Pathfinder 1E Paizo = Play WoTC = Pay?

[BryonD]

It doesn't seem strange at all. Failing to change would imply failing to learn from accumulated evidence.

If the change was a one way path, this would make sense.
Being as the change is more of a teeter totter based on the point of the moment, the "funny" holds up.

 

[Umbran]

I didn't say strange. I said funny.

Sorry. I though you meant funny (strange) as in, "I took these leftovers out of the fridge, and they taste funny." As opposed to funny (haha) as in, "I took this clown out of the fridge, and he looks funny."

If the change was a one way path, this would make sense.
Being as the change is more of a teeter totter based on the point of the moment, the "funny" holds up.

*shrug*. It seems like normal human behavior, to me.

And let us not laugh too hard, lest we be laughed at in turn, hm?

 

[ExploderWizard]

From what I can tell, WOTC=pay, WOTC=play, Paizo=pay,Paizo=play.

Pay for what you want to play.

 

[Voadam]

From what I can tell, WOTC=pay, WOTC=play, Paizo=pay,Paizo=play.

Pay for what you want to play.

Eh,

You can play or run 3e or PF with 95% of the rules from the srds for free. There are a ton of free resources for 3e/PF gaming. If you have a ton of existing 3e stuff like adventures (such as the free WotC website adventures) you can use the pf rules for free and just play.

You can make characters up to 3rd level with the demo character builder and run Keep on the Shadowfell from what WotC puts out for free. Significantly lower options for no pay 4e gaming resources.

One month of DDI is pretty cheap and gets you a ton of 4e character and monster and adventure stuff though.

 

[masshysteria]

Doesn't play more or less equal pay? Or in other words, "You gotta pay to play."

It seems this is more a difference in how the two companies are attempting to solve one of the big problems affecting roleplaying games today: time.

Paizo, being a smaller company, took a system that they knew well, iron out some of the problems and set about creating a world and number of adventures and aids. The goal was to reduce the time required in planning and running a game. Players would become familiar with the world and rely on the adventures to do the heavy lifting for them. This became their business model.

WotC, being larger and having more R&D resources, created a new system that was easy to prepare for and sit down and play. They reduced the time needed by changing the paradigm. They built a business model off continuously giving players new things to play and look forward to while letting them create their own worlds and plots.

Neither approach is wrong. I own both because, they both scratch different itches. Now if we could get them to combine like chocolate and peanut butter... mhmm.

 

[Jor-El]

Sorry. I though you meant funny (strange) as in, "I took these leftovers out of the fridge, and they taste funny." As opposed to funny (haha) as in, "I took this clown out of the fridge, and he looks funny."

I think if I opened my fridge and there was a clown in there, I just might pee myself.

 

[jaerdaph]

D&D or Pathfinder: No matter what you prefer to play, you're still gonna have to pay.

 

[Umbran]

I think if I opened my fridge and there was a clown in there, I just might pee myself.

Well, then, whatever you do, don't look behind the peanut butter!

 

[Henry]

...4e is an absolute breeze when it comes to the making efficient use of the GM's prep time. I say this as someone who ran 3.x for years, at a fairly high level of play. 3.x can be murderous if you want to do anything creative with high-level monsters or traps or NPCs... or, hell, even if you don't want to be creative, but you happen to pick a monster that casts spells, or has more than 10 spell-like abilities, and you want to use more than one monster in a fight.

I have to agree with this one. The 4E DMG even has a section for GMs on "what to do when you have 6 hours of prep time"... "what to do when you have 3 hours of prep time"... "what to do when you have ONE hour of prep time" (answer to the last one: grab a module, skim, and play. You really have no choice if you're gonna run anyway.)

In 3.X I used to put far too much thinking into encounters over 6th level or so - figure the feats, skill points, neat tricks and synergies, etc. And comparatively little time to plot or motives for NPCs, etc. I soon learned to fudge the heck out of my NPCs to save time, but it was a large learning curve. Now I create NPCs the way I used to back in AD&D, and the math works out about the same.

At the time I really enjoyed the "sub-game" of creating NPCs, but over time I got tired of it.

 

[Mistwell]

Its funny how arguments change.

When Paizo first went their own way, the detractors were saying; "They're choosing a loosing path with diminishing returns. Appealling only to a few troubled grognards who will soon convert to 4e. Makes me sad."

Now, the argument appears to be; "Paizo chose an easy path with no risks. Well of course they were successful; they were building with someone elses toys and didn't have to do any work at all. Not that they sell much though."

For what it is worth, I thought Paizo was taking a big risk at the time they opted to do Pathfinder instead of planning to support 4e. I did not view it as an easy path with no risks. I was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be a good and profitable decision.