Pathfinder 1E This is why pathfinder has been successful.

[jodyjohnson]

Pathfinder AP and Paizo adventure authors with 2+ credits (in order of credits):
Greg Vaughan (12), Richard Pett (8), Tim Hitchcock (7), Nicolas Logue, Rob McCreary, Neil Spicer, Jason Buhlman, James Jacobs, Stephen Greer, Wesley Schneider, Michael Kortes, Brian Cortejo, Jason Nelson, Brandon Hodge, Anson Caralya, Tito Leati, Wolfgang Baur

Other noteables appearing with Paizo and WotC/TSR
Erik Mona, Sean Reynolds, Monte Cook, Keith Baker, Colin McComb

4e WotC (1+):
Bruce Cordell, Mike Mearls, Chris Sims, Scott Fitzgerald Gray, Rich Baker, Logan Bonner, Robert Schwab, David Noonan, Chris Tulach, James Wyatt, Matthew Sernett, Keith Baker, Bill Slavicsek, Greg Vaughan, Ari Marmell, Rodney Thompson, Erik Sctt de Bie

3.x WotC (2+):
Bruce Cordell, Rich Baker, James Wyatt, Gwendolyn Kestrel, Ari Marmell, David Noonan, Ed Stark, James Jacobs, Sean Reynolds, Matthew Sernett, Greg Vaughan, Nicolas Logue, Thomas M. Reid.

Plus Erik Mona, Wolfgang Baur, Jason Buhlman, Richard Pett, Monte Cook, Tim Hitchcock, Keith Baker


Greg Vaughan, Richard Pett, Tim Hitchcock, and Nicolas Logue write a big chunk of Pathfinder adventures and also wrote some of the 3.x adventures.

Greg Vaughan is also the credited co-designer for one 4e adventure.

Through 2e, 3.x, and 4e the most prolific adventure writer was Bruce Cordell by a landslide (24 credits or more).

 

[Banshee16]

That is a good point on the authors. But I don't think you can over rate the value of having the likes of Jacobs and Mona providing creative direction.

I think you've got different corporate objectives driving the two companies....it's the only real reason I can think of behind why an author can write a terrible adventure for WotC and then something great for Paizo.

That, and creative direction. What else could explain it?

I think Paizo, being smaller, more nimble, without corporate oversight in the same manner as they have at WotC is able to experiment more, focus more on interesting stories, and sometimes, on edgier topics. Some of their stuff is just more mature.

I also don't think that the extreme focus on mechanics and balance that has been pursued by WotC for the last 10 years has helped them. Their material has just become so....formulaic.

Banshee

 

[James Jacobs]

LoL, who was co-author of RHoD?

Where is he now?

Lurking on this thread is where he is right now, in fact! MWA HA HA HA (cough cough choke) ... ahem.

(and for the record, I've written 3 Pathfinder AP adventures so far, 3 Dungeon adventures, and have had co-author credit on 3 Pathfinder AP adventures... I'm no Greg Vaughan, but I try!)

 

[trancejeremy]

I think you've got different corporate objectives driving the two companies....it's the only real reason I can think of behind why an author can write a terrible adventure for WotC and then something great for Paizo.

That, and creative direction. What else could explain it?

I think Paizo, being smaller, more nimble, without corporate oversight in the same manner as they have at WotC is able to experiment more, focus more on interesting stories, and sometimes, on edgier topics. Some of their stuff is just more mature.

I also don't think that the extreme focus on mechanics and balance that has been pursued by WotC for the last 10 years has helped them. Their material has just become so....formulaic.

Banshee

In a way, it's sort of like the difference between TV shows on the major networks vs those on cable. Even in the case where the same company owns the network (Fox vs FX) there is a huge jump in quality and tone.

 

[DaveMage]

The great thing for Paizo, IMO, is that because of their adventure-writing acumen, they've almost made themselves "edition proof" - especially with regard to D&D. There are a good amount of 4E players that have no interest in the Pathfinder RPG, but buy the Paizo adventures for conversion.

I'll bet that whatever WotC comes up with for 5E, Paizo will still sell their APs to those who go with 5E.


Also, I think the point made above about WotC's failure with pdfs is spot on. With the emergence of the iPad (and other tablets), the usefulness of the PDF at the game table increased exponentially. When I game, I only need to bring my iPad, which contains all the Pathfinder rulebooks, the player's guide to the AP we're going through, and any setting material I would ever need. Not to mention the fact that the iPad will allow a GM to show the PCs a picture from the bestiaries without showing the text (by altering the screen to show just the monster).

