Elephant in the room/thread Forked Thread: Pathfinder - sell me

[Kamikaze Midget]

see here is the real thing, every one of these threads basicly is danceing the subject.
Piazo Vs WotC
4eVs Pathfinder

It's totally possible to enjoy (or dislike) both. I'm going to give Pathfinder a spin, but I'm saying odds-on that I just find it a more complicated 3e and thus don't have much use for it. And I'm well on record of being very critical of 4e (I play it, but that's more an accident of chance than an intention).

I think there's no real "vs." here. There's some competition, some rivalry perhaps, but there's no war.

Lets say 4e doesn't exsit. your choices are ONLY 3.5 from WotC, Pathfinder, True 20, and other misc games (rifts, GURPS ect)

What then sells pathfinder on it's own Vs say Mutants and Masterminds?
What about Rifts?

or how about this. What makes this worth rebuying the books I own form Wotc??? and what makes it worth me eaither spending time updating or throwing away 25+ classes that can not be done pathfinder (Not OGL)?

If there is no 4e, Pathfinder probably wins because it's an updated 3.5. I won't have to re-buy everything, but I'll be getting a better game experience for what I DO buy. Backwards compatibility is a big win here, because if WotC keeps pumping out 3e products, I can still use them with Pathfinder (and vice-versa).

Of course, if there is no 4e, there is no GSL, and so Pathfinder probably doesn't exist as such. It probably remains a campaign setting/adventure path for 3e, rather than modifying the game, perhaps "unearthed arcana" like in its house-rules.

WotC kind of forced Paizo's hand with their botching of licenses and amateurish timing problems. Without that, Paizo and WotC aren't even rivals, they're just two companies trying to sell me some keen gaming stuff.

[carmachu]

Originally Posted by Scribble

Umm... I could be reading it wrong, but he seems to have specifically taken 4e out of the equation in this post.

The problem is you cant take 4e out of the equation. You wouldnt have one without the other.

What is it about Pathfinder that makes it worth purchasing. From my point of view it seems to be somewhat at odds with itself. In one case it seems it's supposed to continu support for 3.5... In the other it seems to be about fixing some of the 3.5 knows issues.

Compatability. Uprgrading some of the issues of 3.x, the fact that it will be a supported system, now that 3.5 is dead. Quite a bit of support judging by the list of publishers signing up.

[Papa-DRB]

Originally Posted by GMforPowergamers

see here is the real thing, every one of these threads basicly is danceing the subject.
Piazo Vs WotC
4e Vs Pathfinder

Lets say 4e doesn't exsit. your choices are ONLY 3.5 from WotC, Pathfinder, True 20, and other misc games (rifts, GURPS ect)

The problem with taking 4E out of the equation is: If 4E did not exist, I believe that there would not be a Pathfinder RPG, as Paizo would not have felt the need to create it.

That said, I still prefer Pathfinder over 3.5E for the following reasons:

1) Simplified skill system, both 'combining' skills and the removal of 4x at 1st level. Someone posted the details earlier.
2) Tackling the polymorph problem, with what I believe is a viable solution.
3) Slight hit die power ups for the classes that needed it.
4) Power ups for the non spellcasting classes
5) Removing domains, and going with powers at different levels for spell casting classes, although this might get changed in the final version.
6) CMB (Combat Manevor Bonus) which replaces all the Grapple, Sunder, Trip, etc rules with a much simpler mechanic.
7) Miscellaneous spell tweaks (got rid of save or die mostly).

and the *real* big thing for me is the Cleric Channeling. Dramatically helps the "15 minute aventuring day" phenoma.

[carmachu]

Originally Posted by Puggins

I still think there would be a large audience for 4e Paizo Adventure Paths, and official statements aside, I think they're inevitable as long as 4e continues to prosper like it has. There's simply too much money on the table to ignore. If PHB3 hits the bestseller lists like PHB2 did, I'm betting we'll see the first Paizo 4e adventure path in late 2010, regardless of the success of Pathfinder.

Wishful thinking on your part. Their AP's are fairly successful as is, and 4e doesnt allow them to tell the stories they want due to SRD and the content issues.

They have a strong audience thats been buying their product, increasingly so since the release of 4e. why they would want to take the risk when they have something already profitable is just conjecture on your part.

[Remathilis]

Originally Posted by Kamikaze Midget

If there is no 4e, Pathfinder probably wins because it's an updated 3.5. I won't have to re-buy everything, but I'll be getting a better game experience for what I DO buy. Backwards compatibility is a big win here, because if WotC keeps pumping out 3e products, I can still use them with Pathfinder (and vice-versa).

Of course, if there is no 4e, there is no GSL, and so Pathfinder probably doesn't exist as such. It probably remains a campaign setting/adventure path for 3e, rather than modifying the game, perhaps "unearthed arcana" like in its house-rules.

