Pathfinder 1E Paizo = Play WoTC = Pay?

[wedgeski]

Paizo has certainly ignored the player splat book option, to great success it seems. But really, when PF is advertised as being compatible with 3.5, there's already about 6 gajillion options for players out there anyway... years and years of WotC- and 3pp-produced splat that (presumably) PF players can just slot right in.

In any case, we'll see where they go in the next couple of years. I suspect their product profile will change a bit.

 

[Obergnom]

Paizo has certainly ignored the player splat book option, to great success it seems. But really, when PF is advertised as being compatible with 3.5, there's already about 6 gajillion options for players out there anyway... years and years of WotC- and 3pp-produced splat that (presumably) PF players can just slot right in.

In any case, we'll see where they go in the next couple of years. I suspect their product profile will change a bit.

I think there is some wisdom in this. Paizo continues to support a mature game, WotC spend the last 2 years building 4e. It was not that different with 3e actually, though the 3rd party support helped.
For me, the point where WotC should start to go into the depth of their game has come, I would love to see a fully supported setting and more than one big adventure a year... obviously, they think different about that

 

[pedr]

It's just worth pointing out that WotC haven't 'dropped' organised play.

As well as Encounters (which is getting a lot of PR focus, with articles in the mainstream media) which is aimed at encouraging game stores to run D&D which presumably both WotC and the stores think is good for the hobby as a whole, there are something like 150 adventures available for Living Forgotten Realms. Some of these have to be played at public events, but most are available for home-play. You have to jump through a few hoops to get them at the moment (though that will change in the next few months), and the quality is variable - but then again, so is the quality of Pathfinder Society adventures, despite the higher production values and the cost ($3.50 per adventure, I think, vs free for the Living Forgotten Realms ones)

 

[Reigan]

WoTC material is largely aimed at the home brew dm; short, almost background free adventures that can easily be slotted into an ongoing game. There are lots of splats for players because the game is new and the way classes are designed means there need to be lots of classes and much of the material is class specific. 4e rules framework handles new player material better than 3e did.

Paizo adventure paths are aimed at people who like complex, story driven adventures. This is a great way of playing, but it's not the only way of playing and does require a greater commitment for time. Paizo also seem to be avoiding the bloat issue that plagued 3e by not producing too many splat books.

I like both styles, just wish I had more time to play.

 

[Bluenose]

those are interesting points and it might be what WoTC is counting on. I agree with you that the ease of creating encounters in 4e is much easier than it was in 3.5. Paizo is slightly easier, but my experience there is limited.

It coudl be I'm entirely underestimating the number of home brewed adventures that people run when thinking of the advantages of not only the adventure paths Paizo puts out, but also the regular adventures.

Here's a figure for you to consider. 50% of D&D games are played in homebrew settings. That's the number I've seen, and it's been pretty steady at that figure since the early 1990s, according to people I know who did surveys at UK conventions, hobby stores, and later online. How much detailed background information helps people who homebrew is another matter, but I know I can't get much use from the background information in Paizo adventure paths because my setting doesn't contain the same conceits.

 

[Bluenose]

WoTC material is largely aimed at the home brew dm; short, almost background free adventures that can easily be slotted into an ongoing game. There are lots of splats for players because the game is new and the way classes are designed means there need to be lots of classes and much of the material is class specific. 4e rules framework handles new player material better than 3e did.

Paizo adventure paths are aimed at people who like complex, story driven adventures. This is a great way of playing, but it's not the only way of playing and does require a greater commitment for time. Paizo also seem to be avoiding the bloat issue that plagued 3e by not producing too many splat books.

I like both styles, just wish I had more time to play.

I agree with your first paragraph, less so the second. Most WotC adventures are meant to be fitted into people's existing games, and don't come with much implicit background. They almost can't, without reducing the potential audience. Paizo write on the assumption that people buying the adventures are using them in Golarion, and if you aren't then you have to adapt them yourself (or not use them at all). I'm not sure that makes them necessarily more complex, and story-driven can equally be considered 'railroady' and a bad thing. Not that homebrew adventures don't sometimes also become story-driven.

 

[Bluenose]

Probably it's related to one of the most significant differences between the companies. WotC is owned by Hasbro, which is a publicly traded company that needs to please stockholders. Paizo is a small company that only needs to please its customer base.

So WotC needs to focus more on good profits so Hasbro's stockholders don't get cranky, and it's easier to do that by focusing on quantity over quality. That doesn't necessarily mean they're shoveling out crap, though. The subscription model is probably a good way for them to maintain a steady profit stream in a hobby that doesn't really produce huge numbers, even if they're at the top of said hobby by a long shot.

