Let’s try something new. I’ve noticed lately that we have quite a few articulate and passionate people over here. Its also clear from the passions that rise around 4e that there is a lot to get out of our collective system.
So instead of writing an opinion piece this morning, here is a question to debate instead:
Will Paizo’s move to create and support an independent 3.5 OGL Fantasy Role Playing game create a significant schism in the RPG market? In fact, does Paizo stand to become the Google to Wizards of the Coast’s Microsoft?
This question works well with the analogy I’ve seen that 4e will be Vista, 3.5 is XP and Paizo’s Pathfinder is shaping up to either be Win XP SP3 or maybe a Linux built?
Let’s start by putting some oil on the fire shall we? My personnal feeling on this is that while Paizo is gathering a lot of goodwill on their very open project of developing a 3.5 RPG in the next year, I doubt that it will obtain a significant part of the market (10% let’s say) as gamers are going to feel the economic woes coming and will probably send the little cash they have toward Hasbro, especially if 4e gets Rave reviews.
Sound off!
Please keep things civil. It’s a wonder that we’ve avoided the jerk factor so far, and I applaud all of you. Let’s continue proving the Internet wrong! 🙂
I do not think it will be that drastic a split (google/microsoft). But I am rooting for Paizo to grab more market share with their offering. I hope 4th ed is a success and I am holding judgement till I get the books in my hands. (I’ll be buying them from Pazio and not amazon. Their 25% discount on a future purchase was attractive and I want to see them stay around.
With all my school and work load right now I have not been able to look over the beta stuff on their variant yet.
Brave topic, CDM!
I think that if Paizo get 10% of the market share, that would be a huge success. I also think that’s quite likely to happen provided their distribution channels behave themselves. ‘Course, if they could get Pathfinder into every news-stand in the civilized world (and the USA!), all the better.
I think the GSL will be seen as a mistake, though less impactful that it could have been. Now they’ve clarified it’s “per product line”, not “per company” it’s workable, but still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Companies shouldn’t be strong-armed into having to choose between 3.5e or 4e at all. But heyho. It’s done now.
Interestingly, if I read the GSL right there’s nothing to stop companies from releasing sourcebooks for 4e D&D and AN Other system, so long as that system isn’t 3.5e. This means we could theoretically get dual-stat sourcebooks for 4e D&D and Warhammer (say), and that would be fine, whereas releasing a sourcebook with dual-stats (or even two different books under the same product line) for both 3.5e and 4e is a strict no-no. That’s patently crazy, and is a loophole I sincerely hope folks capitalize on as much as possible 🙂
Heck, I’d love to see a dual-stat adventure for 4e and Tunnels & Trolls, just because.
Licensing aside, I reckon Wizards will sink or swim on the strength of their online offering. It’s where they’re throwing the money, so it’s where they are going to expect the highest return on investment. They are desperate for that elusive subscription model, despite 30 years of experience showing that Casual Gamers Don’t Subscribe. Sure, WoW has a massive subs base (and like it or not, Wizards DO want a piece of that action), but that’s because WoW is Zero-Effort Role-playing. People don’t need to think much to play WoW, and that’s cool, but it ain’t D&D. Draw your own conclusions about what that means about the direction D&D is heading.
Back to the point though.
I don’t think the Paizo will be the only ones to enter the 3.5 OGL D&D-a-like arena. I’d expect a big push from the folks and True20, Castles & Crusades and maybe even the much requested Mutants & Masterminds Fantasy RPG (/not/ True20!) might even see the light of day. Who knows?
In other words, the birth of 4e D&D and the GSL license is going to spawn /more/ competition for Wizards, not less. So much for strong-arm tactics, eh?
WOTC and Paizo can and will co-exist peacefully. It’s already being demonstrated with WOTC changing the GSL to allow companies to produce both 4E and 3.5 material, under different product lines.
Paizo is not trying to be the next WOTC. They simply have to have a large enough customer base to be profitable. Their following and other 3.5 loyalists will easily be enough to do that. And these fans will bring in new customers, as they run Pathfinder games with their buddies. And Paizo will also produce a 4E product line, both through Necromancer games and probably their own product line.
WOTC doesn’t care about Paizo, they don’t consider them a threat, and shouldn’t. The vocal following on the internet is only a very small fraction of D&D players. The majority of the players that are online regulars may casually check the D&D website and that is it. And those are just going to buy WOTC products because it is the brand name.
So a comparison may be more like Mac and PC. The majority of people use a PC, but Mac has a strong following and is still profitable.
So yeah, I agree with you Chatty, but with the addendum that Paizo isn’t trying to get market share, and doesn’t have too.
shadow145s last blog post..Gas tax political maneuver
Supporting Paizo’s online store by buying WotC stuff is a good idea that could help Paizo in that bid for gaming domination (he he, I’m not serious here). It’s a shame though that that business model is killing the local gaming stores.
I made a compromise, I plan on buying my stuff from an online joint that also just happens to be somewhat my FLGS (www.Zestuff.com)
I think Paizo has a shot at being this generation’s RuneQuest, i.e. the alternative for plugged-in ‘serious’ gamers. But I doubt it will make a dent in the 800lb gorilla.
Jeff Rientss last blog post..One more comment on Kobolds Are My Baby!
I can’t imagine anyone will even notice, really.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that 4th edition will include a “3rd edition conversion guide” the same way 3rd did for 2nd (it won’t be particularly accurate – it wasn’t then, either – but it will exist). So if you really, really want to, you’ll be able to convert Paizo’s stuff and use it in your 4e campaign.
