Pathfinder 1E If Paizo can, why can't Wizards of the Coast?

[Mercurius]

Here we have [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Pathfinder-Chronicles-Campaign-Erik-Mona/dp/1601251122"]Exhibit A[/ame], the original Pathfinder Campaign Setting book published in August of 2008, and here is [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1601252692/ref=pd_1ctyhuc__sbs_02_01"]Exhibit B,[/ame] the Revised Edition, subtitled "World Guide: The Inner Sea," but I would assume that it is effectively the same book somewhat expanded and revised, to be published in March of 2011.

So we have a revision of a major release just two and a half years after it first came out. We can also cite Fantasy Craft, which came out with a revised version - presumably with only minor adjustments and errata, but with a new publisher - only a year after first being published. That also is an expensive ($50ish) book.

My somewhat rhetorical question is, why can the gentle folks at Paizo and the Crafty Crew do this, but when Wizards of the Coast does this - whether with 3.5 or 4E, or even Essentials - many people cry foul? Is it just a matter of Wizards being The Man in the RPG world, so anything they do is inherently following some Evil Scheme To Rule The World? Or is it because there are many more WotC consumers? Or is it something else? (Maybe WotC is truly, inherently evil, and I just missed my save vs. charm many years ago?).

We can go beyond Paizo and Crafty and look at many RPGs which have multiple editions, often spaced much closer together than Dungeons & Dragons. Look at, for instance, Call of Cthulhu, which is one of the most hallowed "Indie" RPGs ever, with a dozen editions and sub-editions and anniversary editions over a 25-year period. I suppose one could say, "But they don't come out with thousands of dollars worth of product that is invalidated by the new edition."

I have never truly gotten this argument - the invalidation of previously published material. Is the 1st edition Dungeon Master's Guide useless because of 2E, 3E, 3.5E, 4E, and Essentials? Not at all - it is a wonderful source of ideas and tips, even to this day, and perhaps THE classic roleplaying book that every gamer, or at least every GM, should have on their shelf. Now that's an extreme example, but what about those dozens of 3.5E hardcovers? Are they invalidated and useless with the publication of 4E? Not at all. You have two options: 1) You could keep on playing 3.5E (or Pathfinder) and continue as you were, or 2) You can play 4E and mine those books for ideas, or convert bits and pieces as desired.

Here is the bottom line: Nothing is invalidated in the D&D tradition, nothing lost, and nothing no longer usable. DMs are, or should be, an inherently creative bunch, and it doesn't take a lot to convert Death's Ride to 4E, if you so desire. This is not to say that Wizards of the Coast, as a subsidiary of Hasbro, a company--like 99% of companies--primarily interested in making profit, doesn't have business in mind when they come out with new books, editions, and sub-editions, but that no matter what they do, it does not invalidate previous material.

Furthermore, and more relevant to my main point, we shouldn't cry foul every time they try to improve or refresh the game with a new edition. Yes, the new edition (or sub-edition or revision) has profit as a driving factor, but it isn't the only factor. And the two key factors: profit and game improvement, are not inherently mutually exclusive. I don't think Wizards came out with 4E just to make more money; they also came out with it because they thought it was an improvement, an evolution of the game, and as any artist or creative type knows, one is always seeking to improve their craft, their art (their game).

Again, this does not mean that profit-mindedness does not sometimes get in the way of creative development. I would say that it sometimes, even often, does (see, for example, Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time fantasy series). One could argue that 4E was a bit rushed, that it could have used some ironing out, another year of playtesting, and a few more bucks towards editing. But I'm guessing that in 2006, or whenever internal talks of a new edition began in earnest, the people at Wizards did not say "Let's create a new version of D&D without any concern for quality or innovation, just to start the cycle again and make more money." They probably said something to the effect of, "Let's use a new edition as an opportunity to both integrate new insights and ideas into the game, and to start a new cycle of money."

The point being, the two--profit potential and new ideas--have to, and seem to in the case of D&D, coincide for a new edition to occur. I don't see why we can't extend this to revised "sub-editions" so that we could, for example, get revised and re-formatted versions of the core books without people crying "Wizards is Evil!" As I said in another thread, I would certainly be very happy with a revised version of at least the Player's Handbook and probably the other two as well. In fact, I would say that it is high-time to do so, that it is almost creatively irresponsible not to do so, given the insane amount of errata and tweaks that have occurred since it was published two and a half years ago.

I would hope that Wizards of the Coast would not stop from improving their product because of Fear of Nerdrage, because knee-jerk nerdrage is actually antithetical to creative development and game evolution, as much or even more so than the (supposed) profit-mindedness that it is often in reaction to.

 

[Reynard]

Well, to cite your Inner Sea example, I think it is "acceptable" because the original was notmade for Pathfinder, and is currently out of print.

As to the rest: is it progress when we move beyond edition wars to company wars? I imagine a Shadowrun like Corp War between Paizo and WotC, complete with goblin arson raids and elastin shock troops.

