Would Paizo Make a Better Steward for Our Hobby?

[Wicht]

Are kids even trying to learn RPGs on their own anymore? The only kids I know that play are only playing with their parents (my kids included). I don't even think my kids would even know what D&D, Pathfinder, etc. were if it weren't for me.

It is impossible to know for sure with your own kids after the fact. I think parents are excellent proponents of the hobby with their children and thats a good thing. But at the same time, the new players can't all be the offspring of old players and there are new players out there.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

And when I point out that this isn't the only skill needed I get accused of sour grapes when my take is the more playstyles supported the better. Paizo only supports one game and have shown neither inclination nor ability to do more than that so far as I am aware (and there is absolutely no reason they should have to). And "The steward of our hobby" needs to be trying to help as many as possible - a completely different approach to Paizo's 3.5 Thrives.

(And I'm not replying to Jason Bulmahn unless he actually says he wants a critique; I'm pretty sure he doesn't here).

See, the problem is that Sour Grapes is precisely what created Pathfinder in the first place. I was there in the lobby of the hotel at D&D Experience when Jason was on the phone with people back at Paizo after having tried 4e D&D for the first time. I was just going to grab some food but I recognized him due to my experience with Living Greyhawk and stopped for a second to see what he was up to. I didn't mean to overhear, but the conversation was pretty much about how he didn't like 4e at all. I was extremely disappointed as I was a beta tester of 4e, already recruited to be an admin for Living Forgotten Realms, was at the convention running 4e before it even came out for people. I was really hoping that Jason might be getting back in to help us steward in a new campaign and edition. I stopped dead in my tracks when I heard and was curious about his whole opinion.

He proceeded to basically say that after one session of 4e, he hated everything about it and had no idea what they should do about that. I walked away disappointed that the game I was looking forward to was being trashed by someone I looked up to....especially after apparently so little experience with it. The books weren't even out and he was writing it off.

A couple of days later when Paizo announced that they were creating a whole new game that was based off the rules to 3.5e but with some houserules to fix the problems they had with it...I realized that I might have overheard what was basically the moment that Paizo decided to go ahead with their plans.

It seems to me that the entire impetus for Pathfinder was a snap decision over one bad play experience. I personally believe that Pathfinder has caused way more damage to the hobby than anything else. In the past, when a new edition came out there were basically 4 choices: Continue playing with outdated rules out of principle, switch to a new game system, ride the wave of people switching to the new edition while ignoring the stuff about it you didn't like, or stop playing altogether. Paizo added a 5th option: Continue playing the same edition but with a different name and company with new books coming out.

In the past every option except riding the wave forward was a bad one. Stick with the same edition and wind up with no one to play with, switch to a lesser popular system and have the same problem, stop playing and you don't get to play at all. Most people who didn't like 3e still switched to it...because there were no other good options. And eventually they grew to like it.

The problem with the switch to 4e is that no one had time to get used to it. Even before the game came out there was the option to bypass it entirely created by a well known company who pretty much said "We hate 4e so much that we can't support it in good conscience." Which, I believe, led to the situation we have now.

So, in answer to the original question, I believe that Paizo is too intentionally disruptive to be the steward of the hobby.

 

[Wicht]

I personally believe that Pathfinder has caused way more damage to the hobby than anything else.

Wow.

So not supporting an edition you don't like damages the hobby? WotC is now synonymous with the hobby? Consumers shouldn't get to pick which game they prefer?

The gall of Paizo to have the temerity to publish a game other than Dungeons and Dragons (and the gall to be successful with it)!

I'm sorry, but I don't think that not liking the sensibilities of 4e makes one an antigamer. I get that some people don't like 3e and its offspring, but I would never accuse them of doing the hobby harm by preferring a game other than the one I prefer.

 

[Cybit]

Wow.

So not supporting an edition you don't like damages the hobby? WotC is now synonymous with the hobby? Consumers shouldn't get to pick which game they prefer?

The gall of Paizo to have the temerity to publish a game other than Dungeons and Dragons (and the gall to be successful with it)!

I'm sorry, but I don't think that not liking the sensibilities of 4e makes one an antigamer. I get that some people don't like 3e and its offspring, but I would never accuse them of doing the hobby harm by preferring a game other than the one I prefer.

I'm not sure he's saying the people who play PF are causing damage - I think he's saying the splintering of the player base is causing damage. While 4E most certainly did its' part in this by being such a divergent game from 3E, and created an opening, the splintering of a player base is easily the worst case outcome in such a scenario.

Mind you, I hold no ill will towards Paizo, as the GSL arguably forced them to go down that route, and they are a business of gamers, they're going to make games that are fun to them and that make money. Unfortunately it does not seem that PF nor 4E has drawn a new set of gamers to D&D.

At least I hope that is what he's saying.

 

[billd91]

It seems to me that the entire impetus for Pathfinder was a snap decision over one bad play experience. I personally believe that Pathfinder has caused way more damage to the hobby than anything else. In the past, when a new edition came out there were basically 4 choices: Continue playing with outdated rules out of principle, switch to a new game system, ride the wave of people switching to the new edition while ignoring the stuff about it you didn't like, or stop playing altogether. Paizo added a 5th option: Continue playing the same edition but with a different name and company with new books coming out.

In the past every option except riding the wave forward was a bad one. Stick with the same edition and wind up with no one to play with, switch to a lesser popular system and have the same problem, stop playing and you don't get to play at all. Most people who didn't like 3e still switched to it...because there were no other good options. And eventually they grew to like it.