Now, I freely admit that I don’t really know what Pathfinder is – I stopped any dealings with Paizo when Dragon folded (not their fault, but nothing they’ve done so far interested me – I’m obviously not their target audience, though, and I wish them well) – but I gather it’s intended to be basically the Hackmaster equivalent of D&D 3.5, yes? In that case, like Hackmaster, it will probably have a few people play it – but then again, there are people even now that refuse to play anything that’s as new as even _1st_ edition (and good luck to them, if that’s how you roll).
In all honesty I can’t see anything about 3rd edition that’s likely to attract any fanatical, demographically significant proportion of the audience. The more editions a game goes through, the less likely that the latest one is going to attract much nostalgia. I’m prepared to be proven wrong, though – 4th edition might turn out to be Windows Vista, after all.
Hmmm, I guess I haven’t hit that controversial a subject… 🙂
@Greywulf: One thing is for sure, I have yet to be amazed by WotC’s prowess with online based media. Magic the Gathering was mediocre, the ETools was a disaster that needed and Gleemax, well… that’s for another day.
So I’m really not certain I’ll go for D&D insider (I hope to eat my socks on that one, but I remain skeptical). I really really hope that WotC banks on the commerical success of their books more than the online model.
My remaining question to you is : With True 20, Mutants and Masterminds et.al. how more splintered can the market afford to be (unless all this focuses on PDF media)?
@Shadow145: I know that Paizo isin’t ‘against’ WotC… the Pathfinder RPG was a wise move considering how feet were being dragged with the licence. I’m just not so sure it will catch on… but I’m exceedingly biased towards 4e so I can’t really bring myself to consider Pathfinder objectively. Maybe after the 4e crazy lowers I’ll have a look at a later Beta of the game.
@Jeff: Paizo certainly has an active enough community and the act of opening the game’s development to the net was sheer brilliance. That being said I’m completely missed the Rune Quest boat… I’ve never cracked a RQ book open… Then again, the Quebec RPG market was exceedingly poor in the mid 80’s… I bought my DMG and Village of Homlet in a non-game Hobby store.
@Gazza: Agreed. Just as long as there is no 4.5 Service Packs! It’S been saids more than once that no one wants that… but rules will evolve… Hopefully it can be covered by FAQs and possibly a Compendium in a few years.
Interestingly enough we are not simply talking about the two large giants in the sandbox here. As most of us know the release of 3E in 2000 was not just a new set of rules, but rather was a shift in design and marketing philosophy which cumulated in the OGL.
Our hobby was flagging in the marketplace, and the average casual gamer has been migrating to a more digital platform since the days of MUDs. When 3E released it was a rebirth of not just D&D but of the company that made it. WotC, still under the shadow of TSR at the time, made the freshest break possible and re-invigorated the tabletop market with the OGL and allowing 3PP’s to work off the d20 framework. Publishing, R&D, and all around product quality became better across the industry. In so many ways, WotC brought us a second Golden Age in gaming.
Not long afterwards WotC allowed Paizo to take over Dragon Magazine, which resulted in what is without a doubt the highest level of quality in terms of both substance and production that our industry has ever seen. They expanded their industry credit and respect with the Planescape support that they brought to the table, and with one of my all-time favorite product lines ever, GameMastery. In many ways Paizo produced the pinnacle of gaming materials after 3.5E, with fresh views and snappy products that filled the niches that WotC never did. They built a brand.
WotC has earned my respect. They have done a phenomenal job with the game, and indeed the industry, since their acquisition of TSR. The work they have put in, the quality of the game they have produced, and their level of involvement in the gaming communities is so far above what I grew up with that I find it hard to understand why things have come to be as they are.
I felt betrayed on Paizo’s behalf when WotC shut down their production of Dragon, what I thought was the flagship of the gaming industry. I felt insulted when they pulled support for PCGen and never did do a decent job of the ETools software. And now I’m disappointed in the direction that 4E is revealing itself, because I was there at the GenCon announcement, I heard the promise of great things and truly awesome vision of what a new edition could be… and it’s not matching up with the reality of what we’re being shown now.
Worst of all however, I felt that the lessons the company learned after it’s FTP site “derivative content” fiasco in the mid-90’s had been learned and that the OGL and d20 STL as they are at this moment were the culmination of wisdom and dedication to the hobby I love and the people that enjoy it… and now I feel that the new OGL (even at the product line basis) is back-peddling into a dark corner and away from the grandness of what 3E brought us.
In short, I think WotC is regressing. All design elements aside, because most of that is simply a matter of preference from one group to the next, I think that we’re witnessing a degeneration of ideals and greatness from the industry giant.
In comparison I see Paizo walking a fine line, using their alliance with Necromancer games to dip their fingers in the 4E pool while still offering 3.xE content and continuing with the gaming experience that has so thoroughly transformed the hobby as I know it.
Will I play 4E? Yes, I’ll buy the books and give it a good solid run, but I can’t say I have the level of enthusiasm or eagerness that I had back when 3E was released. However I think you’re analogy of 3E/4E to XP/Vista is so dead-on accurate that I can’t help but agree. 4E will be nice, shiny, new and interesting, but I don’t know if it will actually replace it’s predecessor.
I will also buy Pathfinder, i will collect the material because I’ve seen the product quality and play-tested both the 4E demo the the Pathfinder alpha and I’m impressed with certain things on both sides of the isle.
