Would Paizo Make a Better Steward for Our Hobby?

[Neonchameleon]

True. But they've never needed to design a system before.

Indeed. They therefore don't have the expertise. Because they haven't needed it/

*Spitake*
What?!?
Okay, they run playtests annually to make sure their hardcover rulebooks have extra solid systems. Just because 3e has some pretty big mechanical flaws doesn't mean they don't care for mechanics.
Yes, they could have made further changes between 3e and Pathfinder. But they were limited on time and the initial desire to make things backwards compatible. Backwards compatibility seemed more huge back then, but hindsight is what it is.

3.X didn't introduce either the Summoner, the Gunslinger, or the Prone Shooter feat as it was originally written. Or half a dozen other things I could name. Pathfinder have tweaked 3.X and improved it to start with (because the flaws were well known) - and then introduced things all of their own. And that's not even getting into e.g. the kingdom rules in Kingmaker or the perverse incentives I believe are in Jade Regent.

There's a market, but there isn't a market equal to their current market sitting around waiting. Two competing product lines is a huge financial mistake. How huge? It drove TSR out of buisness huge. The Beginner Box is what it is, an easy and simpler way to get into the main Pathfinder game.

Um... Nothing I've seen said that that's what drove TSR out of business. Rather than issues with the books, and with not listening to their customers (as Dancey put it down to).

Paizo hasn't made a full RPG because they don't have to. But they've made numerous large subsystems such as mass combat, kingdom building, and Mythic. They certainly have the design chops to design an RPG.

I own Kingmaker. And Mythic is online. They are large subsystems - and that's something I can say about them.

And how many RPG games does WotC support? One as well. Although they tweak it occasionally with licence and other IP, but it's still the same game.

Hmm... Let's see. What can you buy things for from WotC at the moment?

Rules Cyclopaedia D&D (And oD&D - not sure if this is in hardcopy)
AD&D 1e
AD&D 2e (not sure this should be separate from 1e ruleswise)
D&D 3.5 (oddly not 3.0)
D&D 4e
Gamma World (Or possibly that's just warehouse copies)

And if you think that the Rules Cyclopaedia D&D is the same as 4e I've a bridge to sell.

And I hardly think that the RPG arm of Wizards is perfect (M:tG has the better designers). Given my choice I'd go with Pelgrane (13th Age, Hillfolk, Gumshoe, more) or possibly Burning Wheel/Luke Crane if I wanted one person as opposed to a company. Or possibly Cubicle 7 if I wanted a caretaking and filtering role - but they aren't up to the job yet.

Right now Paizo is a narrow company focussing on one game and one playstyle. That's great for them but the only people who want Paizo in charge so far as I can tell are those that happen to like that playstyle. I want a company that does do more than one thing.

 

[Umbran]

Supposing Paizo did acquire D&D, they could easily hire any of D&D's storied designers to make the next version of the game. Problem solved.

There's more to creating a game than hiring designers. There's how you playtest, how you get customer feedback, how you manage the design process, how you manage your R&D resources, how you market... There's lots to creating a major successful game beyond hiring a few designers. And doing all this on a completely new ruleset becomes rather bigger than if you're ding it on a basically solid ruleset you just want to adjust here and there.

Which isn't to say that Paizo couldn't - Paizo simply hasn't done it yet, so their ability is uncertain. But it is also true that most companies do it infrequently enough that they don't usually have the full experience from the last time on hand, either, so even those who have done it before may lose some institutional knowledge between tries.

 

[Neonchameleon]

They saw a potential audience: people who were happy with the game system they currently had and did not want to make a switch. So they opted to make a game and products for that audience.
That makes them poor stewards for the hobby? Giving an audience exactly what it wanted?
They didn't set themselves up to oppose the changes made by 4e. Paizo didn't expect Pathfinder to become the opposition, let alone a replacement. They were hoping for "not a colossal failure". They weren't opposed to the changes so much as just wanted to tell adventures and needed a system that wasn't out of print for those adventures.

Indeed. They do what they do well. This is not a problem. It just isn't anything close to the whole hobby - it's a single approach.

I don't see the relevance of this statement.
And in the late '90s WotC was that company that only had a single game that was a card game.
And in the late '70s TSR was that company that only had a single game that was a miniature war game.

Um... You might want to look at the thread title then - it's about being a steward of the whole hobby as opposed to one relatively large part. And you might want to check your history. In the late 90s (98 onwards) Wizards had Pokemon. They also had other games like Roborally and Everway (not that that RPG did terribly well). In the late 70s TSR had Gamma World and Boot Hill as alternative RPGs.

Again, new players. It started out as 3e fans but since then it has grown. Pathfinder is finding a whole new audience who have never played an RPG. Who have never played any edition of Dungeons & Dragons.
Really, at the start of 4e, who was WotC supporting ​other than D&D fans who didn't like 3e?

D&D fans who did like 3e but wanted to try something else. Friendly Local Gaming Shops through the Encounters program (as well as the more intensive organised play) to draw people in. People who preferred gamism to simulationism whether or not they liked D&D.

 

[billd91]

Um... You might want to look at the thread title then - it's about being a steward of the whole hobby as opposed to one relatively large part.

Maybe a closer look at the first post is in order. The question really was about Paizo being the steward of D&D, not the whole gaming hobby.