WotC kind of forced Paizo's hand with their botching of licenses and amateurish timing problems. Without that, Paizo and WotC aren't even rivals, they're just two companies trying to sell me some keen gaming stuff.

Hmmm. I don't think Pathfinder has ANYTHING to do with GSL or the mangling of it therein. The OGL was in full effect, they could've continued to make (as they have until now) 3.5 compatible material until 4e was better primed (revised GSL material), then switch with great fanfare.

I think that Pathfinder has more to do with the folks at Paizo disliking 4e's direction and creating a way to create new stuff for a old system.

[Kamikaze Midget]

Hmmm. I don't think Pathfinder has ANYTHING to do with GSL or the mangling of it therein. The OGL was in full effect, they could've continued to make (as they have until now) 3.5 compatible material until 4e was better primed (revised GSL material), then switch with great fanfare.

I think that Pathfinder has more to do with the folks at Paizo disliking 4e's direction and creating a way to create new stuff for a old system.

The ideal direction for Paizo, I think, was to keep making Pathfinder products for whatever edition D&D was in.

They were made unable to do that, so they needed to take a different course.

From my memory, that mostly has to do with the GSL. I'm sure PF and 4e would've been a fine fit if the GSL had been available and acceptable early enough. Heck, I wouldn't be too surprised if Paizo is working on some 4e products ANYWAY, because I'm sure they play the game, and probably even enjoy it.

The existence of the PFRPG has more to do, from my memory, with the GSL and less to do with 4e per se.

[carmachu]

Originally Posted by malraux

Also, following up on mearls post here, I see this as addressing one of the big issues with OGL, the iterative improvements. I haven't followed the development of PF all that closely, but it seems to me like we could see this sort of incremental improvement with the smaller audience that PF will have (relative to the size of the 3e WotC market).

I find Mearls ironically wrong in that case. Game improvements were made in a variety of places, a variety of varients: Arcana Evolved, Iron Heros...*cough* two places alone.

The fact that WOTC didnt do anything with it doesnt make the OGL a failure. It makes it a failure to act and to try and incorporate those ideas and changes.....until 4e.

[Puggins]

Originally Posted by carmachu

Wishful thinking on your part.

That may very well be.

Their AP's are fairly successful as is, and 4e doesnt allow them to tell the stories they want due to SRD and the content issues.

This has nothing to do with their APs. This is about expanding and taking money that is very likely there to be taken.

I don't buy that 4e doesn't allow them to tell the stories they want. It's an acceptable public excuse and nothing more. Companies that leave money on the table generally don't do well in the long term. Paizo is a lot smarter than that. My prediction holds.

[Betote]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

Has anybody ever tried to "test" these GSL limits regarding content so far?
I tend to think they worry to much.

Well, after having their Dragon and Dungeon Magazines license removed without any offense by their part, and WotC's failure to deliver the GSL text in the promised time, I would be worried about having my children's food rely on WotC's management

It's almost ironic that their own Pathfinder license contains similar restrictions - not that I blame them for it, there are good reasons to do this if you're licensing out your name. You really don't want to be hurt by crap/questionable material other people put out.

The point is, you can publish material compatible with Pathfinder rules in two different ways:
* You can go OGL, use their stuff and publish whatever you want.
* You can use the Pathfinder license, put the logo on the cover of your product, and abide by their standards.

In the case of 4e, you only have the latter option (use the GSL), so if you want to publish 4e material, you must abide by WotC's standards. And they have an history of revoking and/or crippling licenses when they become too successful (Dragon/Dungeon, Ravenloft, HackMaster...), so using a license which lets WotC revoke it as an at-will power is, at least, risky.

[JoeGKushner]

Originally Posted by Puggins

That may very well be.



This has nothing to do with their APs. This is about expanding and taking money that is very likely there to be taken.

I don't buy that 4e doesn't allow them to tell the stories they want. It's an acceptable public excuse and nothing more. Companies that leave money on the table generally don't do well in the long term. Paizo is a lot smarter than that. My prediction holds.

Then why aren't all the old companies making 4e products if the "money's on the table?"

I believe it boils down to a few things.

1. Can we afford to hire more people to support 4e? Most game companies are small to start with. If they're doing well, how likely is it that they're going to branch out further than they have?

2. Can we afford to trust WoTC? 3.5 crushed sales and the early announcement of 4e further depressed them. By trying themselves to WoTC IP, they can make sales but are at WoTC whim at the same time. Some like Green Ronin have said, "We're good here, thanks."

[carmachu]

Originally Posted by Puggins

This has nothing to do with their APs. This is about expanding and taking money that is very likely there to be taken.

I don't buy that 4e doesn't allow them to tell the stories they want. It's an acceptable public excuse and nothing more. Companies that leave money on the table generally don't do well in the long term. Paizo is a lot smarter than that. My prediction holds.