I think this will all be coming at a more dangerous time however, as the sagging economic situation will mean people are less willing to leave behind all that they’ve collected to begin the process all over again and the Pathfinder line will be of such good quality that it’s compatibility with the previous materials will present the consumer/gamer with the path of least resistance. The digital medium is much more potent that it was in 2000 as well. With WoW, EVE, and Warhammer on the horizon the super-low barrier to entry for digital gaming is a monster that the entire industry must compete with or watch their relevance to the industry shrink bit by bit.
WotC must move forward, they must put all their eggs in one basket and bet the farm on 4E. Paizo isn’t bound by this, and whether 4E becomes the next Goliath of the gaming industry or simply turns out to be the spoiled younger brother to it’s sibling they simply are not locked into such a position, Paizo can sit the fence and reap the profits from both sides and if they don’t then I will be astonished.
If you’re asking me to pick one or the other as the embodiment of what is great about my hobby, then with a little hesitation I would name Paizo, looking back over my shoulder at WotC with regret that they have not been holding fast to the ideal of the company I thought they were. Even in gaming, perhaps especially in gaming, my sense of loyalty is acute. However the steps take by WotC these last few years are a far cry from the company I feel saved my hobby. Could this change? Yes. Will it? “The future is murky, ask again later”.
Thanks for giving me and others a forums for voicing these opinions, Chatty.
@nw_meyer: No, Thanks to you for taking the time to write this! Can’t say I agree 100% but that’s not the goal of the exercise now is it? Yup, I sure could use a d20 compliant 8-ball scrying device myself.
@ no one in particular: Oh man Graham is going to kill me for pulling this right after he left for work!
The dirty little secret is that gamers don’t technically need to buy much, or have to care much if a game goes out of print. If you have the core books, you’re rolling – any further purchases you may or may not choose to make will be entirely at your discretion.
And it’s for this reason if no other that I can’t really see Pathfinder as being viable in the long term. They’re not only competing against 4e, they’re competing against 3e as well – it’s not like the publishing of 4e will magically make all existing copies of the 3rd edition stuff go “poof”. Anyone that wants to play 3rd edition can go right on doing so and never give another dime to either Paizo OR WotC.
RPGs aren’t like video games or operating systems in a fundamental way – the gamers can “patch” things themselves, rather than wait for (and pay for) the publisher to do it. Unity isn’t necessarily even important – while publishing companies might see a benefit in a less fractured market, it isn’t necessarily bad for the actual customers. Sure, it means you get less supplements and support PER GAME, but you get MORE GAMES, and new games trump new supplements IMHO – especially when the alternative is mediocrity like the d20 system (obviously IMHO there).
I do sympathise. The average table top gamer is someone that’s reasonably intelligent, mathematically proficient (at least with arithmetic), and – let’s face it, guys – overwhelmingly male. That’s not a big demographic to begin with, and not everyone in that demographic is interested in RPGs. So you HAVE to try and reach more players if you want to make bigger sales, and a universal system that you can take from game to game does theoretically make that easier (even if it’s not really a problem for the average table top gamer – with the attributes listed above – to learn a new system). But I would argue that the “gaming for the masses” is pretty much already over – they’re playing WoW. Hell, lots of the table top crowd are leaving the table and playing MMoRPGs now. So yeah, I can see the appeal of trying to expand the market, but I’m highly skeptical about how successful it will be.
As far as nw_meyer’s comments about WotC regressing, that may be because they changed from “the cool dudes that made Magic the Gathering” to “faceless suits owned by Hasbro” at roughly the point when most of those “lost their way” decisions started to be made. I have the same “WotC screwed Paizo” opinion that nw_meyer seems to have, but on the other hand I’m less enamoured of Paizo’s handling of Dragon. They ditched a lot of the features I loved (the April issue, Dragonmirth, and so forth) replacing it with basically “monster of the week” and “prestige class of the month” stuff that I found useless. I know that there’s a market for that sort of thing, but in the old days even if I wasn’t playing D&D I could still get a laugh from Dragonmirth and convert some of the articles over for use in Champions or Shadowrun – remember that after White Dwarf became a house organ, Dragon was pretty much all there was for roleplaying mags (unless you count KotDT – which, actually, you probably should), so I’m sure I wasn’t the only non-D&D player that collected it.
An interesting topic. One that I’ve been thinking about on and off lately.
I don’t think that the Google/Microsoft or Mac/PC analogies are quite accurate here, though. Paizo doesn’t need a huge chunk of the market for Pathfinder to be a success – especially since they’re fairly well-diversified. And spinning their own D&D version off of their established “Pathfinder” trademark is a good idea – it already has a built-in fanbase whose size is known. If they can get a good estimate how many of those folks will stick with them instead of (or in addition to) upgrading to the new version.
Where I think Paizo is taking a risk that may end up leading them to stumble with this is by essentially making their game “D&D 3.75”. People have always continued to play older editions of the game after new editions have been released and I think there will be people playing 3e for a long, long time. Heck I still plan on playing 3e for a while (I have a lot of Dungeon Magazine issues that have untouched adventures in them – nevermind a couple of Adventure Paths that have never been played). And if Paizo is putting out new stuff that’s compatible with 3.5 then I might end up picking it up. But if I have to buy a new version of the game to use their new stuff — if I effectively have to “upgrade” to D&D 3.75 — then that’s a different thing entirely. Some people may go along with it, but I think it’s a smaller pool of people that the overall group of folks who are just going to stick with the current version of D&D and not upgrade at all.