 

[athos]

Paizo was smart enough to see that the market for 3.5 wasn't dead when WotC went to 4e, and they made pathfinder to capitalize on that market. They are doing pretty well from what I have seen.

WotC on the other hand, took Living Greyhawk and a thriving 3.5 game and threw it all away for 4e thinking they would somehow get the WoW crowd. They may have gotten some of the WoW crowd, but they lost a lot of hardcore gamers that buy products. This has to be one of the biggest blunders in RPG history.

Since D&D is owned by WotC, it will never be Paizo's property, so the question is kind of silly. But I wish WotC would license ALL of 3.5 to Paizo. Some things, like the YuanTi , I miss with pathfinder. Oh well...

 

[Neonchameleon]

And on a tangent, one of the problems D&D Next is suffering is very possibly that Wizards have surprisingly few people there who have published a game that isn't on the D20 Core. Mike Mearls has Iron Heroes and was involved with 4e. Bruce Cordell has Blue Rose (although not True20 interestingly enough). Wyatt, so far as I can tell, is mostly writing settings. But there isn't actually a whole lot of experience developing new games there.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Maybe a closer look at the first post is in order. The question really was about Paizo being the steward of D&D, not the whole gaming hobby.

D&D is a whole lot bigger than Pathfinder. It needs to include 4e and the OSR as well.

 

[Jester David]

3.X didn't introduce either the Summoner, the Gunslinger, or the Prone Shooter feat as it was originally written. Or half a dozen other things I could name. Pathfinder have tweaked 3.X and improved it to start with (because the flaws were well known) - and then introduced things all of their own. And that's not even getting into e.g. the kingdom rules in Kingmaker or the perverse incentives I believe are in Jade Regent.

Are suggesting that some broken elements mean Pathfinder can't design a game?
If so I can point out some amazing mistakes in the 4e update documents.
Mistakes happen. Bad design happens. The trick is to learn. And when it comes time for Pathfinder Revised Paizo will have some pretty experienced staff.

Um... Nothing I've seen said that that's what drove TSR out of business. Rather than issues with the books, and with not listening to their customers (as Dancey put it down to).

Dancey know because he tasked someone named "Lisa Stevens" with finding out. What does she do now? She owns and runs Paizo.
And she attributes the failure of TSR to spilling the audience via Basic and Advanced and Campaign settings and side RPGs (Marvel, Buck Rogers, SAGA, etc).

Hmm... Let's see. What can you buy things for from WotC at the moment?

Rules Cyclopaedia D&D (And oD&D - not sure if this is in hardcopy)
AD&D 1e
AD&D 2e (not sure this should be separate from 1e ruleswise)
D&D 3.5 (oddly not 3.0)
D&D 4e
Gamma World (Or possibly that's just warehouse copies)

And if you think that the Rules Cyclopaedia D&D is the same as 4e I've a bridge to sell.

You can buy those from RPGNow not WotC. WotC never takes your money (even DDI is handled through someone else).
Shoping at DnDClassics.com isn't that much different than buying a used game, save the site makes WotC money. It's not like many people at WotC can take credit for the design of those.

Right now Paizo is a narrow company focussing on one game and one playstyle. That's great for them but the only people who want Paizo in charge so far as I can tell are those that happen to like that playstyle. I want a company that does do more than one thing.

Well, they do the Adventure Card game as well. They have a couple board games. They have magazine experience as well as book experience.
And they can hire people with experience they lack. As the market leader they attract the best talent.

And Paizo also listens to their fanbase, which is important. That's something I want much more from the market leader than perfect design. It doesn't matter how awesome a game is if it's not what I want.
Really, this is what made them the company they are. Anyone could publish a 3e retroclone. Anyone had the opportunity to do what Pathfinder did. What made Paizo was their fan and how they interacted with their fans. That' sweat I want from the steward if the hobby.

 

[Kinak]

I'm curious where people are getting this idea that it's easier to update someone else's game than it is to make your own game.

I mean, it's one of those things that seems like common sense, but isn't true at all in my experience. Do other people's experiences differ or are we just running on assumptions?

Dancey know because he tasked someone named "Lisa Stevens" with finding out. What does she do now? She owns and runs Paizo.
And she attributes the failure of TSR to spilling the audience via Basic and Advanced and Campaign settings and side RPGs (Marvel, Buck Rogers, SAGA, etc).

I get to link one of my favorite Lisa Stevens posts twice in one day! Here you go: Lisa totally agrees with Jester Canuck.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Jester David]

Indeed. They do what they do well. This is not a problem. It just isn't anything close to the whole hobby - it's a single approach.

The idea if anything more than a single approach is new. You can't fault Paizo for this anymore than you can fault WotC for 4e's single approach.

Um... You might want to look at the thread title then - it's about being a steward of the whole hobby as opposed to one relatively large part. And you might want to check your history. In the late 90s (98 onwards) Wizards had Pokemon. They also had other games like Roborally and Everway (not that that RPG did terribly well). In the late 70s TSR had Gamma World and Boot Hill as alternative RPGs.

The point was that OD&D, 3e, and 4e were designed by people who hadn't designed a full game before.

D&D fans who did like 3e but wanted to try something else. Friendly Local Gaming Shops through the Encounters program (as well as the more intensive organised play) to draw people in. People who preferred gamism to simulationism whether or not they liked D&D.

The Pathfinder Society is one of the largest if not largest OP programs at present.