Pondering RE: Monte Cook / Long-term roadmaps for both Wizards and Paizo

[innerdude]

I don't have a horse in the race, so to speak, since I think I've made it pretty well known in the past that I'm not particularly interested in playing or DM-ing 4e. But if you're a 4e enthusiast, based on what you know of 4e's long-term roadmap, are you excited about it?

I ask, because the announcement of Monte Cook coming back to WotC as a "consultant" carries some interesting possibilities (and potential speculation).

Having just invested another round of cash in some Paizo / Pathfinder supplemental material myself (though to be honest, I'd much rather be running Savage Worlds), I've been reviewing some of my previous purchases over the last 24 months.

And it seems that I'm a pretty fair model of the type of GM/player that Paizo is marketing to. It seems their 3-5 year plan is roughly:

1. Continue to build the Pathfinder Core system, both rules-wise and through adoption, and produce approximately 2 splatbooks a year.
2. Continue to build the Golarion campaign setting through supplemental materials.
3. Create two full adventure paths per year.
4. Create additional GM adventure/material/minis/map products.

And I've bought multiple items of all four.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall Jason Buhlman and / or Erik Mona going on record saying that they expected the PFRPG in its current iteration to last a MINIMUM of eight years, and hopefully ten or twelve. In other words, as consumers, those of us who like Pathfinder have a fairly clear picture of what to expect from Paizo going forward. And as a general fan of the company and its products, this is a GOOD THING for me. It makes me feel like I want to stay in the loop with what they're doing, because I want to stay abreast of cool product that's coming out, even if I won't end up buying it immediately.

And I'm wondering, however, if the 4e enthusiasts are finding it more difficult to maintain their enthusiasm for the system, due to the haphazard revamping of WotC's release schedule over the past six months--more essentials, less "core," dropping of splatbooks from the schedule, less product, etc.

Does the lack of clear direction for the 4e product line make you wary of what's coming, or is there enough material already out there that any additions to the 4e line are largely unimportant in your decision to keep playing?

Also, regarding Monte Cook: if the signals the 4e players and GMs have been putting out are any indication, it's clear that they are nearly unanimous in their desire to avoid moving back toward a "3e-istic" rules paradigm. Does Cook's new "consultant" role make you more wary for the direction of D&D as an RPG going forward, assuming you're generally happy for 4e?

This may sound strange, but I think one of Paizo's biggest fears would be for Wizards to suddenly do an "about face" and start creating a 5e that was a hybrid 3e/4e that tried to bridge the current schism, because I think there are a lot of us playing Pathfinder that would definitely consider looking at a rules system whose intent was specifically to do that--but I doubt such a product would hold much appeal to those already "fully invested" in 4e.

There's tons of factors for Paizo's success (the biggest being that they consistently produce quality product), but one is definitely that they currently have very little competition in the D20/OGL space. Sure, there's retroclones, True20, Mutants and Masterminds, et. al., but for a "modern" take on 3.x/OGL fantasy, Pathfinder is the name of the game at the moment.

I ask, because I know for me, I'm very happy with the direction my two main systems of choice have been going, and as a mostly-neutral observer, I'm curious what those who have the most invested in 4e think.

 

[DM Howard]

I'll just say that I'm not sure yet. Would I be happy with Wizards doing a 3.5/4E system? Yes, I'd be very happy. Would I be happy with a continuation down the development road of 4E? I THINK so. I like a lot of things about 4E, but I can also say that I like a lot of things about 3.5/Pathfinder.

I think my one huge problem with 3.5/Pathfinder is the system mastery (in essence cheesy power gaming) and how easy it is to die as heroes (or accomplish nothing for the day because you have to stop and rest).

The things I dislike the most about 4E include the item system, rituals, and loss of vancian magic.

So I think, after doing a lot of thinking out loud in terms of this post, I would like a combination of 3.5/Pathfinder and 4E, BUT I wouldn't be so terribly disgusted if Wizards continued down the "4E" development route.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I haven't invested even moderately heavily in a system since the launch of 3E, and I bought a fraction of the books released for it by WotC, let alone a tiny chunk of the 3rd-party stuff. (I suppose I got more than half of the Arcana Evolved stuff, but there wasn't much of it, and I used everything I bought.)

So all I want out of a new version of D&D is that they get good people working on it, come up with a design that they find fun to run and play, and then do the best they can on it. If that system gives me something I don't have already, then great--I'll be interested in getting the basics of it to try it out.