One component of Pathfinder that hasn’t seen much publicity yet is the “Pathfinder Society” RPGA style living gaming. I do wonder if they will draw on the Living Greyhawk RPGA players who have lost their home and don’t want to do the WOTC 4E Realms version. I’m not tied into RPGA enough to know the feelings on that, if there is a chunk of players or not, but it’s another topic to consider. Maybe it’s a bit enough chunk to give Pathfinder the sustainable base it needs.
I’m personally turned off by the Pay per month model of DDI. I don’t play enough to justify that, and it seems like there are too many strings attached. I know it may be ultra profitable for WOTC, but it’s just not for me. Are there a lot of gamers like me? I’m more likely to buy a pdf of Dungeon or Dragon than subscribe to DDI. And based on WOTC comments surrounding the Campaign setting books (ie a lot of the material will be available on DDI) it looks like WOTC is really pushing that business model. It’s kind of a scary expiriment that will have ramifications on the entire gaming industry. And as others have pointed out, WOTC tract record hasn’t been great.
Guess I’m just too old for these online subcriptions. Get off my lawn!
shadow145s last blog post..Gas tax political maneuver
Ahhhh so that’s what the Pathfinder society is going to be about? I geristered for one such game at GenCon and I was wondering what it was all about.
Thanks for the Heads up.
It’s a bit buried in the site, but:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety
Nick Logue the caffiene powered robot is the lead. Until he finally snaps and summons an Elder God (it’s really only a matter of time). At which point all this will seem kind of silly…
shadow145s last blog post..Gas tax political maneuver
Personally I don’t see what the two of them are doing as competitive. In fact, I can see Pathfinder causing continued sales of 3.5 books. If WotC stops printing the books they will still have PDF sales to go on.
In truth Pathfinder is really no more a threat than any of the other multitude of publishers who produced campaign settings for the D&D environment. WotC will derive plenty of attention through association. If 4e does end up getting a slow start, which I doubt, it should at least help keep them on the radar.
Jim Daviess last blog post..Demoing Changeling: the Lost
Hrm. Okay… I think I’d prefer if Paizo stayed successful. Since I’d prefer a market that’s less centric to one system. I think a lot will have to do with the timing of the offering though. If they let 4e get too much steam first then it’ll be hard for them to make their product stand up. I think once the 3rd party 4e stuff starts to show up it’ll be too late.
One of my normal playgroup is a guy who loves to hack at the system. I can say with some authority that past a certain point you don’t want to patch a system yourself unless you’re willing to basically write up your own new edition of the game yourself and hand out a full player’s handbook. Because past a certain point having to refer to multiple documents gets really hairy because the old documents don’t contain notes that tell you to check the new stuff. So when you level up you have to do it in reverse intuitive order and check the local patches first then refer to the official stuff (errata, unearthed arcana rules used, complete whatever books, etc) and then the player’s handbook last. Most people, even people who are willing to extensively mod a game, aren’t willing to effectively make their own edition. So extensive changes will almost always come from a publisher and not your local gaming group.
Due in part to the above (and not being stuck in the playtest group for new material), new offerings from publishers will have that “shiny when new” thing going. 4e will have more “shiny when new” factor than Pathfinder. That means more people will buy in initially. What they say about it will determine where it goes. Due to blogs like this and online reviews if one product is clearly superior the word will get out and by the time most casual gamers get around to buying they’ll either buy both or buy the best one if it turns out Wizards dropped the ball on 4e.
In either case I wouldn’t be getting an online subscription. I don’t think that’s the way to go honestly. I think the only way to sell people on buying online expansions is to give away the base product. Free pdfs and/or low cost printed books. Neither of those is happening so there’s an inherent, perhaps subconscious comparison between the physical book you have and the ephemeral online content which by nature is harder to use at a gaming table for most people. It’s very obvious which is the better value and it’s not the online widget. And if you print it out to get around this it would quickly become obvious that monthly fee + ink + paper would be quite a bit more expensive than the old Dragon and Dungeon magazines were.
The reason an online subscription is a win-win for them is simple. It’s way lower cost for them and noticeably higher cost for subscribers. I sincerely doubt their ability to provide value equal to this added cost.
“I’m more likely to buy a pdf of Dungeon or Dragon than subscribe to DDI.”
From the sound of it, you’ll be able to do that. You may not be able to get each issue monthly, but they were talking about several month compilation PDFs for sale.
I think one fascinating thing in this debate are all the fans who are mad FOR Paizo that Dragon and Dungeon went away. I personally didn’t support the decision (I thought Paizo was doing a fine job, even if I, like many, only picked up occasional issues of the magazines) but it sounds like fans were way more mad about it then Paizo was. Paizo had a long lead time to prepare, and seem to have kept running smoothly via Pathfinder.
Dave T. Games last blog post..An Instruction for All Xbox Live Users
Gazza said
“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that 4th edition will include a “3rd edition conversion guide” the same way 3rd did for 2nd (it won’t be particularly accurate – it wasn’t then, either – but it will exist). ”
I’m not sure we’ll see anything of the sort. James Wyatt has gone on the record saying “You can’t really just convert a character directly from 3e to 4e. We pretended you could do that from 2e to 3e, but that conversion book was pretty well bogus.”
Jeff Rientss last blog post..Yo! Five links!
