Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect on 4E?

[Banshee16]

First, I don't think Paizo would have been able to develop or host DDI. So that's probably a non-issue. As far as allowing Paizo to keep Dungeon and Dragon: I don't think it would have been economically feasible or beneficial for either WotC or Paizo to do so, considering the plan of making it an integral part of DDI.

I'm not sure I agree here. With the right programmer, it doesn't have to cost a lot to build an application like that. I've known programmers who've created much larger and more complicated systems than DDI. That having been said, I guess it depends on how many resources you define as "a lot"......development budget of $30,000? $300,000? $3,000,000? What could Paizo handle?

As far as Pathfinder, maybe Paizo wouldn't have developed it or maybe they still would have, but I don't think it's a factor. Pathfinder has not stolen players from 4E and is not a competitor of WotC. Pathfinder came out well after 4E...and well after the fan base was already polarized. I think people that picked up Pathfinder (for the most part), were those who had already decided they didn't want to go the 4E route, but still wanted 3E support. WotC has lost nothing because of Pathfinder. 3E fans have gained significantly because of Pathfinder. Not necessarily a Win-Win, probably more of a Win-Didn't Lose scenario...which is probably all that really matters as far as WotC is concerned.

I can only speak from personal experience here. I know I waited before buying into 3E. And I waited with 4E. I wasn't enamoured of the changes I was reading about....but in my area, everyone seemed to be moving over. Then Paizo announced their plans, and released that first beta, and I decided instead of biting the bullet and buying into 4E, I'd wait and see if Pathfinder was any good. When the successive betas came out, and I had a chance to see the changes, I was hooked. If it hadn't been for Pathfinder, I'd have bought into 4E at some point. Now I don't have to.....and that's pretty cool!

Banshee

 

[BryonD]

but I agree with those who state that Paizo's success may have surprised even Paizo. I'm sure they hoped for it......but that's a far cry from expecting it.

I'd refine that.

They knew well out that there was a lot of discontent with 4E.
(They knew well out that there was some discontent with 4E inside their own walls, not to mention the whole GSL issue.)

They had plenty of attention and fanbase.

They had plenty of reason to hope and even expect to be a great success.

The success was no surprise.

The MASSIVENESS of the success was the surprise.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

For all the blunders 4e made with marketing, the Saving Throw comment there is not one of them. Nobody likes save or dies. WotC doesn't need to comment that humans need oxygen anymore then they need to claim "Well our customers claimed people don't like saving throw kills." It's a fact of life.

In other news, baseball players don't like strikeouts, but I don't foresee MLB taking those out of the game. Save or dies bring a tension to the game nothing else does (well, besides level drain). Used sparingly, they invigorate a game.

Edit: Oops. Didn't realize I was replying to a 6 month old thread.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

In other news, baseball players don't like strikeouts, but I don't foresee MLB taking those out of the game. Save or dies bring a tension to the game nothing else does (well, besides level drain). Used sparingly, they invigorate a game.

Edit: Oops. Didn't realize I was replying to a 6 month old thread.

SSSoDs will bring three times as much tension as a single SoD does, and it's a better game mechanic to boot.

 

[Imaro]

SSSoDs will bring three times as much tension as a single SoD does, and it's a better game mechanic to boot.

Subjective. I would rather have a tool and the option to use it or not useit... than to have someone decide for me what is or isn't appropriate to my game... I feel like alot of this went down in 4e, where the category and tools for in-game "fun" were decided, in a much more narrow manner, than 3.5. YMMV of course.

 

[BryonD]

SSSoDs will bring three times as much tension as a single SoD does, and it's a better game mechanic to boot.

I'd agree with Imaro that this is a wildly subjective assessment.

But even with that it is hard to figure how getting three chances to avoid something is more tension than having one chance.



I VASTLY prefer SOD as being an element present in the game. The game is about AVOIDING certain hazards at least as much as plowing through them.

And it MIGHT be a better "game" mechanic depending on what you prefer. But I don't see how there is any *reasonable* assessment of how it is a better method for simulating certain elements of classic foes.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

But even with that it is hard to figure how getting three chances to avoid something is more tension than having one chance.

Because it isn't static. It's not just "roll three tims woops you're better," it's a condition that gets worse every round.

Hey, real quick, grab a d20. Roll it. Go on, do it. Did you roll above a fifteen? Ok, your character is dead. Did that feel tense? Probably not.

Now, roll it once. Did you get above a fifteen? Your movement is being affected and you're slowing down. Roll it again. Still no? You find yourself immobilized, your limbs achingly freezing into place, your weapon hanging limply from your hands. Try again. You got it this time? Whew! You just barely made it.

Or, to quote Hitchcock, true tension is seeing the bomb under the table.

I VASTLY prefer SOD as being an element present in the game. The game is about AVOIDING certain hazards at least as much as plowing through them.

There's nothing "avoidant" about an SoD though. You can't learn a lesson from it. Did you roll over a fifteen? Ok, you died. Now, what did we all learn? Nothing! You're dead! You didn't learn a single thing, especially considering how hilariously arbitrary it is.

And it MIGHT be a better "game" mechanic depending on what you prefer. But I don't see how there is any *reasonable* assessment of how it is a better method for simulating certain elements of classic foes.

No classic hero ever lost to an SoD. Old stories aren't simulations. They're stories.

