Pathfinder 1E The good man WotC and the scoundrel Paizo

[kitsune9]

I disagree with the cynicism. I don't consider WotC or Paizo money-grabbing, [insert bad stuff here], companies. They're doing what businesses do--putting out products for consumers to buy at a profit.

Their approaches toward that end are different. Companies work from their market research, sales, and other reports and see the "big picture" in myriad of ways. Their company culture also comes into play here. WotC is doing what they are doing because of the what their reports and research is telling them and by the direction and profit targets Hasbro has laid down for them. Paizo doesn't have a parent company nor are they a public corporation so a lot of the decisions fall inhouse.

My point is that I honestly don't see WotC as the evil corporate empire. They are doing what they are doing, because it's the direction they have to take. Paizo is no different.

 

[ggroy]

It seems like Paizo has succeeded in doing all the right moves over the last few years, whether planned or by lucky chance. Whether Paizo will continue on with their success in the future, is by no means guaranteed.

In one future scenario, Pathfinder becomes the next industry dominant fantasy tabletop rpg (basically displacing WotC D&D).

In another future scenario, Pathfinder becomes another lapsed fantasy rpg fallen by the wayside like Earthdawn, Palladium Fantasy, Rolemaster, etc ...

It remains to be seen which scenario Pathfinder will end up in, besides the two above scenarios.

 

[Dannager]

They are both great companies doing great things who give a damn about the hobby. Did Paizo put as much effort into the development of PFRPG as WotC did with 4e? Almost certainly not. But Paizo directs its efforts towards other interests, including developing what is arguably the finest, most professional, most expansive line of tabletop roleplaying adventures in history. The two companies focus on different things, and not everyone will appreciate both focuses. It's just unfortunate that the gaming community seems to want to call something malice or stupidity when it's simply the result of a focus they disagree with.

 

[Wicht]

Glorantha?

Your snark would read a lot better if you at least got the name of what you are complaining about right.

Paizo's world is Golarion.

Glorantha is Greg Stafford's world used in RuneQuest and HeroQuest.

 

[xechnao]

...

Pathfinder is not a worse game than 4e. It is different and perhaps, as a game it may even have a longer lasting appeal. I believe, if another company made a game like 4e while Wotc went on with 3.5 or a game like Pathfinder, in this scenario 4e would fare much worse than how Pathfinder has actually fared so far.

The problem with 4e is that the game is about explicitly playing out a specific board-tactics role. 3.xe, OTOH, is, at least in theory, more inspirational regarding roles for the broader public (sword guy, spell guy, martial arts guy etch). 3.xe is rather more implicit than 4e and thus more time resistant IMHO.

 

[Wicht]

I think they don't even have the resources nor the experience to develop a full-featured game like D&D 3.5e all by themselves.

How much experience is necessary then? And in what way is Paizo hurting for resources? You do realize that they are one of the largest RPG companies going at the moment with a very experienced core staff.

Besides which, writers are relatively cheap. Its the art thats expensive and Paizo's books are full of new art.

 

[JustKim]

Paizo put me off early on by mishandling distribution of Dragon and Dungeon magazines. There were a lot of us not receiving issues, or receiving them weeks after retailers, or even months late after repeated inquiries. There was also a lot of applause for the Dungeon adventure paths and content, when what I saw was mostly a ratcheting up of sex and grotesque violence across many adventures. That trend continued into the first Pathfinder AP, though I understand they've improved, and I've since found some very good reads in the Pathfinder product line.

But Paizo continued to erode my good will by selling my address. After an emergency move, Paizo was the only company aside from my utilities that had my new address. I received a Bradford Exchange catalogue, and later a WotC ad for their high-budget chess set. The chess set flyer caused a stink and Paizo eventually communicated that yes, they had given our addresses to WotC- but only because WotC had the rights to subscriber information. It is extremely unlikely that Westar Energy sold my address to the Bradford Exchange. I have never expressed to Westar any interest in replica Harry Potter wands or pewter dragons with zircon eyes.

I was not too thrilled with Paizo as a company by the time they started routinely charging 200% of the going price for DDM singles, and when they broke the exciting news that they were ready to buy our DDM collections for pennies on the dollar, I decided to give them a wide berth. It was called plasticrack with good reason and Paizo was the most exploitative vendor that I was aware of.

So this good will toward Paizo doesn't really exist for me. Their early impression was of a deceptive company out of their depth, you know, sort of what WotC is unpopular for now. Both companies have disappointed me, and it has nothing to do with what version of D&D they publish. It has everything to do with how they treat me as a customer.

 

[smetzger]

That's funny 'money grabbing' and 'rpg company' in the same sentence.

Neither company makes a lot of money off D&D or Pathfinder. Employees of Paizo would probably make more money if the company was incorporated as a non-profit.

 

[Mercurius]

At least one major flaw in the OP's argument: Paizo is largely comprised of former WotC employees that are, in a sense, simply continuing where they left off. Two roads diverged and Paizo went one way, and WotC the other. Think of names like Jason Bulmahn, Erik Mona, Lisa Stevens, James Jacobs, not to mention some of the freelance designers they've employed like Sean K Reynolds.

You could also say that Paizo continued the early 3E WotC approach, taking the OGL and going a bit further with the open playtest model and their whole Pathfinder Society and subscription model as a whole. WotC took a step (back, imo) towards a more conservative, traditional business model, presumably because they felt they got burned by the OGL (and in a sense they did, but at least partially because they lost touch with their fan-base).

I would ask the OP: What does a company have to do, in your eyes, not to be "money grabbing?" It goes without saying that "business" = "making money," but of course there are different ways to go about making money and conducting business, largely centered around whether or not it is the product that is more important or the money. I can say that I feel that the people at Paizo love their product - it shows in the quality of the work, they way they conduct business and communicate with their customers. I'm not so sure with WotC. At the least, they seem confused.

 

[Wicht]

The chess set flyer caused a stink and Paizo eventually communicated that yes, they had given our addresses to WotC- but only because WotC had the rights to subscriber information.

So WotC exercised their legal rights, obtained the subscriber information to their own licensed-out magazines, and you blame Paizo?

And your other main gripe is they try to buy low and sell high?