I say hats off to Paizo for such a gutsy move in sticking with 3.5. As Jer mentioned though, I think it’s important to consider that they are implementing some major changes to the system. In fact, reading through the Beta versions of the Pathfinder source book, I could help thinking at various points “Wow, that change is similar to the design changes in 4E.” Not really the mechanic itself, but the philosophy behind it. The tweaks to the races and consolidation of skills are good examples of this.
So, here’s why I will go with 4E and not Pathfinder myself:
-Brand loyalty.
Yes I do bear some loyalty to WOTC. I want to be playing the name brand of D&D, not the generic. I know that attitude isn’t fair to Paizo, but there it is.
-I’m going to have to learn a new system either way.
Even though Paizo’s basically staying with 3.5, there are still significant changes I’ll have to learn. So if I’m going to have to transition anyway, why not spend the time to transition to 4E?
-There is something to be said for a system that has been rebuilt from the ground up.
WOTC has had 4E play tested more than any previous edition. I’m hoping that it is simply a better version (or vision?) of D&D. Paizo is just retrofitting the old version, so I pretty much know what I’m going to get at the core there.
-The online tools
I have high hopes for the online tools because it looks like WOTC is actually taking the tech offering seriously this time (e-tools was one of the biggest disappointments I had with 3E). The idea that I can get a weekly game together with old friends around the globe again is too tempting to pass up.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Paizo hater. In fact I have really enjoyed the Pathfinder adventure path so far. I hope Pathfinder is profitable for them, but I just don’t see it taking a sizable market share.
@CDM: Splintering is a Good Thing, for that is the path to freedom of choice and enlightenment.
I’ll explain using a Linux and Microsoft analogy. Heck, y’knew it had to come up some time, so I’ll bite 🙂
In one respect, Wizards is kinda like Microsoft. I’m not saying that Wizards //is// Microsoft, mind – they’re not //that// evil, but bear me out here…..
Wizards are following a Single Development Path a=>b=>c=>c.5=>d. While they are most definitely taking note of other developments in the RPG/Console game/online game/CCG arena, 95%-ish of what appears in their products is as a result of in-house playtesting and ideas. Whether that works for you depends on whether you subscribe to the mindset of This Month’s Wizard’s Employees.
What comes out of Wizards came from Wizards. It’s a closed (source) shop.
In contrast, the 3.5e crowd has turned into an uncontrolled open source beast, and that’s a Very Good Thing. Lots of different systems means it’s easy to find a system that suits *your* play style. It also means systems will try to improve in a competitive arena, meaning better systems overall – most of which are relatively interchangeable. It’s a Dynamic Development Path where each new edition of a game from //anybody// (including even the Real Stinkers) brings something new to the game table. Pick and choose.
Kinda like Linux. Lots of different distributions, all slightly different so it’s possible to find one that best suits your way of working, but all pretty interchangeable under the hood.
Choice = evolution, and who are we to argue with Mr Darwin, eh? 🙂
Besides, I’d **much** rather see 20 different mostly compatible systems in a bookstore than only one. Where’s the fun in that?!
@shadow145: I’m with you. I game too casually to justify spending $10 – $15 per month on “official” fluff & crunch when I can trawl any one of thousands of forums and blogs for game ideas. While I do like the whole online tabletop thing that they’re pushing, I think that it would be better served if they made it a “pay-to-play” system based on microtransactions (everyone from the players to the DM ponies up $0.50 USD to play a game online), made subscribing an option for those who play a lot (more than 20 games per month), offered prizes for said subscribers in a monthly lottery (game supplements, being in an online game run by a 4E designer, etc.), and offering a virtual Games Wanted board (for DMs or players, advertising for both virtual and face-to-face games), in addition to the added content.
I like the Google / XP vs. Microsoft / Vista analogy, but I think that it’s actually more of a Mac vs. Windows debate. In one corner you have Paizo, which would turn into more of a “niche” game, appealing basically to those who have already shelled out a lot of money for 3.5 material and are hungry for new published material for that version only. In the other corner you’ve got WOTC, who are pushing the “newest and shiniest” thing (which, if we’re honest with ourselves, is a really big factor in getting us gamers to buy a system) and are able to dictate the terms that Paizo is able to publish their own work using Pathfinder (the “community standards” clause is much more far reaching than most people think).
Meh? The gaming pie isn’t finite. It isn’t just D&D. Many gamers purchase more than one system and more than one set of supplements…I’ve got a lot of Fading Suns, a lot of Ars Magica, a decent amount of Conan, a smattering of other systems and supplements that I’ve augmented my games with or tried out on a whim. A lot of my gaming friends scattered about are like that, picking up Traveller or checking out All Flesh must be Eaten. I think this will keep the 3.5 system very much alive, and that’s a GoodThing(tm), because with the OGL there’s room for people to earn their chops developing for the system without having to bust into a specific company’s circle.
-Ben.
Bens last blog post..Design Log: The Black Art of High APL Encounters
“In fact, reading through the Beta versions of the Pathfinder source book, I could help thinking at various points “Wow, that change is similar to the design changes in 4E.” Not really the mechanic itself, but the philosophy behind it.”
I agree completely. A common criticism I’ve heard about 4e is when the designers say “we felt like X was a problem” the response is “I never had a problem with that in my game.” Are those people going to switch to Pathfinder, when they attempt to patch the same issues that 4e does, but keeping it closer to the vest? I’m not sure, but I’m interested to find out. I’m even more interested to see how many people actually PLAY Pathfinder, and don’t just buy it for other reasons (to steal some rules, to oppose WotC, to support the Open movement, whatever.)
