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

[Snoweel]

If thats the case, then why Forgotten realms, Ebberron, and now dark sun?

Why release one world a year, as the 4e model seems to be?

Because that's how many the research showed would maximise profits?

Hell, I buy them even though I'll never run them. I just buy them for posterity's sake and maybe to mine them for inspiration or useful crunch.

But WotC's research definitely showed that most people create their own fluff and what they really want are useful rules.

I remember some freelance designer complaining about it a few years ago, how he couldn't sell his fluff even though it was superior to the homebrew crap most gamers came up with on their own.

I mean, my fluff is pretty much all stolen and it's still not as good as most published settings. But I'd rather game in World-of-Snoweel any day.

And I'll buy the new published setting every year because that's about how much I can afford, and I just like giving my money to WotC.

 

[Umbran]

I remember some freelance designer complaining about it a few years ago, how he couldn't sell his fluff even though it was superior to the homebrew crap most gamers came up with on their own.

I mean, my fluff is pretty much all stolen and it's still not as good as most published settings. But I'd rather game in World-of-Snoweel any day.

I think it may be that these discussions often miss a critical point - how good the fluff is in the books may matter less than the presentation of said fluff at the table. And how many DMs are going to be more enthusiastic about presenting someone else's creation than their own?

 

[Snoweel]

I think it may be that these discussions often miss a critical point - how good the fluff is in the books may matter less than the presentation of said fluff at the table. And how many DMs are going to be more enthusiastic about presenting someone else's creation than their own?

Yeah good point.

One of the appeals of my own fluff (which I have often stolen from elsewhere) is that I know it pretty much off by heart.

In fact, while reading someone else's fluff, the stuff I remember best is the stuff I can immediately see a use for in my homebrew. The wonders of the human mind...

 

[Zaukrie]

I think these discussion always miss this:

How the heck could a 12 year old that had never played before (or 16 year old, or whatever) develop ANY fluff at all that had any meaning? I just think the MM should have:

A clear description of the monster
A little bit about tactics
A little bit about the culture. What is the difference between the various evil humanoid races?

As for "most DMs want their own fluff". I call bull. I want fluff I can use, or not use. But, I want fluff to inspire my ideas. I have two kids, golf, ski, volunteer for two groups, work full time.....I don't have time to do all my own work. I do have time to take decent to good modules and make them fit into my concepts (but my concepts are based on 40+ years of reading and watching movies and playing D&D).

Fluff is needed for beginners. It is needed to provide inspiration. And, sometimes, it is needed to be used as is.

 

[ForceUser]

As a reader and lover of fantasy literature, 4E is rather dull in comparison to its predecessors.

As a DM, it's fantastic. This is because I have always tended to alter or discard the boxed fluff anyway; now there's nothing to alter or discard. All I need do is create.

 

[SSquirrel]

If thats the case, then why Forgotten realms, Ebberron, and now dark sun?

Why release one world a year, as the 4e model seems to be?

The old model in the TSR days was to maintain 10 different campaign worlds with product at the same time, forcing increasingly smaller niches within their customers who want to keep up with everything.

I believe the market research found that most DMs ran their own worlds, but they would buy occasional modules or campaign books as material to borrow from. The current model allows any DM to feel free to pick up everything released about any individual world and likely borrow freely. This is much less financially risky than the old way of doing things.

 

[malraux]

As a reader and lover of fantasy literature, 4E is rather dull in comparison to its predecessors.

I really cannot agree with that. I personally have found 4e to be significantly more interesting than at least the generic DnD books (though the 2e campaign settings are certainly better than the 4e PoL setting). But as someone who came into DnD relatively late (ie I started with 3e in my mid 20s), the predecessors are as much obtuse as they are interesting. I've found as much arbitrariness as awesomeness, randomness as reason, and difficulty as detail. I never bought into the vancian casting system as the most logical magic system, for example, and found it to be a poor game mechanic in practice (IMO, obviously).

Picking up with 3e, it was obvious to me that there was an incredibly detailed world that the books were based upon, but it was impossible to access that sort of information without a lot of drugerous reading. With 4e, I've found the level of detail of any particular bit of info to be reasonably self contained. 4e is a lot more modular. That makes for less of a fantasy novel in the reading, but more a fantasy world builder. I find that it sparks my creativity more than 3e did.

 

[Jhaelen]

I understand that it would mean an increased page count or less mosnters, but that's okay by me, if it means better, more evocative monsters.

Well, it may be fine by you, but it's not fine by many others (myself included). Do you remember the uproar back then when they announced that several of the old favorites (frost giants, metallic dragons, iron golems, etc.) would not be in MM1?

You may also remember how badly MM4 for 3e was received which attempted to move away from a pure listing of monsters.

Now obviously I don't have any numbers but I suspect, a majority simply wants as many monsters in their monster manuals as will fit within the page count.

I'd like to note that while that's what I expect when buying a D&D monster manual it's absolutely not what I'd expect when buying an Ars Magica bestiary. It's a D&D-specific thing, since D&D is about 'killing monsters and taking their stuff'.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Good show. I kinda wish 4e had a general discussion forum sometimes.

The point is that WotC was writing meh adventures long before 4e - while I do not like 4e, that does not make the 3.X adventures any better. Meh is meh.

Meh is independent of system - one of the games I am currently running comes from a company that only has two published adventures, and both are full to the brim with meh. (I really wanted to like them, but I'm afraid not.) I love the system, but the adventures will not be spending any time in my campaigns.

Paizo has had a large number of adventures, but very little by way of mediocrity - if they were to produce a scenario for 4e I suspect that it too would avoid stepping into a pile of meh. Their adventures are more firmly rooted in their campaign setting, and are the better for it.

The only connection there is that I now feel that the meh has become part of the system, but if WotC tried stretching things a bit they might not be part of the adventures. As it stands now.... *Shrug* I have not seen anything to really like about their published adventures, even with an eye toward conversion to Pathfinder.

The Auld Grump

 

[ForceUser]

I really cannot agree with that. I personally have found 4e to be significantly more interesting than at least the generic DnD books (though the 2e campaign settings are certainly better than the 4e PoL setting).

I was really thinking of 2E when I wrote that. Terrible ruleset, but great fluff. Lots of rich campaign settings.