 

[IronWolf]

Here we have Exhibit A, the original Pathfinder Campaign Setting book published in August of 2008, and here is Exhibit B, the Revised Edition, subtitled "World Guide: The Inner Sea," but I would assume that it is effectively the same book somewhat expanded and revised, to be published in March of 2011.

I think a big difference is that this is the Campaign Setting and not a ruleset. The Golarion campaign setting books contain a large amount of fluff and very little crunch. So revising the campaign setting is just a way to get it back in print and add some more information on certain areas and such. Revising rulesets that the game is based on is apt to cause more comment simply because it is the structure the game is played on and has greater impact.

 

[Umbran]

My somewhat rhetorical question is, why can the gentle folks at Paizo and the Crafty Crew do this, but when Wizards of the Coast does this - whether with 3.5 or 4E, or even Essentials - many people cry foul?

Well, for one thing, you need to compare apples to apples. Revising a campaign setting is not equivalent to a rules edition change. While many folks like Paizo's setting, I'd expect that the bulk of Pathfinder players are busy in their own campaign worlds.

I think if Paizo made a bunch of changes in their core rules right now, you'd probably hear some grumbling.

Fantasy Craft may be a good game, but I don't expect it to have a large enough presence on these boards for us to notice grumblings.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Here we have Exhibit A, the original Pathfinder Campaign Setting book published in August of 2008, and here is Exhibit B, the Revised Edition, subtitled "World Guide: The Inner Sea," but I would assume that it is effectively the same book somewhat expanded and revised, to be published in March of 2011.

This isn't a new set of rules. This is a supplement being revised for the Pathfinder rules which was previously published under the 3.5 rules.

We can also cite Fantasy Craft, which came out with a revised version - presumably with only minor adjustments and errata, but with a new publisher - only a year after first being published. That also is an expensive ($50ish) book.

FantasyCraft is receiving a second printing (not a new edition) and, taking advantage of this new printing, errors in the original text are being corrected.

I've never seen anyone complain about the idea of WotC releasing new printings of the core rulebooks which have been corrected with errata.

Look at, for instance, Call of Cthulhu, which is one of the most hallowed "Indie" RPGs ever, with a dozen editions and sub-editions and anniversary editions over a 25-year period.

Every one of which remains completely compatible with previous editions of the game. Chaosium simply doesn't use the term "edition" to mean "completely different version of the game" in the way that the rest of the industry does; so, yet again, you're comparing apples and oranges.

In short, people don't get upset by these other examples you're citing because these other examples are all fundamentally different from the 3.0 -> 3.5 or 3.5 -> 4.0 shift in D&D.

Here is the bottom line: Nothing is invalidated in the D&D tradition, nothing lost, and nothing no longer usable.

Unless you want to participate in living campaigns. Or if continued official support in the form of fresh supplements is important to you. Or if being able to obtain rulebooks for new players is desirable.

But I'm guessing that in 2006, or whenever internal talks of a new edition began in earnest, the people at Wizards did not say "Let's create a new version of D&D without any concern for quality or innovation, just to start the cycle again and make more money."

I, on the other hand, would be utterly shocked if financial concerns and business planning weren't the primary factors in determining the release date of the new edition.

 

[El Mahdi]

... is it progress when we move beyond edition wars to company wars? I imagine a Shadowrun like Corp War between Paizo and WotC, complete with goblin arson raids and elastin shock troops.

But remember, WotC still has Voidcorp in reserve (they're just gathering dust in the WotC warehouse since the end of Star*Drive...)



...Humor Skill Check = Fail!

 

[ExploderWizard]

Any company can publish/revise whatever it thinks will be in it's best interests without being "evil" in any way. There are pitfalls for doing too much too soon that need to be accounted for.

Every edition, revision, and re-introduction of a popular game fragments the fan base to a greater or lesser degree. Supporting only the latest incarnation of the product means dealing with an ever shrinking active support base unless support for the product type as a whole grows dramatically. Rpgs start out as a niche industry already. Frequent fragmentation of such a limited consumer group can easily become a slide into financial seppuku. Trying to support a bunch of editions can lead to the same place though.

The fine line between pushing new ideas and tolerance of the consumer base is a dangerous one. Every revision/edition is a potential stop along the route that some consumers will invaiably use to exit. The trick is in getting more new riders to jump on than are leaving.

That is a universal marketing issue but the particular problems it poses for rpg gamers is somewhat unique. Moreso than almost any other product type, games are marketed to potential players by existing gamers. Every passenger who gets off that train might convince an entire cabin full of potential passengers to remain at a particular stop with them. With so much competition for such a select group of passengers (gamers) the train gets tougher to keep full the farther along it goes. Harder still is getting fresh new passengers who are not already inclined to get on board.

Combine those challenges which are everpresent, with an economic downturn in which a niche group of consumers are watching every gaming dollar more closely and the risks of consumer intolerance skyrocket. Tack on any perception of quality decline and things start to look fairly grim.

