Mike Mearls On the OGL

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's not about how compatible it actually is, it's about how compatible folks think it is.

There's already considerable fracturing around the edges, and I think Paizo has more work to do to hold onto those players than, "Wait and see."

For the record, I think that perception of incompatibility is wrong, but folks can be petulant about it.

Struggling with the perception of things can be the real problem.

Some say "4E is like WoW". I vehemently disagree, but if that's their perception, what can I do?

Some say "Pathfinder is not backwards compatible to D&D 3.5!". You disagree, but if that's their perception, what can you do?

Well, this is probably a topic for other threads...

 

[xechnao]

It's not about how compatible it actually is, it's about how compatible folks think it is.

There's already considerable fracturing around the edges, and I think Paizo has more work to do to hold onto those players than, "Wait and see."

For the record, I think that perception of incompatibility is wrong, but folks can be petulant about it.

Wulf
I understand that Paizo's Pathfinder marketing has been about backwards compatibility among other things. But what the heck does backward compatibility practically means? Is it about levels? What levels are about then? Target numbers, Hit Points and average damage? Just make a frickin list and state the desirable values of these parameters for each level. Add if you want guidance regarding special effects such as damage reductions or whatever for each level; just offer such guidance.

Pathfinder's goal for now should be to attract these people that could have been attracted towards 4e but decided not to for various reasons.
Let the people bitch and moan. As long as Pathfinder is not broken and gets people bother with it, it can do good. Its goal should be to be a fun game to play with but without the negativities of 4e (these are loss of verisimilitude and one-dimensional gamist gameplay focused on its limited mini rules - 4e does bring to the max the potential for gamist fun of these rules though: this is 4e's merit, this is what it is all about: to clarify this: 4e does not achieve to be as fun as one can be but what it achieves is to make as fun as possible its limited rules can be-something that 3e did not achieve).

Pathfinder has to care to two kinds. People that do not like 4e and people that are angry for their 3e investments going down. What it has to eventually do though is to beat 4e: it can't limit itself to be a reprint of 3e. It has to expand and be better than what else its out there.

Erik knows that. Or I believe he does. This is what I take from his messages.

EDIT:
for Maggan

They might very well be hokum, but that raises the extremely important question, one to which any answer will have ramifications for an entire industry ...

What the heck is "hokum"?

/M

PS. And let me just say, for the record, that backwards compatibility will be the key point for me getting into the Pathfinder RPG.

Maggan since you mention backwards compatibility. If you disagree with my opinion here, please explain how you really see the matter and what you really want.

 

[Maggan]

Maggan since you mention backwards compatibility. If you disagree with my opinion here, please explain how you really see the matter and what you really want.

I haven't given it that much thought, but what I want is simple to say, less simple to do.

What I want is Pathfinder to work seamlessly with my 3.5 books. And that includes the PH. I want to be able to mix freely, and e.g. use one class from the PH with one class from Pathfinder.

That to me is what I want. I realise that such a thing might not be at all possible, but the closer Pathfinder is to such an ideal situation, the larger the possibility of me buying it.

/M

 

[xechnao]

I realise that such a thing might not be at all possible, but the closer Pathfinder is to such an ideal situation, the larger the possibility of me buying it.

/M

Except, of course, if Pathfinder is so much better for your taste that you will still buy it. Right?
What I mean is that the primary focus will be to make something as good as possible overall and the secondary one to respect one certain condition that does not directly have to with the overall quality of the product.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

What it has to eventually do though is to beat 4e: it can't limit itself to be a reprint of 3e.

Nonsense.

Pathfinder doesn't have to beat 4e to be successful.

Which is fortunate, since nothing is going to beat 4e.

 

[xechnao]

Nonsense.

Pathfinder doesn't have to beat 4e to be successful.

Which is fortunate, since nothing is going to beat 4e.

I think you missed my point.
No, it does not have to beat 4e in sales to be successful. Right now nothing is going to beat 4e as you say.
But it has to beat 4e in rpg design and appeal to be successful -4e has issues and Pathfinder needs to do better. This is what I am talking about. And when 5e hits the door, if Pathfinder has not come close to this goal, it will have to face even higher competition than it does now. If it can't, it s future will be in serious doubt.

 

[philreed]

Paizo is 100% committed to open gaming.

And not alone, if I'm reading the signs properly.

Now that I see 4e is a non-option for projects, I'm watching Pathfinder very closely. So far, I like what I'm seeing.

 

[Maggan]

Except, of course, if Pathfinder is so much better for your taste that you will still buy it. Right?

Nah. If Pathfinder is not a tool for me to use my existing and extensive library of D&D3.5 books (all of them), then I'll pass. I've got plenty other options, like WFRP and WH40kRP and Call of Cthulhu and D&D3.5 and 4 to play anyways, so I don't really fancy another book which is incompatible with D&D3.5.

What I mean is that the primary focus will be to make something as good as possible overall and the secondary one to respect one certain condition that does not directly have to with the overall quality of the product.

For me, the quality of the backwards compatibility will be the dealmaker or dealbreaker. Otherwise, I might as well just buy another game, there are loads of good games out there.

/M

 

[xechnao]

If Pathfinder is not a tool for me to use my existing and extensive library of D&D3.5 books (all of them)
/M

What I do not get is this: you say that Pathfinder has to be a tool to use your 3.5 books. But ain't your 3.5 books a tool by themselves designed to be able to be used first hand? How can Pathfinder be a tool for this tools? This does not make sense to me.

 

[Sunderstone]

Bottom Line is that I never bought third party stuff ever, until the OGL. Necromancer Games in particular was an eye opener for me, then Paizo with its Dungeon Mag work, followed by Goodman etc.
As a consumer, Im guessing this had to be great for the hobby as it made me buy more stuff from more 3PP. Im sure I wasnt alone either. Anything that can boost sales for our "niche" hobby is good, again imho.

I really cant see how Mearls can see anything in the OGL as a failure. Im guessing his opinions are more "corporate" in nature, also that he knows where his bills get paid.

Its spin to try and validate some of the overly draconic GSL.