My piazo problmes Forked Thread: Another Cease and Desist Letter: 4E Powercards

[Mark]

It's as fair to judge Pathfinder based on what we have seen so far as it is/was to judge 4e based on previews.

Maybe, if you are judging things about the Beta of Pathfinder that definitely are not going to change against previews of 4E that occured once the books had gone to the printers, or you are judging things about Pathfinder that will change against previews of 4E that did change before the final galleys went to the printers. Probably better to compare Pathfinder aspects versus situations in 3.5 play that were problematic and try to get Paizo to recognize such things and change them prior to finalizing their changes. That has more potential of being a worthwhile pursuit at this point in time.

 

[catsclaw227]

to this date, over 45,000 downloads of the rules and the corresponding flood of posts on the playtest forums.

I hope you guys are using marketing numbers other than this. If you pair the above numbers with the habits of my local players, about 10 of us downloaded the rules to check them out, but probably only 1 or 2 will be buying the final book (if that, those players likely to buy are already pretty heavily invested in 4e so will probably buy only for the sake of completeness or because they want to support Paizo).

In our group, we all downloaded the beta PDF (it WAS free, after all) but none of us really has even looked at it. We are busy playing and enjoying 4e. It doesn't mean that I won't consider Pathfinder once it goes live, but we are really deep into and loving 4e. So that's 6 downloads that really shouldn't be considered for your marketing analysis.

How's that for a little irrelevant anecdotal evidence for you to swish around with your mouthwash.

 

[Psion]

Changes are necessary. If they didn't change anything, there would be no reason to go to Pathfinder.

At a fundamental level, not really. Paizo couldn't hope to keep selling products for an out-of-print game. So they needed to make an in print version.

That said, I think there are good reasons for some changes; despite 4e going the wrong direction for many 3.5 players, it has a lot of things that could be better. However, the task remains to continue to march by their original marching orders: something that lets you use Pathfinder adventures with 3.5 and 3.5 material with Pathfinder RPG.

There are also some who see a major disconnect between 3.5 and 4e. Pathfinder will not be 3.5 by a new name, but it will be closer to 3.5 than 4e is.

AFAIAC, so far Pathfinder beta seems to retain essential identifying characteristics of D&D, whereas 4e does not. IMO/YMMV/etc.

 

[James Jacobs]

With the Pathfinder RPG coming out and the new APs and adventures to follow, obviously you can't hav NPCs with classes or prestige classes that aren't OGL. But that's an awful lot, and the things that made your Dungeon APs great were the variety of NPC classes/prestige classes and the monsters from non SRD sources.

We can't use classes and prestige classes that aren't OGL, but we CAN use content from the already vast open d20/OGL options out there. And I do suspect that we'll start building our own options; we already are, in fact, in several of our current products. I fully expect that in the PFRPG adventures we'll publish, we'll be using content from open 3.0 and 3.5 content just as we are now, in other words. The adventures will not be restricted to what's in the PF RPG. There's a LOT of existing open 3rd edition content that's great, and the main goal of the PFRPG is to keep that content viable so it can still be used. That goes for publishers as well as gamers.

And this leads to another question. When you start (eventually) making splat books with classes and races, won't these make the older 3.5 library obsolete as well? I assume you aren't stopping at the one book and thats it.

We will indeed be producing more rules content books, but on a MUCH slower pace than what came out for 3.5. If we DO, for example, make a samurai or a ninja or a berserker class or prestige class, that might make the older incarnation obsolete... but only if the GM likes the new version better than the old version. I doubt we'll ever match (or even come close to) the amount of prestige classes and similar options that were created for 3.5.

So backward compatibility is just a temporary goal to satiate the current players until you reproduce the new classes and prestige classes and feats and new mechanics that you will eventually produce. I mean, it just makes good business sense, but let's be honest about it. Backward compatibility is not the goal here, it's really just a nice turn of phrase for a stop-gap until you make it yourself.

Actually... the bulk of what we'll be producing each month will remain adventures and sourcebooks, NOT rules supplements. Adventures (and in particular, Adventure Paths) is what we do best, and what makes us the most money, after all. As I indicate above, compatibility with 3.5 lets US use the old content as well as the customer, and that lessens the need to rush out new versions of samurais and ninjas and pirate prestige classes and so on and so on.

 

[James Jacobs]

I hope you guys are using marketing numbers other than this. If you pair the above numbers with the habits of my local players, about 10 of us downloaded the rules to check them out, but probably only 1 or 2 will be buying the final book (if that, those players likely to buy are already pretty heavily invested in 4e so will probably buy only for the sake of completeness or because they want to support Paizo).

The number of Beta downloads is convenient because it's a public number; we've got plenty of other marketing numbers and research and whatnot to help us decide what our print run for the PFRPG should be. It's just a handy public number to show off, really, to show that there's a pretty sizable group of people who are PFRPG-curious.