Dave T. Games last blog post..An Instruction for All Xbox Live Users
After this message, 4e and Castle and Crusades both contend to be the true legitimate offspring of Gary’s Original game! They’ll fight it out onstage for your delight! Don’t go away!
Seriously, I can’t really add anything to this, great discussions! I’ll try to go for something more controversial next time… such as the 20-/35+ divide in RPGs… or why we intense male gamers scare away female gamer geeks 🙂
Same with 4e’s GSL, though. The OGL is more open for developing your own game, but when you’re talking about chop-earning in a system, that’s really beside the point.
I like is to look at how differing design philosophies attack similar problems. 4E decided it was time for a rewrite, and started from scrath. Pathfinder decided it wasn’t that broken, you could get away with just some modifications. Book of Expiramental Might goes about modifications a different way. Even True20 can be seen as a rules fix.
Each design philosophy has it’s own goals and constraints, and this results in different solutions. The beauty about RPG’s is that a DM doesn’t have to tie themselves to any one system. If a DM wants to start with Pathfinder, add on some rules from BOXM, and include Healing Surges and The death and dying mechanic from 4E, they can do that. WIth a video game like WOW you don’t have that freedom.
I completely lost my train of thought. I’m sure I had a point. Maybe I’ll remember it tonight after Iron Man.
shadow145s last blog post..Gas tax political maneuver
Lanir says:
“One of my normal playgroup is a guy who loves to hack at the system.”
Well, I have an entire group like that ;).
“I can say with some authority that past a certain point you don’t want to patch a system yourself unless you’re willing to basically write up your own new edition of the game yourself and hand out a full player’s handbook.”
In theory? Yeah, with you. In practice? WotC are much less competent about doing the patching than gamers are. 3.5 left unfixed many of the problems of 3.0, and introduced new “bugs” of its own (ala Shapechange and Gate). Indeed, WotC had at least half a dozen tries at getting Polymorph et al right, and none of their versions addressed any of the issues nearly as well as Rich did over at http://www.giantitp.com/articles/dC21fDHZ4tK8n5OjUm9.html and http://www.giantitp.com/articles/PbpHATjPkec7E82kEmo.html (not that his version is perfect either, but they’re a lot better).
In effect, all roleplaying games are “open source” since you can’t avoid publishing the “source code” along with your game – and just like in the software world, open source means that you don’t need to rely on the original developer to change things. Especially when the original developer got rid of its best “programmers” before releasing a major update.
But anyway, YMMV of course – my group and I have never left any RPG we’ve ever played untouched by house rules, and in the case of D&D (any version) we’ve never really found that NOT doing that was a realistic option, since they tend to break pretty easily if you sneeze at them hard. Official rules are useful to have for tournament play, I suppose (the only way I’ll ever see an RPG tournament is if I go to GenCon – and that’s a long commute for an Aussie), but little else.
I’m completely in favor of both Paizo and WotC doing what they want to do. I don’t think that gamers get wedded that closely to games – I have loads of games on my shelves and I don’t play just one all the time. I’m going to keep up with Paizo’s 3.57 and with WotC’s 4th Ed and will probably play some of both at some point. I think Paizo has a point – that there is a built-in community that is still happy with 3.x and that it is a viable system that they can use under the old OGL. I also think WotC has a point, that it is perhaps time for a new edition. I don’t love everything either company is doing, and from what I’ve seen Paizo is going to edge WotC out in quality (at least thus far), but I think they are both doing a good thing – getting a quality, supported game out there for us to play.
Dougs last blog post..A Little Parsec Update
I will use whatever rules set is the most fun to play. Period.
That said, I think that WOTC is shooting itself in the foot with trying to focus on the online/long-tail component too much. I know what they are trying to do and get every gamer paying $15.00 per month, but it is doomed. WOTC makes bad web sites. They cannot even get the RPGA site to work correctly and that is vastly simpler than the DnD online stuff they are pitching.
I will play 4th ed, but I have faith that WOTC’s online component will exceed my lowest expectation.
Trask, The Last Tyromancer
Trasks last blog post..How To Recruit a New Player
While I have said that WotC’s online performance in the past was bad, it doesn’t mean that it will be in the future.
If enough people do pay to get digital articles, the online supplements to books and buy some of the compilation in PDF, the money generated should foster a loop of continuous improvement.
It’s quite possible that the DIgital initiative is WotC’s kneejerk reflex to fix that historical weakness.
Regardless, much like you didn’t ‘miss out’ by not buying the Dungeon or Dragon Magazines, D&D insider will remain entirely optional.
Gazza:
It’s cool that your group is comfortable making the games fit their style. I can’t recall a game printed in the last decade or so that hasn’t explicitly mentioned that everyone should be doing that. And the only reason the earlier games didn’t mention the topic is because they were so certain it would happen that it wasn’t worth mentioning.
The point I was trying to make with the statement you quoted is that there is a point where if you mod the rules past it, you really should stop and compile all your changes. Since numerous people have made an open source software comparison here I’ll use one such project as an example since I’m reasonably familiar with the topic.
Normal open source software practice is a bug is found and fixed or a feature is desired and someone not on the core team sends a patch in. The patch would be looked over and if the people maintaining the source code thought it was worth adding, it would become part of the code. There was a project called qmail that was open source and could be patched but the author released it under a special license that said only he could actually add things into the code. You couldn’t release a patched version of the qmail source. You had to send out the base qmail source code plus your patches which someone else would have to apply. After awhile the author stopped adding patches to the code, deciding it was perfect as it was. Many people disagreed and made patches to add all manner of functionality to it.
