Pathfinder 1E I get the feeling Paizo isn't worried about Wizards of the Coast.

[Dausuul]

D&D has much more to fear from Hasbro than it ever will from Paizo. Not because the owners of WotC are necessarily malicious in any sense, but just because they're so big and D&D so small - Hasbro could crush D&D underfoot in a casual reorganisation and completely fail to notice.

That would almost certainly come down to licensing and that, unfortunately, seems to be entirely out of the control of Wizards' creative department. I'd love to hear the inside scoop on the license wrangling that occurred in the run-up to 4e (I've heard it's pretty bad). And I wonder if Hasbro learned anything from it, because if they haven't and don't produce a more favorable license, I can't see Paizo participating

Yeah, I think this gets to the heart of the problem. If you believe Ryan Dancey, 4E was almost entirely driven by Hasbro's demands to turn D&D into a $100 million brand, when its natural level was around $25-30 million. The scheme Wizards came up with to meet that demand--turning 4E into a digital offering and eventually transitioning it into an MMO--was almost certainly doomed to failure, but they had to try. In the event, it exploded on the launch pad when the DDI contractor totally failed to deliver. They got something working eventually, but by then it was too late.

 

[Himajin]

Even if Paizo was worried, their only legal option right now is to keep endlessly rehashing the D20 system. That's fine as long as people keep enjoying it, but I have to wonder how long they can keep it ticking over at its current profitability.

 

[billd91]

Even if Paizo was worried, their only legal option right now is to keep endlessly rehashing the D20 system. That's fine as long as people keep enjoying it, but I have to wonder how long they can keep it ticking over at its current profitability.

How is that their only "legal" option?

 

[Himajin]

How is that their only "legal" option?

Well, unless they come up with a completely new system of their own, I mean.
Their only option with the Pathfinder fork of D&D is to keep working within the D20 SRD, right?

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, as there's clearly still a voracious audience for more D20/Pathfinder stuff right now.
It just means they're not really in a position to react to what WOTC are doing, which the original poster implied was more of a conscious choice for them.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Well, unless they come up with a completely new system of their own, I mean.
Their only option with the Pathfinder fork of D&D is to keep working within the D20 SRD, right?

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, as there's clearly still a voracious audience for more D20/Pathfinder stuff right now.
It just means they're not really in a position to react to what WOTC are doing, which the original poster implied was more of a conscious choice for them.

Well the idea that 3.5 was continued and expanded upon is enough of a reason to react. WoTc thought people were ready for a radical change, Paizo didn't and they have benefited from it.

 

[Himajin]

Well the idea that 3.5 was continued and expanded upon is enough of a reason to react. WoTc thought people were ready for a radical change, Paizo didn't and they have benefited from it.

I'm just not sure I understand your point. You say you never got the impression they were trying to pull people from D&D to Pathfinder, but wasn't the whole reason for Pathfinder's existence to provide material for 3.5E fans to transition over to?
Of course, right now WOTC is worried that so much of the industry they used to own is now dominated by another company, but if they managed to win mindshare back in the coming years, what exactly could Paizo do? They can't innovate their product freely because it hinges on the D20 SRD, and that means it's eventually going to get stale.

I like Pathfinder, and there will no doubt be people playing it for years and years to come, but I have my doubts about it being a viable long-term product line sales wise. There are only so many options books you can add before the whole system becomes convoluted, and people decide they'll just stop and use the materials they have. I'd argue it's getting close to that point now. I certainly have more than enough to keep me busy for a long time.

I think WOTC has their work cut out for them, but at least they have the freedom to make sweeping changes. I'm still on the fence about D&D Next, but it's always interesting to try new systems, and I welcome the simplified approach they're taking after playing so many crunch-heavy games over the years.

 

[Morrus]

Well, unless they come up with a completely new system of their own, I mean.
Their only option with the Pathfinder fork of D&D is to keep working within the D20 SRD, right?

Not at all. I'm not even sure what that means. They can stick with the d20 base, or modify it, or change it, or abandon it completely, or ... well, whatever they like! There is no requirement (other than a market demand) to use the d20 SRD. How could there be?

Of course, if they did drop it completely and do something else, it'd be a hard sell as "Pathfinder". I would imagine an evolution of the same system makes more sense for them. But there's certainly nothing stopping them doing otherwise.

 

[Shemeska]

If I were Mike Mearls, I would be talking quietly with the Paizo folks about the possibility of cooperating to produce 5E versions of Paizo's adventure paths. Adventure quality has always been WotC's deadly weakness and Paizo's greatest strength. If 5E takes off, both Paizo and Wizards could benefit greatly from such a move. Paizo would gain the ability to sell its adventure paths to the 5E player base, and Wizards would have some of the best adventure writers in the market producing content for them again.

Turning this on its head, I would love to see WotC produce Pathfinder compatible products with some of the various setting IP they own. A PF Planescape would be amazing to see.

However I'm not sure that the powers that be at Hasbro would ever allow WotC to produce material for anything that wasn't their own system, and honestly after the past half dozen rounds of layoffs they don't have the staff in-house that has the experience or knowledge to do justice to many of their old 2e settings. But between freelancers and owning the IP I think it's a goldmine they could go after, but corporate frowning on the idea of tacitly admitting that they would produce for another company's system would probably kill that idea. I'd throw money after it. A lot of money.

I'd also beg to work on a PF compatible Planescape, but that's something else entirely.

 

[Zardnaar]

If they need to make a Pathfinder 2 the ultimate hat trick would be to fix 3.5. They do that and Paizo wins methinks.

 

[Himajin]

Not at all. I'm not even sure what that means. They can stick with the d20 base, or modify it, or change it, or abandon it completely, or ... well, whatever they like! There is no requirement (other than a market demand) to use the d20 SRD. How could there be?

Of course, if they did drop it completely and do something else, it'd be a hard sell as "Pathfinder". I would imagine an evolution of the same system makes more sense for them. But there's certainly nothing stopping them doing otherwise.

I was under the assumption that they couldn't modify the content significantly and still claim it as a work covered by the SRD. I may well be wrong, though. In any case, as you say, significant changes would be a risky move, and probably not something they'll consider until the player base / sales drop significantly.