I think it would help WotC tremendously to somehow take advantage of the medium to enhance the tabletop experience for D&D.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Also, I think the point made above about WotC's failure with pdfs is spot on. With the emergence of the iPad (and other tablets), the usefulness of the PDF at the game table increased exponentially. When I game, I only need to bring my iPad, which contains all the Pathfinder rulebooks, the player's guide to the AP we're going through, and any setting material I would ever need. Not to mention the fact that the iPad will allow a GM to show the PCs a picture from the bestiaries without showing the text (by altering the screen to show just the monster).

I think it would help WotC tremendously to somehow take advantage of the medium to enhance the tabletop experience for D&D.

In all honesty, I think WotC's approach to the issue of protection against piracy by providing online access to their rules to monthly subscribers via DDI is an entirely balanced and reasonable response. And while I have not tried it via iPad, I am guessing it works from that platform, too, via 3G.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE my iPad and consider it essential gaming gear. Hell -- so much so -- I got two of em for that purpose. So I'm totally with you on this one, except, the capitalist in me sees WotC's viewpoint here.

Thinking of this from an internal perspective, at the time, WotC with 4E was just seeing its own IP from 3.5 deployed as a direct competitor to its new game. It was also seeing its .pdf books pirated and reasonably believed they were clearly losing sales from that piracy as a result. And don't say that doesn't happen -- it surely does. We've all seen it.

"We gave away the IP in the OGL, now we are giving away the IP via pirated .pdfs -- just how the hell are we supposed to make money around here!!"

They are a book publisher, after all. That's the core of their business in terms of D&D (or at least, was).

If I was at WotC when that (dramatically re-enacted) meeting happened -- I would have kept my head down, too and mumbled "hell yes" to doing it via DDI subscriptions.

My point: There's more than one way to serve demand for digital products.

 

[Hussar]

The Malazan Books of the Fallen series is an excellent example of a D&D style setting, showing how the characters and societies would deal with the fact that mages exist. They're considered vital units in an army and can help turn the tide of battle......but the regular soldiers arealso important. The mages are kind of Shock and Awe but the regular soldiers are still the backbone ofthe army.

Banshee

Sort of. The regular forces act as protection for the wizards who do all the heavy lifting. Or, if both forces are fairly evenly matched in magic, the wizards cancel each other out and the regular forces have to slot it out.

The problem with this in D&D, is that wizards don't cancel each other out. It's extremely difficult to block magic in D&D. For a minor expenditure, I get an Enlarged wand of Fireballs, which gives me a range of 1500+ feet. Well outside of any possible Dispel magic and even most siege weaponry.

I LOVE Steven Erikson. But, his magic system is not D&D.

 

[DaveMage]

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE my iPad and consider it essential gaming gear. Hell -- so much so -- I got two of em for that purpose.

Two, eh?

If you're married, please share strategies you used to convince the Mrs. on how this approach adds to our mutual quality of life...

 

[Neonchameleon]

This. I almost don't think we're talking the same game system, PF doesn't give me these kinds of problems with Kingmaker - are you sure you are talking PF rules???

Given that on RPG.net I think you've been denying that the fifteen minute adventuring day even exists - or at least you've ever found it a problem then I consider your play ... atypical.

Except that I have not changed the system, nor am I playing against it - I use the rules as written, exploring a hex takes a day - but many hexes don't take long to play through.

The more... interesting hexes typically take longer, but most of the major encounter areas can still be finished in a single run, with two exceptions in the first two adventures.

Possibly my group were smarter about it. They spent several days

Spoiler

terrorizing the Stag Lord's fort from outside the walls and when they did move in it was stormcloak-and-wheelbarrow style backed with illusion magic and a natural 19 on an intimidate check with a string of successful aid others and an impressive skill level when they finally decided to move in. The lower level bandits fled.

Was I rolling random monsters for that? Of course. Did this slow the PCs? Not really

Spoiler

unless you count giving them a supply of heads to wave around as disembodied heads

. Certainly the combat wasn't a threat.

They conserved spells even in the less major encounters ... because they didn't know how major or minor the area would be.

The specific cases you've mentioned being the only ones where this is an issue.

So again - not everybody agrees with you, and if they do not agree with you it does not mean that we are running the game against the way it is intended to be run.

Then the PCs are not using their powers to best effect. 3.X is balanced round 4 encounters/day. Excluding capstones to modules I'm struggling to think of any adventuring days that come close to that level.

 

[billd91]

Then the PCs are not using their powers to best effect..

So? Is there any expectation that the players have to use their PCs' powers to best effect? No. They might and they might have fun doing things a different way.