The problem with the switch to 4e is that no one had time to get used to it. Even before the game came out there was the option to bypass it entirely created by a well known company who pretty much said "We hate 4e so much that we can't support it in good conscience." Which, I believe, led to the situation we have now.

So, in answer to the original question, I believe that Paizo is too intentionally disruptive to be the steward of the hobby.

I think you would be wrong. Paizo put up a few posts on their website asking for the members to comment on what they should do - whether they should go with 4e stuff or do something else. They were, after all, facing a late-coming license (totally WotC's fault) and needed to get product in the pipeline if they were going to support the new product and pay the bills. And this is after they had to face a big shift in their business plan because the Dragon/Dungeon licenses were pulled from them the previous year. I seriously doubt anything about Paizo's approach to 4e was a snap decision based on a first impression... a first impression, I might add, that a lot of the market shares (so even if it was based on a first impression, we seem to have validated the hell out of it by giving PF so much support).

I'd have a hard time calling anything they've done "intentionally disruptive" since it's largely been in reaction to WotC's moves. WotC is interested in farming out the magazines - Paizo forms to pick them up. WotC pulls the licenses for Dragon/Dungeon back in, Paizo is forced to react to survive. WotC puts out a new edition, Paizo reacts by publishing an edition compatible with the previous edition. That's disruptive?!? I suppose from WotC's point of view it might be since they were no longer following their lead (and an arrogant viewpoint that would be if WotC held it), but from the point of view of the market at large? I just don't see it.

 

[gamerprinter]

I mean that Paizo are notably not even vaguely making the effort to make Pathfinder even as broad a tent as 3.5 was.

To illustrate, we can use Ultimate Combat as an example. Pathfinder is a game about super-powered wizards and their mundane warrior sidekicks with magic items I'm afraid. Ultimate Combat (as opposed to Ultimate Magic) is where the mundanes were meant to shine. Which meant that there were three approaches that could be taken. There were three possible paths here. The ordinary would have been to look to Complete Warrior for inspiration and have big feats with multiple useful effects to spice up combat like Shock Trooper and the other tactical feats. The daring would have been to look to the Book of Nine Swords (and in particular Iron Heart) for inspiration, to borrow a few pages out of 4e, and to give the non-mages big if realistic things to do. The doubling down on Pathfinder thing to do would be to avoid the Book of Weaboo Fitan Magic like the plague, go with relatively uninspired feats and a lot more support for spellcasters who get into combat.

It should surprise no one that Ultimate Combat has around half as many spells as Ultimate Magic. Even the book that's meant to be about combat is significantly devoted to the already existing and very well supported spellcasters.

This is what I mean about other styles. I could say the same about Pathfinder's Mythic Adventures and what it notably doesn't do. Whenever Pathfinder has had the opportunity to either broaden or double down on what it already does, neglecting those it doesn't cover it has doubled down. 4e on the other hand did broaden - we got the simple fighters who just hit things thank goodness. The Thief is an absolute gem of a class that would be more at home in AD&D than any version of D&D since.



I'm pretty sure it wasn't deliberate.



And Wizards were selling minatures and dungeon tiles aimed at both groups. Paizo have done well with both I agree.



Agreed

Interestly I found the Complete Warrior among the worst 3.5 books ever written and feats like Shock Trooper (being multi-use feats) as among the worst feats ever created. Multi-use feats are among the major reasons I cannot stand ToB, nearly all the feats in that book work that way. CW and ToB were banned almost same day the books were in our possession after only a cursory read. I am endless happy Paizo didn't copy those concepts to UC.

I don't think any publisher should be the steward of the hobby - I would only trust a non-commercial organization with no affiliation to any specific system for such a thing.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not sure he's saying the people who play PF are causing damage - I think he's saying the splintering of the player base is causing damage. While 4E most certainly did its' part in this by being such a divergent game from 3E, and created an opening, the splintering of a player base is easily the worst case outcome in such a scenario.

I think the point is that for the community it's better to have one overarching game that's "good enough" for most people to play, rather than 10 games that are each perfect for 10% of the community. That is, of course, a value statement based on whether you value the overall health of the RPG community (and if you have 5 gamer friends that you like playing with, you might very well not care), and that you feel a community organized around one communally shared game is a healthier one. A contentious view, but I can see the logic both for and against it.

 

[gamerprinter]

Are kids even trying to learn RPGs on their own anymore? The only kids I know that play are only playing with their parents (my kids included). I don't even think my kids would even know what D&D, Pathfinder, etc. were if it weren't for me.

I bought the Beginner Box for my nephews and ran a single game with them - it's a year later and they have their own group of friends playing weekly. So though it's true they wouldn't have heard of the game if it wasn't for me, but they certainly don't need me to play the game. They are doing that on their own just fine.

 

[fjw70]

I bought the Beginner Box for my nephews and ran a single game with them - it's a year later and they have their own group of friends playing weekly. So though it's true they wouldn't have heard of the game if it wasn't for me, but they certainly don't need me to play the game. They are doing that on their own just fine.

Despite being a 4e fan I must say that the PFBB is the best basic version of "D&D" is a really long time. My son did a little DMing for the first time when that box first came out.

 

[TwoSix]

Despite being a 4e fan I must say that the PFBB is the best basic version of "D&D" is a really long time. My son did a little DMing for the first time when that box first came out.

Yea, it's a shame they didn't do a more simplified version of 4e for kids. Something like the character sheets this guy did:
http://jamesstowe.blogspot.com/2011/09/dnd-for-8-year-olds.html