 

[catsclaw227]

We can't use classes and prestige classes that aren't OGL, but we CAN use content from the already vast open d20/OGL options out there. And I do suspect that we'll start building our own options; we already are, in fact, in several of our current products. I fully expect that in the PFRPG adventures we'll publish, we'll be using content from open 3.0 and 3.5 content just as we are now, in other words. The adventures will not be restricted to what's in the PF RPG. There's a LOT of existing open 3rd edition content that's great, and the main goal of the PFRPG is to keep that content viable so it can still be used. That goes for publishers as well as gamers.

You are right, there is a lot of good OGL stuff out there and it's good that you will be utilizing it in your adventures and supplements.

We will indeed be producing more rules content books, but on a MUCH slower pace than what came out for 3.5. If we DO, for example, make a samurai or a ninja or a berserker class or prestige class, that might make the older incarnation obsolete... but only if the GM likes the new version better than the old version. I doubt we'll ever match (or even come close to) the amount of prestige classes and similar options that were created for 3.5.

That's good. No need to go hog wild in the beginning. Have you announced any Pathfinder RPG follow up supplements yet?

Actually... the bulk of what we'll be producing each month will remain adventures and sourcebooks, NOT rules supplements. Adventures (and in particular, Adventure Paths) is what we do best, and what makes us the most money, after all. As I indicate above, compatibility with 3.5 lets US use the old content as well as the customer, and that lessens the need to rush out new versions of samurais and ninjas and pirate prestige classes and so on and so on.

I am much more likely to lean toward adventures and source books for my 4e game too, if there was a lot of good fluff to use and the APs are relatively easy to convert.

 

[ruemere]

The number of Beta downloads is convenient because it's a public number; we've got plenty of other marketing numbers and research and whatnot to help us decide what our print run for the PFRPG should be. It's just a handy public number to show off, really, to show that there's a pretty sizable group of people who are PFRPG-curious.

Add to this number people who distributed BETA to people around the table. Me, for example.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. While I may be not as happy with some changes as I could have been, I do think that Pathfinder BETA contains numerous improvements. It remains to be seen whether final version will be more to my liking, though, given the quality of other Paizo products, I can safely say I am buying the print version along with at least two other people I know.
Simply said, even if you don't plan to change, there are things worth adding to your campaign there (martial classes, improved spells, etc).

 

[Mr Baron]

Paizo & Pathfinder RPG

First, I want to thank Jason & James for their comments, I appreciate their inputs into the discussion.

I think it is important to realize that for everyone that likes 3.5 exactly as it is, and does not want any changes, there are a number of folks that are looking for updates to the general 3.5 rule set and are looking for more of a 3.75 rule set. I appreciate what Jason is trying to do with the rule set with regards to making some changes but keeping the basic mechanics the same. I think that this will ultimately be a good decision for them.

I think when the final version comes out, and Paizo publishes their conversion guide, we will see that all of our older stuff is still very compatible with the new stuff. I am sure that there will be a some differences that do not sit well with folks.

I also want to add that if folks are looking for reasons to not like PFRPG, they will find it. Erik, James & Jason have all stated that this new version might not please everyone, and they are ok with that. I am optimistic about the final product, and look forward to August.

 

[Primal]

The number of Beta downloads is convenient because it's a public number; we've got plenty of other marketing numbers and research and whatnot to help us decide what our print run for the PFRPG should be. It's just a handy public number to show off, really, to show that there's a pretty sizable group of people who are PFRPG-curious.

I wish to point out that I personally know only a single group that switched to 4E (and the players aren't happy with it -- they might consider switching to PF RPG once it's out). Wherefore all the rest of the 50+ gamers in my social circle are all either playing PF Beta or waiting for the final rules to come out, and note that while about *half* of them have downloaded the rules, everyone hasn't (some said that "It all sounds pretty good, and I'll check them out when the book's in my FLGS").

The players in my playtest campaign are happy with most of the changes, but I fear we were actually hoping to see some mechanics undergoing even more drastic changes from the Beta rules rather than being "pulled back". For example, we loved the Rage Points, and the players of the two barbarians in my group resisted the idea of "Rage Rounds" as a less elegant choice. Furthermore, I've seen some good suggestions on the Paizo boards that were really pushing the "boundaries", and I hoped some of them might make it to the final rules. Still, I understand that backwards compatibility is a major design goal, and in any case I think PF RPG will be my favorite edition of D&D so far.

 

[Zil]

The players in my playtest campaign are happy with most of the changes, but I fear we were actually hoping to see some mechanics undergoing even more drastic changes from the Beta rules rather than being "pulled back". For example, we loved the Rage Points, and the players of the two barbarians in my group resisted the idea of "Rage Rounds" as a less elegant choice.

It's interesting to hear that your Pathfinder Barbarian players really liked the rage points as well. The barbarian player in my playtest group also wasn't happy with the idea of going back to rage rounds. Still, I'm pretty sure we'll still pick up at least two hardcover copies of the final release (even with some of the changes pulled back) for the game table, if not more.