Pathfinder 1E Paizo Announcement and Prognostication

[Aberzanzorax]

Holy crap, how could I have forgotten Frog God?!?

I'm even a subscriber to Slumbering Tsar (but I haven't downloaded the chapters for a few months...waiting for their printed book).

I need to go check them out again.

Thanks.

 

[BryonD]

As I have mentioned before . . . It used to be that only people outside the hobby would call non-D&D brand stuff "D&D" or sometimes someone who was playing a similar game and was using "D&D" as shorthand while discussing gaming with a non-gamer. Nowadays, many people refer to all sorts of Fantasy gaming as "D&D" even in the company of other gamers, and those other gamers seem to accept that they might not actually mean something under the D&D brand, and that seems to be okay with everyone. I'm not saying the brand is tissue-thin, but it sure seems more like Kleenex than in the past.

I agree that the name is very loosely applied these days. But that is a different point.

People may reference Goodman's new game (as a random example) as "a D&D game" and people will understand what is meant by that. But if WotC were to buy it and call it D&D 5E then its exposure would go up one hundred fold.

 

[BryonD]

I'm good with what Frog God Games is doing. It's pretty much exactly what I would have wanted from Necromancer, so I'm quite happy at the moment.

And don't forget:

About | Legendary Games

 

[Bedrockgames]

There were other times when D&D didn't have a monopoly on tabletop RPGs - notably, the White Wolf era. Games like Cortex and Dragon Age are nothing new from a state-of-the-industry standpoint. The only truly unprecedented non-D&D development has been Pathfinder. It is something new, and the gaming community is still trying to figure out what it all means.

The height of ww superseding d&d ended with TSR going broke. Obviosly that is not likely to happen to woc, but the one time D&D wasnt top dog proved pretty disastrous for the company producing it.

 

[BryonD]

So you do not want to see what their creativity could do? Fine, but seems like we all could be missing something good.

I think part of what their creativity and skill is doing is seeing what great tools are already available and working with that.

They are giving the market what it wants and they are happy doing that.

It is win-win. Anything else seems foolish and provides no comment on what they could or couldn't do under different circumstances.

 

[dm4hire]

I am lad Paizo did well, but boy do they have a lot of fans who love patting themselves on the back.

I am still waiting to see Paizo design their own game from the ground up. I would be very curious to see what they could do with that.

Several members of Paizo have expressed interest in doing just that and when the subject of a Sword & Planet game was discussed that seemed to be the direction indicated by them if they were to do it. Hopefully we'll see something down the road, but I have to agree that their focus will stay mainly on PF since they tend to be more geared for campaign and module design overall.

 

[Dannager]

The height of ww superseding d&d ended with TSR going broke. Obviosly that is not likely to happen to woc, but the one time D&D wasnt top dog proved pretty disastrous for the company producing it.

I don't think that their corporate failure was a reflection of their inability to beat WW so much as their inability to beat WW was a reflection of their corporate failure.

 

[Mournblade94]

So you do not want to see what their creativity could do? Fine, but seems like we all could be missing something good.

I understand your point, but I have seen what their creativity can do in the form of advanced players guide, pathfinder 3.5 cleanup, and their excellent campaign setting.

Simply I play 3 systems, Mutants and Masterminds, Traveller and pathfinder. If they made another game, I would most likely buy it but never play it. I pretty much always stuck to D&D for fantasy, and I would search out new systems for my sci fi fix. I would love to see paizo put out a game for sci fi, but honestly I am not interested in NEW game systems. Dragon Age is fun to play, but I ultimately only play that for one or two sessions.

New game systems only interest me in a mathematical design sense. Nothing else really. Though since MWP got the Marvel license I may have to check out CORTEX.

 

[Mournblade94]

I don't think that their corporate failure was a reflection of their inability to beat WW so much as their inability to beat WW was a reflection of their corporate failure.

Yes pretty much it was making PUBLISHING mistakes. Things like too much novel backstock, and DUMB art decisions like pasting the CEO's head on Liriel's face on book covers and game covers. There was a period there in the late 90's where the art REALLY sucked, and I do not think because of talent.

TSR made awful decisions. I would have granted XP but I cannot.

 

[Mark CMG]

I agree that the name is very loosely applied these days. But that is a different point.

People may reference Goodman's new game (as a random example) as "a D&D game" and people will understand what is meant by that. But if WotC were to buy it and call it D&D 5E then its exposure would go up one hundred fold.

I think it is a related point, in that if WotC were to buy *all* of the games that now can be referenced in that way, their own exposure would go up . . . about how much? DCC, PF, Savage, Fantasy Craft, Arcanis, C&C, GURPS, the numerous retro-clones, and so many others have become, not just alternatives but, replacements to not only the game but the brand. For many it seems that D&D isn't the only "D&D" and for some D&D isn't even "D&D" at all. So, to speak to your larger point, how do the game companies that people gravitate to after getting into the hobby leverage their ever-growing market share into wider exposure?