Pathfinder 1E The good man WotC and the scoundrel Paizo

[Zil]

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.

I had similar issues from time to time with Dragon and Dungeon, but every time I did not receive an issue I'd let Paizo customer support know and they'd send me the missing issue with no questions asked. I actually ended up with double copies of a few issues because I'd assume the issue was lost in the mail when in fact it was just slow getting to me because of the international shipping.

Any way, I was always very pleased with their customer support in Dungeon and Dragon days.

Since the end of Paizo's Dragon and Dungeon I've had no problems at all with any of my various subscriptions other than accidentally signing up for the Runelords adventure path twice, but they took care of that quickly so I'm pleased as punch with their service, past and present.

 

[Mark CMG]

Wow. An hour after I point out in another thread how people try to use the OGL as a boogeyman, someone does just that. Blaming the OGL for WotC's problems, such as they might be, ignores the fact that WotC could have used the OGL themselves to do exactly what Paizo has done (click refresh of 3.5) but they didn't. It also ignores the fact that the people who comprise Paizo are all talented, creative people (many who used to work at WotC) who could have created a game without the OGL just as Kenzer did with Hackmaster. It further ignores the fact that customers have freewill are are not designated in advance as being customers of one company or another nor of one brand or another. The premise for this thread is flawed in many, many ways.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

This right here. Both companies are, like it or not, out to make money from RPGs. Both have their good things and bad things that they've done (both of which are largely dependent on your personal preferences), yet one is typically painted as a white knight and the other a black scoundrel. But it's all business.

I'm sure Paizo has carefully cultivated their friendly reputation as a means to increase profits. That's a legitimate business strategy, and one which WotC has not chosen to pursue. Would WotC be better off going that way? Who knows, and it's probably too late now anyway.

 

[Wicht]

Who knows, and it's probably too late now anyway.

Its never too late to follow the path of niceness.

 

[DaveMage]

And now they are getting near (some say they even outdid) WotC in terms of selling revenue. Well, I would call this a huge money-grab. You do relatively nothing compared to the huge work required to develop a big RPG, and become a selling competitor to the market leader.

"Relatively nothing?"

Seriously?

Hey, James Jacobs, Erik Mona, and all the rest at Paizo - what's it like sitting around the office doing nothing and just watching the dough roll in?

You guys work, what - 2 hour days?

 

[Dannager]

Wow. An hour after I point out in another thread how people try to use the OGL as a boogeyman, someone does just that. Blaming the OGL for WotC's problems, such as they might be, ignores the fact that WotC could have used the OGL themselves to do exactly what Paizo has done (click refresh of 3.5) but they didn't.

I'm confused. You're saying that WotC could have used their own license to produce a revised version of their own game? Do you understand that WotC doesn't need to use its own license to make use of its own intellectual properties? "But WotC could have used the OGL too!" isn't an appropriate response to the idea that the OGL allowed other companies to directly compete with WotC using its own IP. WotC doesn't need the OGL to reproduce its own game. So confused.

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm confused. You're saying that WotC could have used their own license to produce a revised version of their own game? Do you understand that WotC doesn't need to use its own license to make use of its own intellectual properties? "But WotC could have used the OGL too!" isn't an appropriate response to the idea that the OGL allowed other companies to directly compete with WotC using its own IP. WotC doesn't need the OGL to reproduce its own game. So confused.

Nope. I am saying they could have refreshed their own product and kept it OGL-friendly if they had wanted to do so. Does that clear it up?

And to be extra clear, I do understand that WotC need not use the OGL to use their own IP, however, if they wish to contribute OGC, they do need to use the OGL. The SRD uses the OGL. Unearthed Arcana also uses the OGL. Just to put a finer point on it.

This December will mark the tenth year I have been publishing under the OGL. I wonder how soon I will be accused of using the OGL to take WotC marketshare?

 

[Wicht]

Nope. I am saying they could have refreshed their own product and kept it OGL-friendly if they had wanted to do so. Does that clear it up?

They could also have borrowed all manner of cool stuff (monsters!) and brought it in house, polishing it up with spiffy art.

 

[Mark CMG]

They could also have borrowed all manner of cool stuff (monsters!) and brought it in house, polishing it up with spiffy art.

It was fairly clear early on that they would eventually move away from the OGL movement by the fact that they did not do so, IMO. UA takes two bits of OGC, some from The Game Mechanics and the other Green Ronin, but the fact that they were otherwise thinking of OGC as a one-way street (they produce and disseminate only, without utilizing from others) is significant when one recalls how often people described how in-house at WotC many were afraid or disliked the OGL and what it became. That they moved away from it completely, propping up the GSL as some sort of viable substitute, shows not only who won in-house but that they were conscious of what moving away from the OGL was likely to be seen as by the community.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Dang. Told myself I'm staying off the boards for awhile. Sigh.

I first heard of Paizo while I was a young freelancer. A friend told me I'd improve my adventure writing abilities by read their material. So I subscribed. Three days later. Paizo announcedthat their license to Dungeon and Dragon magazines is not going to be renewed and they're launching a monthly adventure series called Pathfinder (long before anyone thought it would be a stand alone rpg). It wasn't hard to figure out that their bread and butter just pulled out from under them and if this crazy idea didn't pay off, most if not everyone at the company would be out of a job.

That, in my opinion at the time, was a rather low move. But to lower my opinion of wizards even more, the company clammed up. No press release manning up to their actions. No announcement of their plans. Nothing. In the space of a single day, my opinion of Wizards went from the good publisher that makes a great game to the evil Microsoft of the rpg industry. Paizo got alot of good will that day.

That was the first of many incidents where Wizards behaved like they do not care what the hard core customer's reaction would have been. As Chris Perkins said, "As the clouds continue to pass overhead," so will 4E come as they were presenting it.

During all this, Paizo was publishing APs and were producing some quality content. The little company that was wondering if they'd survive a year was looking healthy. Finally theyput a poll up on their website. They said that many people have expressed a disinterest in what is being previewed for 4E and expressed an interest in staying with 3rd ed or some close varient. So the poll asked, what should paizo do: go 4E, stay 3E or a few other options. Paizo said if they stayed 3E they'd have to reprint the rules since it would mean their doom to support an out of print game. Finally they announced that they listened to their fans and are releasing the new version of the much played system with some rules changes in an open playest. They then listened to their customers' mountains of feeedback and incorporated much of it into their game. Additionally, there have been threads on Paizo's website where customer's suggest a product and it get's made. It really is an amazing feeling when a company you love puts out a product you suggest.

So short of the long, Paizo earned their goodwill. Conversely, Wizards earned their loss of good will from many. Personally, I've moved on and donut Wizards' products that help in my pathfinder game (the tiles specifically), but their position is of their own making. Blaming the OGL or Paizo for their situation is like the lazy office worker blaming the hard worker in the office for getting fired. The situation is their making.