

Quote from: jeff37923It's not stooping when it is the truth. Earlier comments directed towards me (QftI), your smarminess in this post, you're trolling. No mudslinging involved from my end, brother. Live with the label if you're going to act like the label.

You squeezed a coiler on the carpet, I fed it back to you, and you come up sputtering "troll". If I may be so bold I suggest a little easy listening for you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgtWIx2zLtk).

Over, out, and back to the topic of the thread...

Quote from: Zachary The First10,000 downloads is pretty impressive in this short of time, to my thinking.

It might get a bit better reading than the typical free download but there are a number here that suggest, from their antidotal experience, the number of free downloads far outstrips people that actually read the document in question. Which again is larger than the people that would use it. I think?

It does show traffic and some online profile though, which I think says that Paizo timed this well.

I still don't quite get why Paizo is doing this? Why can't they just continue to publish supplements for 3.5? Is there really going to be that many people that are unwilling to move to 4e but are willing to drop cash for a new rule book, and learning that, and that's going to require some measure of jiggery with their existing books, when they could just stick with their 3.5 books? Or house rule their 3.5 a bit if they wanted I suppose, as opposed to getting everyone else's house rules in there too? :shrug:

It all feels like a solution in search of a need.

Quote from: blakkieI still don't quite get why Paizo is doing this? Why can't they just continue to publish supplements for 3.5?

Publishers don't really want to play in someone else's playground. They want to sell their vision or version of D&D.

What Paizo is doing is fine, but it doesn't benefit me as greatly as if they were going to continue to support the shelves of 3.5 books I already have.

You know, Lamb was saying that Paizo has to produce Pathfinder, that they have no choice. But I thinking: I was at my FLGS on Friday, picked up their guide to Korvosa, and noticed it was almost entirely systemless. I realized that their item decks, tiles, minis, etc., are also systemless. They couldn't produce systemless stuff for a couple of months?

Seanchai

Quote from: blakkieYou squeezed a coiler on the carpet, I fed it back to you, and you come up sputtering "troll". If I may be so bold I suggest a little easy listening for you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgtWIx2zLtk).

Over, out, and back to the topic of the thread...

Nice try at making yourself look good with some revionist history and then saying you're dropping the subject, but its all there in the threads.

Quote from: obryn;187589For those who are glad - are you glad because you want Paizo (or anyone) to stick it to WotC or are you glad because you want to give their incarnation of 3.75 a chance?

Honest question. :)

Like I said from way back, what I'm looking for is a decent trimming of the 3.5 rules - like a Saga-fication for the Star Wars d20 rules set.  I was hoping to get that out of 4.0, but I'm skeptical I will.

This isn't it.  I mean, I like a lot of this - but I think the compatibility they're advertising with 3.x is dramatically overstated.

-O

Actually I'm glad for the reason that I can keep playing D&D (even if it will be with another company's rules such as Pathfinder (especially since Paizo has delivered a high standard on their previous published material)), thus allowing me to keep using all the 45 + Rulebooks and Supplements for 3.5 that are stacked on my shelves (and have cost me quite lot of money). I would have hated it if I had to switch to a new game system, which the 4th Edition really is.

During the last 29 years I have experienced enough changes in the System. Sure, the changes in the previous Editions make sense, but enough is enough. I am no longer willing to burn my money. If WOC had planned to take out any bugs, or to advance the game to a more playable form, they could have done so without declaring the whole System obsolete. They could have done an overhaul similar to what Paizo has done with Pathfinder. But no, they rather force me and other longtime players to play a whole new system.

Hellfire, I can understand that they are a company that is trying to make money. But forcing me to change the system and buy a whole new line of books, and not being able to keep using those that I have invested money in during the last 7 years, sucks. Its not that I have to buy more books; I would have bought anything new anyway. Its just the reason that I cant use my old ones with the new system. I feel like that they have no regards and feel no appreciation for the longtime fans and players of Ad&D/D&D.

Maybe I take this change in rules to personal, but unfortunately that is how I feel and, even after having played 4th Ed. for a few month (and not feeling comfortable with it), I am happy that somebody else is allowing me to play my favorite game for a while longer.

@ One Horse town: RE HONEST RULES MECHANICS


Interesting thought, honest rules/mechanics. So far i have not held one Rulebook of any kind of RPG in Hands that have not been found wanting in one way or the other. In the end it all depends on what one can get out of them or make with them. Thus one could say that there are NO perfect rules out on the market. So whats the point?