 

[billd91]

Things may not get 'invalidated' but the value of a reference work will go down when it gets supplanted with later versions. The 1e DMG decreased in value the minute the game table moved to 2e because fewer sections of it were of use to the ongoing game even if there was still good DM advice to be found in its pages.

With respect to Paizo and Chaosium getting away with updated materials and new editions of the same stuff in relatively short time frames, they probably also work with much smaller and less frequent print runs. If a resource has been out of print and out of stock a year or so, enough ideas may have changed around the company that it's worth not merely reprinting but also revising the book. In the case of the Golarion campaign setting, Paizo has made the shift from 3.5 to PF, so there's a real case for making the revisions that would make it a better resource for PF. In the case of Chaosium and Call of Cthulhu, they're only on their 6th edition since 1981. That's a mere 2 editions more than D&D in a similar time frame and most editions have been highly compatible.

 

[Mercurius]

It is a good point that some have mentioned that my first example is that of a setting, not a rules system, and that there would likely be more outcry if we were seeing Pathfinder 2E so soon. Point taken.

As to the rest: is it progress when we move beyond edition wars to company wars? I imagine a Shadowrun like Corp War between Paizo and WotC, complete with goblin arson raids and elastin shock troops.

Funny. Just a point of clarification, though: I am not trying to incite "company wars," I am just pointing out that it seems some companies are more prone to criticism and suspicion than others; as a general rule, the larger a company is relative to its market, the more tomatoes get thrown their way. Maybe that is how it should be?

Every one of which remains completely compatible with previous editions of the game. Chaosium simply doesn't use the term "edition" to mean "completely different version of the game" in the way that the rest of the industry does; so, yet again, you're comparing apples and oranges.

In short, people don't get upset by these other examples you're citing because these other examples are all fundamentally different from the 3.0 -> 3.5 or 3.5 -> 4.0 shift in D&D.

Unless you want to participate in living campaigns. Or if continued official support in the form of fresh supplements is important to you. Or if being able to obtain rulebooks for new players is desirable.

Yes, true. But again, I think the hyperbole about incompatibility is a bit extreme. I am reminded of some of my high school students that are up in arms with just about any change that the faculty makes to the schedule. It isn't simply the mentality that change is bad, even (possibly) good change; what I am talking about is more of a lack of creative flexibility in terms of making something compatible. It just takes a bit of imagination.

I also don't see a big problem with either fresh supplements or out-of-print rulebooks. There are tons of used books available and usually at affordable prices (although the 3.5E PHB is a tad expensive at $30+). And as far as fresh supplements go, part of the reason for a new edition is the glut of supplements in the previous edition; the point being, there are only so many possible new supplements, especially splats, that are possible without completely diluting content.

That said, I think the concern about being part of a living campaign is legitimate. But what to do about that? I suppose that adherents to former editions would simply have to get together and create their own. And there is always Pathfinder

I, on the other hand, would be utterly shocked if financial concerns and business planning weren't the primary factors in determining the release date of the new edition.

True, and to be clear I didn't say otherwise. I am sure it is one of the primary factors, but I just don't think it is the only factor and that it must coincide with a wealth of new ideas and innovations. But also, you are specific with your language: the release date is largely determined by financial concerns, but a new edition itself is not (only).

I'm late to go pick up my daughter at kindergarten! Will return in a bit...

 

[TheYeti1775]

As to the rest: is it progress when we move beyond edition wars to company wars? I imagine a Shadowrun like Corp War between Paizo and WotC, complete with goblin arson raids and elastin shock troops.

I think WotC would have Ogre Guards and Paizo Kobold troops.
That and I have to spread before giving you more exps.

-------------------------------
Now back to the OP.

It's easy to explain.
Paizo - as was mentioned is bringing their world from 3.5 to Pathfinder. More of a tweaking than a real rules change.
The other gaming companies, very rarely is there any that made a huge leap in material that can be used together throughout.

Without going into Edition War (EW) mode, each of the previous Edition jumps for D&D were really minor. And in many opinions an improvement.
We were blessed with long stretches between editions as well. Most older players probably played more of a 1.75E game vice a full on 2E game.
But many were burned on the 3E to 3.5E jump. Sure it didn't invalidate anything, but if you wanted corrected errata you had to get the books again. Not really that major of a deal, nothing game breaking though. Just grumbles.

I think what burned/fueled up the EW's during 4E's release was more of a why are you doing this again leftover feeling from the previous release. That and there is a quote running around here to the effect "we are not working on 4E" and the next GenCon has an announcement for it.
It's more of a Public Relations blunder than anything, and WotC in my opinion has more than its fair share of those.
Topped with the fact the game did radically change in it's function.
Sure we knew these were things they thought about changing the game towards (see Book of Nine Swords), but feedback would have told them that Bo9S was banned at as many game tables that allowed it.

PR is a nightmare for WotC, and in the eyes of many since they are the 800lbs Gorilla in the Dungeon they will be held to blame.