Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder: Is it evidence that new editions don't need to be that different?

[Shemeska]

I'd say all Pathfinder proves is that some people, for whatever reason, are very resistant to change. The amount of change varies from system to system and game to game.

Well, it's not that some people are "resistant to change", but rather not all change is necessarily positive to all people.

For instance, I thought that New Coke and Crystal Pepsi were both insipid. That doesn't make me some sort of soda luddite, or "resistant to change".

 

[Remathilis]

This does not take in to account that 3E was basically played out. There's just really not much room left to add anything for the mass audience, which is the key to regular and future sales figures. It's three more books vs. 60.

So your saying 4e is just an excuse to sell us the books we already have, like Draconomicon, etc?

I don't doubt that there NEEDED to be a 4e. It didn't need to be THIS 4e however.

If it's not different enough, nobody changes and sales stagnate as much as they had already, if not more. If it's not different enough, fewer people change and fewer people buy.

While I generally agree, there could've been a closer sense of mechanical community. I seriously think taking the general 3e structure, fixing the math kernel and balance issues and embracing some of the newer fluff and design paragrim (such as point buy default) couldn't sold excellently as D&D 4e. I'm not sure they needed to change massive elements of the system (healing surges, the magic system, encounter/daily/will powers, etc) to make it successful.

All Pathfinder "proves" is that some people, for whatever reason, are very resistant to change. It also may "prove" that many gamers don't want to feel "obsolete" by not having a "current" game.

Doesn't prove anything.

Some people play Pathfinder because its OGL and thus much more "Open" that WotC's current GSL rules. Some play because they like Paizo's modules, some play because they WANTED to like 4e but didn't. Some just want new things to try in their "old and busted" 3.5 game.

Playing Vampire doesn't "prove" your goth, playing Palladium doesn't "prove" your a munchkin, and playing Star Wars doesn't "prove" your a virgin. Be careful when you make assumptions.

To each their own.

Keep that in mind before you spout off on what a new game "proves" or not.

 

[Rykion]

All Pathfinder "proves" is that some people, for whatever reason, are very resistant to change. It also may "prove" that many gamers don't want to feel "obsolete" by not having a "current" game.

Why would someone who is very resistant to change buy a new game instead of keeping the old one? If they buy a new game to stay "current" then they must not be that resistant to change afterall.

 

[Herschel]

Really?

Here's another interpretation of it: Some people enjoy 3.x. Of those poeple, some don't enjoy 4E. Some of those people have bought Pathfinder as an update to the rule system that they do enjoy.

I'm sure for some it is a matter of being resistant to change. Others still enjoy 3E, it's not a character flaw.

Why does it have to be a character flaw? There's other reasons too.

1. What if someone really likes both systems, but part of their gaming group of friends don't? Do you find a new group, or play what the majority can enjoy?

2. Some people may have no problem with the new system but don't want/can't lay out the finances for the new edition. Do they stop playing or just play the old one.

3. Some may have not had what they feel is enough time to explore the old system and may or may not move to the new one when they feel they've reached that point.

There are reasons that people resist change that have nothing to do with whether or not they like either or both editions.

 

[Mircoles]

Pathfinder isn't a new edition. It's 3.5 with houserules.

 

[Jack99]

I don't get the "resistant to change" argument.

I do not consider myself resistant to change, but yet, I didn't switch to 3.x until 2005, simply because I (my group) preferred 2e. Now, changing to 3.5 was a mistake (for us), but in the end 4e came and we switched to that. Not because we embraced change, but because we didn't really have as much fun with 3.5 as we had playing 2e. Had 4e failed us like 3.5 did, we would have switched back.

I mean, why change if you do not like the new version? It's really just a matter of preference. Some like OD&D, some like 1e, some like 2e, some like 3.0, some like 3.5, some like Pathfinder and some like 4e.

End of story.

 

[Herschel]

I like how you repeated that last paragraph despite like four people telling you how you're wrong, and instead of responding to them, you just ignore them and insult people who like 3.5 over 4e.

Classy!

I had a weird repeat post moment on the site when I tried to edit in to a quote is why it repeated. This site is hard to use while at work. And if by "like four" you mean 2, then so what? I clarified what I meant because it appears a few try too hard to be offended/insulted by what I admittedly probably should have written a little softer but shouldn't have to be.

But I'll repeat it again. I'm not insulting anyone. There are any number of reasons to resist edition change, many that have NOTHING to do with which edition you prefer. I also used quotation marks around "prove" and the like to show it's (to me) a rather nebulous term. If you choose to still feel insulted, there's nothing I or anyone else can do about it.

 

[mudbunny]

This does not take in to account that 3E was basically played out. There's just really not much room left to add anything for the mass audience, which is the key to regular and future sales figures. It's three more books vs. 60.

3.X wasn't played out, as you say. There was lots of material left that could have been used to produce splatbooks. That being said, whether or not it would have been profitable for WotC to develop and publish is a completely different question. As has been said, numerous times, what is a smashing success for Paizo would probably be a massive failure for WotC. (Not, not a shot at quality, merely the quantity required to make a profit.)

All Pathfinder "proves" is that some people, for whatever reason, are very resistant to change. It also may "prove" that many gamers don't want to feel "obsolete" by not having a "current" game.

To each their own.

For me, Pathfinder shows that the head honchos at Paizo saw a market, and realized that it was a market that was no longer being served. They took that opportunity to jump in and establish themselves as the place to go for those customers.

The presence of PRPG, to me, says nothing about the people that play it. I am a big 4E fan, but i would have no problem playing PRPG if a group wanted to play it.

 

[Umbran]

I don't get the "resistant to change" argument.

I don't either, at least not as such a broad generalization. Perhaps there's some or many who are resistant to change for some version of that phrase, but there's enough other cases to make the generalization weak.

For example - the whole "resist change" argument falls flat on anyone who does not, in general, bind themselves to one game. I have run more campaigns in my life than I care to count - and I usually don't use the same system two games in a row. So, if I use Pathfinder, I'm resisting change? Nonsense, I say!

Or, try this - I have 4e rules, and 3.x rules. I'm thinking of using one or the other for my next game, I'm not sure which. Someone gives me the Pathfinder Core book as a gift. Now, if I choose Pathfinder, I'm resisting change, when one of my options was to not change games at all? I don't think so.

I am sure there are other cases. Just goes to show that we should be wary of generalizing about what people think and why they do things.

 

[Rykion]

Why does it have to be a character flaw?

Because it is generally considered one. When someone is called "very resistant to change" it implies that they are actively opposed to change. In other words, they are set in their ways and don't want to even consider change. Choosing to not adopt something new is not the same as being very resistant to change.

There's other reasons too.

1. What if someone really likes both systems, but part of their gaming group of friends don't? Do you find a new group, or play what the majority can enjoy?

Then they aren't being very resistant to change as they aren't opposed to the change.

2. Some people may have no problem with the new system but don't want/can't lay out the finances for the new edition. Do they stop playing or just play the old one.

Again they aren't resisting the change. It's also not likely a reason to choose Pathfinder over 4E as you are still paying for Pathfinder.

3. Some may have not had what they feel is enough time to explore the old system and may or may not move to the new one when they feel they've reached that point.

This isn't resisting change either. Pathfinder is more compatible with 3.5 than 4E is, but most people just wanting to explore 3.5 probably aren't buying Pathfinder.

There are reasons that people resist change that have nothing to do with whether or not they like either or both editions.

Marketing and business are about the only fields that consider not buying the newest product or adopting the latest management technique as being all that is required to be considered resistant to change. People buying Pathfinder are buying a new product, so they don't fall under this meaning of resisting change either.