Eventually qmail got to be much less popular because it didn’t adapt and having to patch the code yourself was clunky. The patches didn’t all play nice with each other either.
The analogy works pretty well here. If you have enough patches and have to continue to refer to them, at some point the only way to really make it clear how things work is to write up a document that has the base rules you use, including some unmodified information from (in this case) the player’s handbook. Where that point is can differ depending on the individual but at some point you are spending more time trying to correlate data from different sources than you would by making one document that defines your game.
I had to do exactly that Lanir. I opened a Google Group’s account just for keeping our House Rule straight!
Keeping this huge list played a role in us yearning for a new edition. (Altough some of the fixes of the Rules Compendium killed a few of them).
I will say this for Paizo’s decision. I had never heard of the company until they decided to break off and stick with 3.5. Now they have mental real estate as “the 3.5 company.” Since Wizards has switched and I’m not going to, if I ever decide I want to buy some source material I will go look at Paizo. So that is good publicity.
Good point Noumenon. At least the Branding has started establishing itself. The question remains, will you spend money to buy the Pathfinder RPG?
@all: Thanks for participating. I couldn’t keep up with individual comments but I do read them all!
It’s worth noting that Pathfinder did, in fact, go back to a “skill point” based skill system (heavily modified, slightly simplified).
A lot of the complaints about 3.5 are valid: grapple (to name just one of the problem combat maneuvers) is overly complicated; casters (especially wizards) are prone to “run out” of stuff to do. I’m sure the list could be longer, that’s just the first two that come to mind for me.
Paizo is actually doing a decent job of fixing those issues (the latest alpha is starting to look pretty good). Will it introduce other issues? Of course. Will they be resolved before release? Hard to say. The problem with a community effort in the gaming community is that there’s a lot of opinions out there, and they don’t all agree.
All that being said, and going back to the debate issue at hand… I think there are a couple things working against Paizo. I think the project is great idea. I think, however, that they started too late. They should have started work on this when 4e was first announce (or shortly after), for a release within a short period of time after 4e release. I think that there’ll be a window in there where 4e is trying to gain traction which would have been the best time for a “3.75” or whatever you decide to call it. With the large body of work for 3.5 material, anything that is “100% compatible” with it has a solid body to work from, especially with the delay in 3rd party support 4e (WotC’s own fault, really).
If Paizo could have released a “better” 3.5 during that first 6 months to a year, they would have had something there. All the people who wanted 3.5 fixed, but not replaced. With a release of August 2009, I think they’re just going to come to the party a little late. People who wanted 3.5++ will either just keep using 3.5, or switch to another 3.5 system that currently exists, or switch to 4e once the quantity of 3.5 material starts to dwindle. (There’ll always be the stuff that exists already, but how many times can you play the same module?)
That’s just my 2 pennies, though.
@Felonius: I agree with your ‘late to the party’ analogy. I think that the Gaming Licence snafu (for lack of a more precise word) ‘forced’ Paizo to go for an alternative business plan.
I don’t think that maintaining only vanilla 3.5 products would have been viable and they just couldn’t close shop until 3rd parties were allowed to publish 4e stuff.
At least with Pathfinder RPG they create a ‘need’ and by being all open about it, the maintain the necessary buzz to keep interest in the product while surfing on the ‘I won’t go the 4e way’ undercurrent.
I think that the months of June-July will be critical for that decision as the true reaction to 4e based on actual facts will be plastered all over the place… this blog included.
I believe Paizo will need a bucketload of bells and whistles to be heard over through the noise during that time…
But I’d love to be proven wrong!
I think that WotC will eat Paizo – and so many other independant publishers – alive. Is it a good business model? I don’t think so. Will it be lucrative? Probably, but it’s probably pennies compared to MTG and other cash cows.
Yaxs last blog post..Your inner dragon
I am not mad at Paizo for making the decision they made. Waiting until June to develop new gaming products that are printed in China and shipped to the US would be economic suicide. I do take offense at their comment that 4E did not provide the tools they needed to tell the stories they wanted to tell. That is just silly.
Almost all of the changes to 3.5 are things that WotC is changing in 4E. However, since Pathfinder RPG ports in all of the 3.5 splat books the late edition balance issues are still there. Pathfinder RPG is a half measure that will attract the people who want to treat the change of editions as some kind of betrayal by WotC.
“Splintering is the word, all right! Let me splinter it some more (just a little splinter). Personally, I’m very unhappy with the 4E stuff I’m reading, and frankly Paizo’s alpha release is not rocking my world either. Both embrace PC power inflation and run with it, for one thing. It has inspired me to ask myself, “well, smarty-pants, what would YOU do if you were making Fourth Edition D&D?”
And I’ve started to answer that question — by creating my own set of 4E rules! I’ve started with a philosophy of design, by looking at how 3E was such a huge leap ahead of earlier versions. Among those innovations:
– Elegance, ease of use, simplicity of mechanics.
– Transition from arbitrary rules and one-off creations to a unified design philosophy that applies to a wide range of simulations.
– Flexibility and player empowerment, especially in terms of character creation beyond first level.
– Balance among classes and multclass combos.
If you are interested, my first post on the topic is up:
http://www.cayzle.com/screeds/book067.html
@Barbican “However, since Pathfinder RPG ports in all of the 3.5 splat books the late edition balance issues are still there.”