I suppose with something as extreme as 4E there is room for a refined version of it that would attract me. A 4E that stayed true to the core, expanded and refined skill challenges, made rituals and items more interesting, and perhaps provided an abstract option for resolving some conflicts when the full rules were overkill in the story--I'd probably be interested in that. But chances are, time the marketing/sales team gets done fragmenting such a product over several books that necessarily have bloat in them, I'll lose interest. And if all they do is pick around the edges, I already have the 4E books I need to make it work well for me.

Edit: Theoretically, there is a place for a 4E rewrite that deliberately kills power and feat bloat cold--and then replaces that page content with something new. The trick is coming up with that something new.

I still say if they want the best version of D&D, they lock Monte Cook, Mike Mearls, Luke Crane into a room for a year, with support staff picked by those guys, and whatever comes out they then playtest and polish with no major changes. But this book will fit into 2 to 4 volumes more or less complete, and thus they'll never do it. I'd sure like to play that, though. I'd pay $60 to $75 per volume for that game.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know, it's funny. I've stopped buying a lot of RPG products years ago. I buy this or that as it comes, but, by and large, my RPG spending is pretty much rock bottom. I still play regularly and enjoy the games, but, as far as Innerdude's concerns here, they quite frankly don't mean anything to me.

Do people really worry about things like this? If 4e stopped producing tomorrow, would it really matter to you?

I guess my question is, does having a new shiney to buy actually make you more invested in a particular system?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The only part of "new shiny" that is interesting to me is rather a nostalgia reaction--and I doubt this is shared by many gamers. To wit, in my early gaming years, I could afford very little, and I was always doing stuff that was already old--that everyone else I knew had already done. Now, none of our group had done any of it. So we enjoyed it just fine.

But after I got out of school and started working, it was rather fun every five years or so to get something when it was new and everyone was discussing it. Because I can. However, I hardly need the complete line of anything to do that.

 

[Pentius]

But if you're a 4e enthusiast, based on what you know of 4e's long-term roadmap, are you excited about it?

I know basically nothing about WotC's long term road map for 4e. They may or may not have said something about it. I don't read most of the news/editiorial stuff.

And I'm wondering, however, if the 4e enthusiasts are finding it more difficult to maintain their enthusiasm for the system, due to the haphazard revamping of WotC's release schedule over the past six months--more essentials, less "core," dropping of splatbooks from the schedule, less product, etc.

Does the lack of clear direction for the 4e product line make you wary of what's coming, or is there enough material already out there that any additions to the 4e line are largely unimportant in your decision to keep playing?

My enthusiasm for 4e is based on what I already have, and the many things I could do with it, not on products that have yet to hit the shelves. New things I like are good, but not tied too strongly to my choice of system.

Also, regarding Monte Cook: if the signals the 4e players and GMs have been putting out are any indication, it's clear that they are nearly unanimous in their desire to avoid moving back toward a "3e-istic" rules paradigm. Does Cook's new "consultant" role make you more wary for the direction of D&D as an RPG going forward, assuming you're generally happy for 4e?

I'm wary, but willing to give Monte a shot. I've never been thrilled with his work, but it's also been a few years since I've played with any of his work. In those years, his skills have doubtless been refined, and my tastes have as well. Also, in he last year or so, 4e releases have been pretty hit or miss for me, so a turning point would not be entirely unwelcome, as long as it wasn't turning directly and clearly toward the miss side of things.

I definitely do not want 3e up in my 4e, though. If that is the direction things go, I am unlikely to continue buying new material, at least for 4e. There is enough 4e material already, though, that I'm fairly sure another 15 years of playing it wouldn't give me time to play every thing in the edition I'd like to play. There are so many good classes, and so many good builds, I'm always struggling to decide on one for a new game, or coming up with concepts to put away and play later.

 

[Janx]

Y'know, it's funny. I've stopped buying a lot of RPG products years ago. I buy this or that as it comes, but, by and large, my RPG spending is pretty much rock bottom. I still play regularly and enjoy the games, but, as far as Innerdude's concerns here, they quite frankly don't mean anything to me.

Do people really worry about things like this? If 4e stopped producing tomorrow, would it really matter to you?

I guess my question is, does having a new shiney to buy actually make you more invested in a particular system?

when I was in college, I bought every non-setting specific D&D rulebook. That was a lot of money spent on 2E. I gave nary a thought to TSR's roadmap, and neither did TSR.

