Pathfinder 1E WotC desperately needs to learn from Paizo and Privateer Press

[Failed Saving Throw]

Lets face it, there are different needs. The only thing that was a more or less dubious decision was the GSL.

But lets face it, Most peolpe want crunch. Fluff is something that is independant from editions. So, if someone wanted to create a book full of fluff for 4th edition, no GSL can prevent him to do so.
And even with GSL adding fluff is not forbidden. If I have understood it right, changing crunch is forbidden and may only be referenced, not copied. So a monster fluff book which covers most monsters in MM1 and 2 could be done...

but will it be profitable? i doubt it.

I suppose it could be, if you created a specific setting and then release a fluff book of how monsters fit into that world. I dunno. I would approach something like that with skepticism, but it could be interesting. After all, Paizo has basically done a version of this concept twice with good results.

 

[JeffB]

Mots of the WOTC adventures (IMO) are pretty bad whether it was 4E or 3E or late 2E.

Not terribly impressed with the couple of Paizo products I've bought or downloaded recently- they LOOK good, but not my cup of tea- alot of filler and not a whole lot of meat. I had high hopes for Osirion for example- it was mostly boring novel-esque backstory, with little "here is adventure material/locations/plots you can use right now". I grow increasingly frustrated with campaign books written like this. I just purchased Supp VI The Majestic Wilderlands and it was much the same- well written but the setting info is 99% backstory/history lesson and not much adventuring material for a DM to use. I guess this is why I like the 4E FRCS far more than the 3E version. Just enough history to add flavor without beating you over the head with it (alot like the OGB). The rest of the book is adventuring material/plots/places.

I love the new MM's. I prefer them over the 3E versions. I'd rather have a small bit of GOOD fluff, than an extraordinary word count that is uninspiring and written like a college level textbook.

Different strokes. I think the 4E books as a whole (at least the ones I own) are much more useful and enjoyable to read than anything WOTC has done since late 2E. And I'm certainly a fluff/story over crunch DM :shrug:

 

[Dragonbait]

The Monster Manuals are far more disappointing. I'm one of those DMs who feels that 4E is actually a very elegant system, and I applaud the forward thinking put into how 4E has improved running D&D for DMs. But so we get this great system...and a complete dearth of good fluff. The Monster books are nothing more than boring lists of stats. There's no real flavor at all to inspire DMs and make monster encounters more memorable.

I'm going to disagree. Look at the Oni and Rakshasa from the 4e Monster Manual. Both of their descriptions ooze with fluff. Look at the knowledge tables for those monsters - more information. And their suggested encounters? More information and fluff about their relationship with other creatures. How about the hints that Rahshasa and Deva are two sides of the same coin? Of the fact that they reform after death? Or that Oni are spoken about in fairy tales (that's really somehing: you know you're doing something right when you exist in the fairy tales WITHIN a fantasy setting) I know that right after I read about those monsters I got a slew of ideas and stories.

Pathfinder's Monster Manual has some great fluff too, provided the monster's stats don't take up most of the page. Many monsters like the demons and angels get a small paragraph of information. In both 4e's MM and PF MM they get a couple pages of fluff describing their role and possible origin in the default setting.

As for the adventures and settings, I agree. I go to WoTC's adventures for dungeon crawls (Even so there are real gems in there) and the 4E setting books for the 4E rules. I go elsewhere for one of them thinkin' adventures and to older editions for more detailed setting information on the various worlds.

In the end this is all opinion and I just hope people are playing, having fun, and spreading the joy around.

 

[Thanlis]

I don't consider WotC to be good at adventure design. I don't even think WotC really wants to create adventures. They had to. If they were really into creating adventures, there would be a bunch of them by now.

WotC's published well over a hundred modules in the last year and a half. Granted, they could do a better job of publicizing this...

 

[ggroy]

Perhaps the released WotC 4E modules so far (such as the H-P-E arc), are more like a "proof of concept" and a guide for DMs to design their own encounters and adventures at different tiers.

 

[Rechan]

I don't think WotC needs to do anyting "desperately". There's no indication that they're in any kind of trouble. So far, what they've been doing looks to have worked.

I recall hearing that WotC didn't like to make adventures, period. Namely because adventures don't sell all that well. Because you're marketing to 1/5th of the group, and even then, you're having to deal with making it appeal to as many groups as possible.

To me it's better if WotC put their effort into making their stuff work. I've been fairly satisfied with products that have come out thusfar.

 

[Rechan]

Mots of the WOTC adventures (IMO) are pretty bad whether it was 4E or 3E or late 2E.

Worth repeating.

Did anyone like the 3e modules that went from 1-20?

(I liked Speaker of Dreams, but then that was the first module I bought. It was an urban adventure with monsters. It did it for me.)

 

[wedgeski]

Many of these criticisms of 4E are, in my opinion, unfair. Having said that the headline adventure arc that started with the Keep on the Shadowfell is pretty poor, at least through the Heroic tier where I've DM'd it; on the flip side, many of the Dungeon adventures have been absolutely superb.

I have found the monster manuals, and associated tomes like the Manual of the Planes, to be excellent, some of the best examples of their kind given how I like to build campaigns.

To my mind WotC don't need to "learn" from the likes of Paizo, they have simply chosen to do things differently. Paizo know their market, they know the kind of person that is buying their product, and they're aiming at them with complete precision. Similarly, WotC know how to sell their game, and it seems to be doing very well for them. It's a mistake to think that the folks at either company are simply better at what they do than their equivalents at the other... they're all immensely talented, and operating under the instructions given to them by the guys shouldering the risk.

 

[Reigan]

4e monsters are designed to be tailored, customised and reflavoured as the player wants, fluff is less useful in this case. However, if you look around there is plenty of inspiration to create your own fluff (got the time now I don't spend hours on the stats), e.g. the monster themes in the DMG2.

Anyway, the ddi monster builder has made the monster manuals redundant.

 

[Piratecat]

Anyway, the ddi monster builder has made the monster manuals redundant.

Not for me. Having the stats is great, but sometimes I want the fluff and backstory as well. There have been some really cool ideas as 4e starts to mature.