 

[BryonD]

Because it isn't static. It's not just "roll three tims woops you're better," it's a condition that gets worse every round.

I know. That is part of what makes it "wrong" by my standards. There are situations where it applies just fine. But looking at medusa does not progessively get worse.

Hey, real quick, grab a d20. Roll it. Go on, do it. Did you roll above a fifteen? Ok, your character is dead. Did that feel tense? Probably not.

Wow, that sucks. Do you really DM that way?

Now, roll it once. Did you get above a fifteen? Your movement is being affected and you're slowing down. Roll it again. Still no? You find yourself immobilized, your limbs achingly freezing into place, your weapon hanging limply from your hands. Try again. You got it this time? Whew! You just barely made it.

Or, to quote Hitchcock, true tension is seeing the bomb under the table.

I'm boggled that you need three rolls to get the tension in seeing the bomb under the table. Right now I'm truly convinced that you don't even get the difference being discussed here.

You see the bomb under the table and you KNOW that you only have one shot to disarm it. That is a lot more scary than knowing that if you screw up it will only shock you and if you screw up again it will still only shock you, you have to screw up three times running for it to do lasting damage.

Your descriptions fly in the face of the point that there is a difference between seeing a bomb and disarming the bomb.

There's nothing "avoidant" about an SoD though. You can't learn a lesson from it. Did you roll over a fifteen? Ok, you died. Now, what did we all learn? Nothing! You're dead!

Wow, that sucks. Do you really DM that way?

You are adding strong evidence to the whole argument about 4E just being a mini battle game.

In *MY* games there is a whole universe of events that lead up to the encounters. Once you get to the point of NOW you roll to see if you looked at Medusa or not, it is down to the roll. But things happen before that.

You didn't learn a single thing, especially considering how hilariously arbitrary it is.

Well, if getting into a situation is hilariously arbitrary in your gaming experience then Wow, that sucks.

No classic hero ever lost to an SoD. Old stories aren't simulations. They're stories.

Oh, of course, the stories are always about the hero that won in the end. But from the story-tellers point of view the event is over and is history. From the hero's point of view it was a danger that was faced and overcome. You can't overcome a threat you don't face.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I know. That is part of what makes it "wrong" by my standards. There are situations where it applies just fine. But looking at medusa does not progessively get worse.

When D&D literally has one medusa and not an entire race of them, you will be closer to the truth.

Wow, that sucks. Do you really DM that way?

No, people who use SoDs do, because that's literally what a save or die does. You roll your save. And then if you fail, you die.

I'm boggled that you need three rolls to get the tension in seeing the bomb under the table. Right now I'm truly convinced that you don't even get the difference being discussed here.

You see the bomb under the table and you KNOW that you only have one shot to disarm it. That is a lot more scary than knowing that if you screw up it will only shock you and if you screw up again it will still only shock you, you have to screw up three times running for it to do lasting damage.

Your descriptions fly in the face of the point that there is a difference between seeing a bomb and disarming the bomb.

That's...not what the bomb example is. It has nothing to do with disarming the bomb

SSSoD and SoD is the difference between suspense and surprise. SoD - you look through the window, woops, gaze attack, roll a save. BOOM! You're dead. SSSoD - each round is a progression on getting worse, with the situation growing more tense, until finally either the sigh of relief at the condition ending, or the dramatic ending of the last failed save.

It's the difference between a big surprise then boom, and the suspense of knowing the danger and seeing it creeping up.

Wow, that sucks. Do you really DM that way?

You are adding strong evidence to the whole argument about 4E just being a mini battle game.

Complete non sequitur.

In *MY* games there is a whole universe of events that lead up to the encounters. Once you get to the point of NOW you roll to see if you looked at Medusa or not, it is down to the roll. But things happen before that.

Nonetheless, the Save or Die goes as follows: You roll a save, and then you die. The end.

Oh, of course, the stories are always about the hero that won in the end. But from the story-tellers point of view the event is over and is history. From the hero's point of view it was a danger that was faced and overcome. You can't overcome a threat you don't face.

You're only proving that stories - and your signature - don't equate to gaming.

 

[SteveC]

There's nothing "avoidant" about an SoD though. You can't learn a lesson from it. Did you roll over a fifteen? Ok, you died. Now, what did we all learn? Nothing! You're dead! You didn't learn a single thing, especially considering how hilariously arbitrary it is.

I'd have to disagree with this point, as much as I generally agree with you and dislike SoD: you can learn something. You can learn to play D&D in a sort of "max protect" defensive mode where you have counters available for everything, and you go through the game 10' at a time tapping with your 10' poles.

That's a rather extreme statement, but the gist of it stands: if you want to be successful at a game that has a large number of save or die elements to it, especially arbitrary ones, you have to learn to be prepared with scrolls, wands and defensive buffs operating all the time.

I've played in more than a few games like this, and I absolutely detest them. There's nothing that makes a game less like the source material of books or movies than a group who over-prepares for everything. One group I played in, for instance had spells like Death Ward operating on the entire group all the time. One of the players maintained an excel spreadsheet of the group's buffing equipment. Wow that was fun.

As an example, in the oft-used Medusa example, you can prep for it, and turn an exciting encounter into an absolute snooze fest. So yes, I think you can learn something from a SoD situation, I just think it might not be the lesson the GM might prefer you learn.