I think one of the biggest balance problems from 3.5 that Paizo isn’t addressing is the so called “class dipping”… Is the 4e route the best way to go? Maybe not. I think Paizo’s solution is to make all the classes more interesting in-and-of themselves… Is that the best route? Doubtful.
Honestly, balance issues, especially when I comes to “splat” books is more the DM’s purview… There’s nothing in the rules (especially for 3.5) which will prevent players from abusing them…. Which is why class levels for monsters can be a lot of fun… Barbarian Trolls? heck yes. Half Dragon Barbarian Trolls? Hmmm… Suddenly it’s immune to fire, and has a breath weapon… Makes for a great solo encounter, without even being *too* crazy, that will mess with the players…
I think what Paizo is really trying to do is make the game more fun. And, from I’ve seen for the Pathfinder RPG, they’re actually doing a pretty good job… Wizards don’t run out of stuff to do after 2 encounters? Check. Combat Maneuvers simplified? Check. Races are more inherently interesting? Check. Skills even seem to be handled in a better fashion (It’s not the 4e route, it’s not the 3.5 route… It’s somewhere in between. If I recall correctly, it’s 1 skill point buys one rank, period. Skill bonuses are Ranks + Modifier + 3 if it’s a class skill for any of your classes…) Is Pathfinder RPG perfect? doubtful. Will the community be happy with it? The ones sticking to 3.5 will most likely find it to be (after all, they get some input into the process… They’ve already changed the combat maneuvers and skills due to community input).
@Cayzle
I would love to look over your rules, but some of the links, or something, seems to be broken… I did, however, look over some of the philosophies… and… Well… I don’t know if I agree with all of them… Some people will choose to play sub-optimal characters because they want a sub-optimal character… They want a bard with 8 charisma… They like the challenge inherent (I’m not fully up on my Robin’s Laws… What’s this type of player?). Is that one of the design philosophies in 4e? It seems that way, but it’s not a requirement that you take powers that fit your strengths (They posted most of what a rogue can do… You could always play a brutish rogue with a low strength, and take all the str related powers…).
Not all characters are created equally. Of course, that’s no reason to “nerf” a Wizard just because he decided to take 3 levels of fighter to fit a non-nerfed concept…
I think I lost my train of thought… If you see it, get it to a switching station and send it back to me…
LOL! Thanks, Felonius, for the comment. The later links are “broken” because I have not written those screeds yet! I just put the links there for later reference. I should mention that!
Yes, Paizo chose to allow all the old splat book content, and just beefed up the Core classes so that things balanced better by virtue of general power inflation. That’s a marketing decision. See, people who buy splat books are a key customer for the publishers, since these are people who actually buy product … lots of product. So when WotC says to the legions of splat book owners, “Throw away all your books,” Paizo says, “Keep them! They’re fine!” That’s Paizo’s market — diehard d20ers. And I can’t fault them for that.
But me, I’ve never held any truck with the splat books, and in my revision of D&D, I am happy to keep power levels low — at least on par with core 3.5.
Anyway, yes I agree that some people will choose sub-optimal characters because they want a challenge or want to play against type or want to make a particular character. More power to them. But the issue here is that some players want to make character multi-class combos that are on par with straight-up single class PCs, power-wise. We should be able to create a system that retains the near-infinite flexibility of 3E and yet also creates balanced characters easily.
@Cayzle: Hey glad to hear from you! I’ll go and have a look at your things later today! Sorry to see that 4e doesn’t seem to do it for you… Going and making your own is the perfect gamer response to it.
If you have the time, I’d be interested as to why you are unhappy with 4e.
@Felonius: Those players are called Outliers, people who set themselves up for failure… Since players get full control of character design since 3e with the point buy system of attributes and can make unworkable characters in any system, I would very much prefer that 4e does NOT actually make it a design philosophy to factor in for those… The Outlier will make it a personal quest to find the lamest possible character combo in 4e regardless of how hard WotC tries to make all character as useful in combat.
My 2 cents here.
As I think about this situation more I feel the XP vs. Vista argument is not quite right. Maybe a better analogy would be Firefox vs. Internet Explorer. Firefox is open source and very customizable whereas IE is perceived as the entry level browser that the average person uses because it works well enough for them an it came with the computer. D&D is IE. Those who want more seek out something different. Those who don’t stick with D&D. Can Paizo become the smaller but significant player in the field? I think it can if it wants to be. I see it becoming the flag bearer for 3.5 for sure. However, there are many other systems out there that will continue to get support. True20 could be Opera! 😉
Deadshot:
I can’t help but feel your analogy is backwards… or else breaks down quickly. IE is the one that is riddles with holes and exploits, yet refuses to change significantly. IE7 is a step to seal some of those holes, while still trying to keep the same broken core yet trying to give the impression of “newness” by wrapping it in a somewhat-new-looking facade
Honestly, that sounds like the Pathfinder RPG to me. 😛
Graham,
I can see where you are coming from. I guess I was focusing on the open source aspect of it rather than the holes. I would humbly submit that 4e is not an upgrade but switching to another system since many of the things that make D&D, D&D are gone. I just feels like a video game crunch system with none of the soul to me. I don’t think Paizo’s Pathfinder will fill the bill completely either. I think I am going to end up make some sort of Frankenstein edition. 3.54 or something like that. 🙂
Deadshots last blog post..The Discipline of Blogging