Paizo OTOH, is small enough that they don't need to worry about this as much. They still have to worry about profits, but since they're not part of a huge publicly traded company, they can get away with narrower margins, take more risks, or cater to a specific set of buyers.

Do you really think Paizo is taking much in the way of risks? Reprinting D&D 3e, which they know there's a market for, hardly seems risky. They were hardly wildly ambitious with their initial print run, either, since they were surprised they had to print a second run so soon. Then there's Golarion, and that's hardly a hugely original setting, playing as it does to the standard D&D tropes. If anything, WotC are the ones taking risks with Dark Sun and Gamma World, neither of which are exactly mainstream D&D material. (I actually think that the 'one setting per year and done' model supports more risk taking in published settings, but that's an entirely seperate argument).

 

[LurkMonkey]

Let me try to answer these points:

Do you really think Paizo is taking much in the way of risks? Reprinting D&D 3e, which they know there's a market for, hardly seems risky.

Well, Pathfinder isn't 3e. Based on 3e, yes, backwards compatible yes, a straight reprint, no.

They were hardly wildly ambitious with their initial print run, either, since they were surprised they had to print a second run so soon.

Considering the risks of starting up a new OGL-based game system when 4e was starting its run and still had the shiny on, I'm not surprised they had a fairly small print run. It's easier to print a second run than sit on a pile of unsold copies after all. It's been pretty much revealed by the Paizo folks that Pathfinder has done better than they could have imagined. Even going the way they did I would argue was 'wildly ambitious'. And it seems to have paid off bigtime.

Then there's Golarion, and that's hardly a hugely original setting, playing as it does to the standard D&D tropes.

Wow. Don't really know what to say about this one. 'hardly a hugely original setting?' I would beg to differ. Golarion is a campaign world where you can find almost any culture from devil-worshiping fascists to French Revolutionary-style fanatics, to anarchic Pirate Kingdoms, to Ancient undead-ruled theocracies all tied together in a way that makes them all seem logical together. I don't know what you mean by 'hardly a hugely original setting'. Is it because these ideas have been used before? Pray, tell me how 4e has invented new tropes?

If anything, WotC are the ones taking risks with Dark Sun and Gamma World, neither of which are exactly mainstream D&D material. (I actually think that the 'one setting per year and done' model supports more risk taking in published settings, but that's an entirely seperate argument).

So cannibalizing past campaign worlds and game systems is 'original?' I do not think this word means what you think it means. Call me when 4e comes up with a completely 'original' campaign world. I am actually surprised they would touch Gamma World with a 39 1/2-foot pole. I love the setting myself, but it has been a kiss of death since its 2nd edition. Hope they have some success with it, best of luck.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm with Nifft. To me, WoTC is focussing on providing the best damn tools it can to help me run and play an interesting game that's easy to create for and run for with strong mechanical support - and is then standing back and saying "It's your game, run it as you will". Paizo are saying "Here's our game, play it if you like" and producing some outstanding stories for their specific game and world.

 

[Bluenose]

Wow. Don't really know what to say about this one. 'hardly a hugely original setting?' I would beg to differ. Golarion is a campaign world where you can find almost any culture from devil-worshiping fascists to French Revolutionary-style fanatics, to anarchic Pirate Kingdoms, to Ancient undead-ruled theocracies all tied together in a way that makes them all seem logical together. I don't know what you mean by 'hardly a hugely original setting'. Is it because these ideas have been used before? Pray, tell me how 4e has invented new tropes?

Yeah, it's a standard D&D kitchen sink setting like a lot of others. About the only one of those cultures that Ipersonally have not seen before is the French Revolutionary fanatics. Every one of the others has been done before. Original is something like Dark Sun when it first came out, Midnight, Hamanputra, that African setting I can never remember the name of, or a lot of other things that don't start with medieval western Europe with magic stuck on.

So cannibalizing past campaign worlds and game systems is 'original?' I do not think this word means what you think it means. Call me when 4e comes up with a completely 'original' campaign world. I am actually surprised they would touch Gamma World with a 39 1/2-foot pole. I love the setting myself, but it has been a kiss of death since its 2nd edition. Hope they have some success with it, best of luck.

Note I don't claim 'original', I suggest 'risky'. And it's not much of a risk, to be honest. They publish the settings three books, and perhaps some DDi article, and then leave it. Since most people don't want to deviate from the standard D&D tropes, unusual settings are risky. This minimises the risks involved for the publisher.