Which requires the GSL, which they dont particularly like. As the SRD doesnt allow them nearly the same freedom to create stories and classes and other items they want.

They dont like 4e's method and rules. It doesnt allow them the same freedoms.

Care to make the gentleman's wager on that prediction? Because I doubt paizo is going to do their AP's, their world, and their adventures for 4e.

They might allow others to partner and run with it in 4e, most notiable perhaps Necromancer. But I'm certain that Paizo itself isnt jumping into the 4e pool.

[billd91]

Originally Posted by Remathilis

Hmmm. I don't think Pathfinder has ANYTHING to do with GSL or the mangling of it therein. The OGL was in full effect, they could've continued to make (as they have until now) 3.5 compatible material until 4e was better primed (revised GSL material), then switch with great fanfare.

I think that Pathfinder has more to do with the folks at Paizo disliking 4e's direction and creating a way to create new stuff for a old system.

Paizo people have said, on more than on occasion, that the lateness of the original license forced them to commit to a direction that excluded 4e for 2008. I think the success of that direction and disappointment with 4e's direction and the GSL supported their decision and extended it.

Saying that GSL issues, in this case the lateness of it, has nothing to do with PF is skirting awfully close to calling Paizo staffers liars. It's not the whole reason they're doing PFRPG, but to say it didn't have anything to do with it runs contrary to their own statements.

[ShinHakkaider]

Originally Posted by billd91

Paizo people have said, on more than on occasion, that the lateness of the original license forced them to commit to a direction that excluded 4e for 2008. I think the success of that direction and disappointment with 4e's direction and the GSL supported their decision and extended it.

Saying that GSL issues, in this case the lateness of it, has nothing to do with PF is skirting awfully close to calling Paizo staffers liars. It's not the whole reason they're doing PFRPG, but to say it didn't have anything to do with it runs contrary to their own statements.

It's not close to calling them liars, it pretty much is calling them liars. I'm fairly certain that James Jacobs and / or Erik Mona have explained thier reasons both here and on the Paizo site more than once.

[Elephant]

Ahem? What's this about me being in the room?

[smug]

Originally Posted by Remathilis

Hmmm. I don't think Pathfinder has ANYTHING to do with GSL or the mangling of it therein. The OGL was in full effect, they could've continued to make (as they have until now) 3.5 compatible material until 4e was better primed (revised GSL material), then switch with great fanfare.

I think that Pathfinder has more to do with the folks at Paizo disliking 4e's direction and creating a way to create new stuff for a old system.

They had to make the decision miles in advance, really, because of the lead time for their APs. The GSL was way too late and when it came it out it was poisonous (so they were right not to wait for it). The revised GSL was laughably late and has restrictions on content that are not there in the OGL.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Elephant

Ahem? What's this about me being in the room?

I'd prefer not to talk about it.

[rounser]

I don't buy that 4e doesn't allow them to tell the stories they want.

Why not? It doesn't let me tell the stories I want; the implied setting's all wrong, for starters, with an all-core grab bag that includes some seriously goofy PC races and at least one contrived class that doesn't fit the core. Then there's the implausible mundane abilities and the unmagical magic, clerics who hit to heal, one HP demons, guys who can kill you by insulting you, and "healing surges", all design conveniences that don't necessarily make sense in a story context.

There's plenty to potentially alienate the storyteller and worldbuilder who liked earlier D&D in 4E. Even details like adventuring parties being some sort of weird mobile war are all wrong and silly from an earlier edition D&D point of view, IMO.

[Hexmage-EN]

Originally Posted by rounser

Why not? It doesn't let me tell the stories I want; the implied setting's all wrong, for starters, with an all-core grab bag that includes some seriously goofy PC races and at least one contrived class that doesn't fit the core.

Which class is that?

Originally Posted by rounser

Then there's the implausible mundane abilities and the unmagical magic, clerics who hit to heal, one HP demons, guys who can kill you by insulting you, and "healing surges", all design conveniences that don't necessarily make sense in a story context.

I assume you mean the Bard's "Vicious Mockery". I thought that was weird, too, until I learned that there's a mythological basis for it. In Irish myth bards supposedly had the power to make people sick just by saying negative things about them.

[Krensky]

Originally Posted by Puggins

I don't buy that 4e doesn't allow them to tell the stories they want.

Considering how much they're redefined and changed the fluff for, well, pretty much everything combined with the adult nature of a lot of things in the APs and modules I don't see how they could.

[rounser]

Which class is that?

The "warlord". Doesn't fit an adventuring party where there are no soldiers to order around, name not appropriate to level or definition of term "warlord", no D&D archetype except if we redefine D&D conceptually as no more than a skirmish wargame, undermines the independence of other PCs and the nature of the D&D hero and adventuring party by giving orders like they were underlings rather than peers, is magically wiser at the specialists role than the specialists, and is just plain a bad idea.