D&D 4E 4E WotC way of saying your fired?

[Glyfair]

I'm NOT switching systems mid-way through an Adventure Path.

They have first hand experience with that with the Shackled City. It switched from 3E to 3.5 midway. Part of the reason the hardcover was so popular, everything was one "edition."

Given that WotC currently prioritizes getting the rules to randomly selected D&D Insider subscribers and RPGA groups higher than they do getting the rules to significant third-party companies that can help transition their audience, I am starting to get a little worried.

I'm a bit worried about Paizo if this statement is Erik's. If he truly doesn't understand the difference between playtesting a game and having a set of rules they can give to 3rd party publishers I have to be concerned about Paizo's playtesting of their modules.

I do find that hard to believe that he doesn't understand the difference. Maybe he was feeling a bit petulant at the time he wrote it.

I've never played an MMORPG, I have no interest in playing an MMORPG, and elements that move the game further from its traditional roots as a social tabletop game give me the heebie jeebies.

Then again, maybe Erik has been buying the "4E is a MMORPG" stuff that has been flooding the forums. I know there is a vibe of that from the Paizo forums and staff. Erik seems to be taking the reasonable "wait and see" approach from most of his comments. However, when I see comments like those above I wonder whether those comments are the negativity affecting him, or whether that's how he really feels and the "wait and see" is just his corporate face.

 

[Zurai]

I'm a bit worried about Paizo if this statement is Erik's. If he truly doesn't understand the difference between playtesting a game and having a set of rules they can give to 3rd party publishers I have to be concerned about Paizo's playtesting of their modules.

I do find that hard to believe that he doesn't understand the difference. Maybe he was feeling a bit petulant at the time he wrote it.

Look at it from a publisher's POV.

The turnaround on Pathfinder is apparantly more than six months per module.

We are currently 8 months from the general release of 4th Edition.

They don't need to know specifics of the rule set to prepare their 3rd AP to be 4.0 compatible, but they need to know the general gist of the rules. To give a 2E to 3E comparison, they don't need to know that 5 ranks in Knowledge: Nobility gives a +2 bonus to Diplomacy, but they do need to know that player characters actually have measurable skills now.

 

[Minicol]

Originally Posted by Erik Mona
Back at Wizards of the Coast in 1999 there was a lot of talk about "firing the existing audience" of D&D with the third edition launch. The logic went like this: "Even if we have to fire all of our existing customers, so long as we replace those old customers with more new ones, the result will have been worth it."

In my case, they have succeeded quite admirably. As I said, my D&D budget was a sacred cow. Consider what I spent to have the whole WOTC 3.5 + most of D20
+ earlier editions.

Of course, I respect the unalienable right of people to shoot themselves in the leg.

Now to be honest, I am not quite so upset about rules changes. I am upset about the attitude shown by the company. It seems from outside quite cynical and selfish.

I am upset, because RPGs are different from most hobbies in that they are shared worlds. The design of D&D was done by many different people over the years, and they managed to make a shared experience. Nothing was quite as exemplified by this as the D20 license itself.
Breaking this is ...

Now the TRUE design flaw of 3.X ... you want to know it ?

It's an empty rules system with nothing to remember it by !

WhaddI meanby this ? People do not remember 1.0 because of the rules. They remember it because they were scared shitless in I6 : Ravenloft or because they slew Lolth in Queen of the Demonweb pits.

WOTC has kept publishing various rules supplements over the 3.X life, but the adventures were here only at the very end. Who has played them ? Did anybody ?

The source of fun for 3.X was DUNGEON. DUNGEON, yes. Made by ... PAIZO.
It's not a surprise to me that it was the first thing to eliminate to make way for their new line.

Between this and the not-so-friendly attitude of a lot of 4e "fans", I am convinced that I will not buy 4e or anything related close or far, but I'll stick by Paizo whatever their choices.

Thank you for all the good work, and excellent adventures guys.

 

[Monkey Boy]

I'm a bit worried about Paizo if this statement is Erik's. If he truly doesn't understand the difference between playtesting a game and having a set of rules they can give to 3rd party publishers I have to be concerned about Paizo's playtesting of their modules.

I've play test Paizo modules every weekend and can safely say they rock.

I love my Dungeon collection.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I'm a bit worried about Paizo if this statement is Erik's. If he truly doesn't understand the difference between playtesting a game and having a set of rules they can give to 3rd party publishers I have to be concerned about Paizo's playtesting of their modules.

That gave me a whisky tango foxtrot moment as well. We've had, what, 3-4 weeks of outside playtesting of the rules, and he's publicly voicing worry that the third party publishers don't have the rules yet? They've only begun the playtesting.

Maybe Erik doesn't think that whatever playtesting WotC with the DDI and RPGA playtesters is actual playtesting. Or maybe he thinks the playtesting that is being still being done would not have a big enough affect on decisions third party publishers like him want to make.

Because I could still see the complaint that if WotC gave rules to third party publishers before outside playtest and then ended up having to give out weekly/monthly revisions as playtesters gave feedback, then he'd have just something different to complain about. :\

 

[SPECTRE666]

I am not trying to troll or flame people. I posted the link. Go verify, what I copied. I just posted what Erik said. Page 9 on the link. Also 1,000,000 people send WotC $10.00 a month to play MMOD&D, for one year. Think about it. Thats a lot of $. I am all for 4E. I like most of what I see with 4E. Just some times we might have to ask ourselves some uncomfortable questions, no?

 

[delericho]

I'm NOT switching systems mid-way through an Adventure Path. That would be far too disruptive to our business and our customers are practically begging us not to do so already. So it's not happening.

Let's say we don't get the rules in time to make an informed decision before we need to start work in earnest on the third Pathfinder Adventure Path, and we're committed to supporting 3.5 in Pathfinder through February of 2009. Let's also say that we continue to sell enough Pathfinders to make it a worthwhile exercise, and let's also say that the reaction on behalf of the existing audience to 4.0 is underwhelming...

Now, 3.5 is not a perfect system. There are plenty of flaws, particularly in high-level play, and sooner or later someone needs to get in there and "perfect" the system...

Thereafter, we might release a "3.75" that smooths out some of the system's kinks and addresses some of the common complaints about it in a way that is respectful of the game's 30-year tradition.

The upside then is that Pathfinder would be fueled by a system whose design is more or less fully controlled by Paizo, and we won't have to worry about what the folks at WotC are doing with D&D, because Pathfinder will no longer be slaved to the official D&D system.

At the present time, it looks like I won't be switching to 4e. That being the case, the above would represent a 'best case' outcome for me. That it even represents a possible outcome is good news indeed.

 

[Quartz]

Why can't Paizo have mini-adventure path?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I'm not saying this is their plan, but I would certainly hope not, because in an eclectic hobby like RPG's, your hard-core supporters are not only your chief proselytizers, but your base that keeps things going even in the lean cycles. Lose 'em, and you've lost the grass roots element to your success, which in my eyes is always the most effective part of marketing.

Not with 4e as a whole, but it certainly seems as if they wanted to get rid of Forgotten Realms fans. The way they introduce extreme changes and stick to them (while they said that the Eberron changes will be minimised due to fan requests) and won't even try to allay our suspicions seems to say that we're worthless to them.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

But I absolutely won't be playing 3.5 once the 4e PHB hits. If Pathfinder is still 3.5, I hate to say it but I'm canceling.

I'll be "canceling", too. Canceling my support for WotC. Paizo doesn't kick old-time fans in the groin like Wizards seems to be doing right now (and this isn't the first time they showed that they are perfectly comfortable with ignoring parts of their customer base).