I reckon the average buyer is the same. They buy stuff for the game they play, or they don't. The future holds no concern.

I stuck to 3.5E. I haven't bought a book in years. I'm not sure I'd be inclined to jump to 5e if it came out, given that I wasn't inclined to switch to 4e or PF.

 

[MrMyth]

It's hard to say I'm specifically excited, but mainly just because we don't have a very clear issue of the release schedule - there isn't much to be excited or not about.

Am I excited about playing the game itself? Absolutely! That's a completely different thing from anticipating new products. I'm enjoying running a Ravenloft game, a friend is starting up a Dark Sun campaign, and I'm still involved in an online game that has been running for over two years. I don't see any of those changing based on what WotC does or does not come out with - they will likely run to their expected conclusions either way, and then we'll figure out what to play next based on what folks are interested.

As for the products themselves, while they haven't been plentiful, they have been good - the Heroes of Shadow / Gloomwrought books were very useful for my current campaign, and the new item book is excellent stuff. What WotC comes out with a year from now is, generally, of much less concern to me than what they are coming out with right now. If a given product is worth buying, I'll buy it - what it means about the 'direction of the game' is more of a theoretical issue than an actual one.

 

[innerdude]

I guess my question is, does having a new shiney to buy actually make you more invested in a particular system?

That's actually a really interesting question, and one that I hadn't myself given much thought to, until I realized recently that having regular product releases related to the game I'm playing made me want to play it more.

So ultimately, I think the answer is, "Yes," even if it is a purely psychological thing.

Seeing Paizo's material for campaigns, and NPCs, and worldbuilding, and maps, and minis, and whatever else, gave me more desire to play. I was seeing new ideas being presented in the system I enjoyed playing, and even if I only ended up purchasing 1/10 (or less) of the stuff, seeing the ideas being put out there for Pathfinder made me feel like I wanted to be more "active" in the hobby, both as a player and GM.

 

[Thunderfoot]

I already put my take on all of this here.

What I think it means is there is change coming. I didn't/don't like 4e in it's basic mechanics. It's too far from what D&D meant to me, no edition hate, just my opinion. I think 3.5 went way too far by the end.
Short term WotC road map, put a bandage on the bleeding wound that is the continual migration of "older" players to other editions. Continue to cultivate the continued growth of newer players to the game.

Long term WotC road map, make a path that is strongly rooted in the past, that doesn't alienate the future. Quick streamlined core rules with expandable options for those that want them and non-essential for those that don't. Make the core rules marketable to a general audience, not just hard core geeks/gamers; Wal-Mart, Target and K-Mart shelves await a new D&D product. Make the expandable products available through more traditional markets, bookstores, hobby stores, and the like.

I think the big problem is continued revenues. WotC has had some great ideas for continued revenues that have all been unsustainable. Unfortunately the whole Magic: the Gathering CCG craze of the 90s has made everyone think that rarity means more sales (I even saw a LEGO like product that had ultra-rare figures available). I hate this model. If you think something needs to be more of a rarity, then increase the price of that item, but make it available. If the quality of the minis had been higher, the entry level line less expensive and the "special" monsters made individually available at a higher price, I might have still been buying them at the end of their print runs, I stopped with the "Dragon Queen" series.

Power cards are cheesy, IMO, but as long as there isn't a rarity factor involved (I have to buy 32 packs to get the one daily I use constantly). I think it would be a great continued revenue maker. Rarity as a means for revenue is played out, Paizo has proven that quality, well thought out product released at a more moderate pace will win out in the end. A lesson WotC needs to learn....fast. Another thing they have let go, licensing.

Back in the day, TSR never put out it's own minis, first Citadel and then Ral Partha bought the licenses and put out their own product, sharing a small percentage of the revenues. It was a smart plan, the 3rd party company gets the sales of "accessory" products keeping them from developing their own version of the product and TSR kept overhead down by not having to manufacture everything themselves (now if they just wouldn't have had 150 company vehicles...)

Get Chessex or Game Science to make your brand of dice, get Reaper to manufacture your "official" minis, have Fantasy Flight build your board games, whatever, just take the burden off your shoulders so that you can design well crafted books. M:tG will always be a source of turn over revenue, D&D should be a sustainable long-term market.

Oh and BTW, Gamma World re-launch was brilliant, why not delve into some more of the older TSR titles and see what you can come up with, Star Frontiers is just begging for a come back.