Pathfinder 1E If Paizo can, why can't Wizards of the Coast?

[billd91]

This doesn't really scan. And old game DOESN'T need new parts to be played the way it was when WotC/TSR stopped supporting it. You can play 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e or any version right now as well as you ever could in the past. All the materials still exist. You can buy them on Amazon. Nothing has changed about them. They didn't require the Character Builder or have to be played to LFR guidelines, so it doesn't matter what rules those use.

Materials may still exist, but attrition will take its toll. That's inevitable with anything physical. And as it happens, scarcity will raise the cost.

It is possible that in the future you may no longer be able to find old copies of obscure D&D books (though really, it's not that hard to find out-of-print books) but is that the fault of WotC? <snip>

It does seem, like the OP stated, that there is a double standard here for a WotC products vs. non-WotC products.

Of course there are multiple standards going on here. The vast size of WotC and ubiquity of D&D relative to the other players virtually requires that. But you're applying one too. You say that the issues of finding out of print D&D materials (say for 1e or 2e) isn't a significant one because there are so many materials out there for sale. But what if I preferred a more obscure RPG that was much harder to find? Would my complaint about being able to find materials for new players be stronger then? If so, then we're using a different standard for the two games.

It's the same with the Microsoft comment someone else made earlier. Large user base = different set of considerations than small user base. It almost always mean more criticism for change because it affects a much larger set of users, not all of whom are in a position to change to the latest product but who might find opportunities to play diminish because of a shrinking user base for the old product. WotC gets more complaints because, when this happens, more people are in a position to complain.

 

[Azgulor]

I admit the analogy is stretched some. And I'm probably not talking so much about old car enthusiasts as I am about auto mechanics working on cars from say the '90s. It is a differnent mindset.

No analogy is going to be a perfect fit. There are few equivalents to RPGs out there. I used a computer operating system comparison, you used cars. Is it going to adequately represent every nuance of RPG game design, publishing, & play experience? Of course not.

Honestly, after reading the last 2 pages, I'm convinced your analogy was too effective at illustrating the point of why some give WotC more flak. Unfortunately, the thread has entered the "Talk Past Each Other" stage. At the very least it's rolling there like a runaway train.


So analogies aside, I'll sum it up this way: WotC gets more flak b/c a significant portion of their former customer base doesn't like things they've done from a product, distribution, &/or marketing standpoint. Many of those former customers feel they've been slighted in some fashion (pick your issue: mechanics, sacred cows, flavor/fluff, PDFs, OGL, etc. -- the specific issue doesn't matter). There are 2 "universal truths" when dealing with customers that any business has to deal with:
1. The customer is always right.
2. Perception is reality.
Now obviously, those 2 statements aren't universal truths. But y'know what? If a customer feels a certain way about a product or company, all the people in the world telling that customer "it's not that way" or "your wrong" doesn't change a thing. That's their perception based upon their experience.

Customer satisfaction, or even better -- customer loyalty, is a tricky thing. Any company worth its salt seeks it. Business plans don't always nurture it.

Clearly, the last few pages have shown that no one is really trying to understand why WotC gets more flak. What they're really trying to do is show those who have an issue with WotC (rightly or wrongly is again, in the eye of the beholder and irrelevant) the error of their ways.

The die has been cast. Maybe 5e will be a great unifiying banner for D&D fans of all stripes to flock to. I doubt it, but maybe.

Until then, deal with the fact it's all subjective. You're not going to convince people they didn't think or feel a certain way when they're sitting there thinking "I'm pretty damn sure I thought/felt it".

 

[BryonD]

I am slightly confused. Are you talking about this particular thread, or something larger?

If the latter, I think you're incorrect, in that there never has been a single "the debate". Maybe the things you remember most were arguments about whether the newer editions provided the same stuff. But I, at least, recall any number of varied points, of which that's only one.

Calling the point "incorrect" is disingenuous at best.

Perhaps common usage escapes you, but "the debate" as a term does not demand the implication of "single" as a qualifier.

That point has been strenuously advanced on many occasions, and I am simply, and correctly, pointing out that the terms of this specific debate take for granted that matter to be settled.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Back to WotC's (allegedly) different standard, doesn't WoD also make it harder to find a 3.5 game? Someone lured away from 3.5 by 4e could also have been lured away by WoD (or vice versa, of course). At that level, I don't see a difference between 4e and WoD on its effect on 3.5. They are both potential competitors (or inspirations).

WoD isnt the World's best selling and most popular roleplaying game, so no it wouldn't make it harder to find a 3.5 game. When measuring people they are measuring vs. the 800lb gorilla of RPG's and that's Dungeon's and Dragons.

People transitioning from D&D 3.5 to D&D 4E meant less D&D 3.5 players to choose from. WoD players have no impact on my 3.5 group because they weren't playing 3.5 to being with so there's no loss there. Just as Bohemian
belly dancers from the 5th dimension have no impact on my Pathfinder game
because they have no idea what Pathfinder is.

 

[Umbran]

Perhaps common usage escapes you

You don't make your case more solid by being insulting. Please don't do that.

Your statement was vague and (to me, at least) confusing. I asked what you meant, and instead of explaining, you've been impolite. I don't understand your reaction.

but "the debate" as a term does not demand the implication of "single" as a qualifier.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that in common usage, "the debate used to be X" frames matters as a single (perhaps protracted) discussion about a single issue. I don't see that it (as I guess "it" to be, as you haven't clarified) has been either.

That point has been strenuously advanced on many occasions...

So have probably 72 other points. "The debate" is not just about one of them. The debate has roamed the hills and dales of points. To suggest otherwise not only inaccurately represents events, but trivializes many valid concerns.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

To a narrower degree, I can see it as a fight over "what is D&D?" If you think it is only 3.5, you're not going to like 4e. But does it actually matter "what" D&D is? The game is so mutable that every game is going to be different anyway. So it OK that at various times, WotC/TSR had 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 different versions, and you can pick and choose the one you like?

Apparently it does matter what D&D to quite a few people. It matters to the people who have proclaimed that 3.5 was broken and 4E is god's gift from heaven and they will never touch 3.5 ever again. It matters to the people who play 3.5 and Pathfinder who hate 4E with and utterly irrational passion. It matters to the old school players who view any new edition as sacrilege. And it matters to those of us in the middle who just want to have a large enough player pool to play the games that we like (easier for those who play 4E. Not so much for those who are still playing older versions) So yes it does matter.

 

[carmachu]

Here we have Exhibit A, the original Pathfinder Campaign Setting book published in August of 2008, and here is Exhibit B, the Revised Edition, subtitled "World Guide: The Inner Sea," but I would assume that it is effectively the same book somewhat expanded and revised, to be published in March of 2011.

So we have a revision of a major release just two and a half years after it first came out. We can also cite Fantasy Craft, which came out with a revised version - presumably with only minor adjustments and errata, but with a new publisher - only a year after first being published. That also is an expensive ($50ish) book.

My somewhat rhetorical question is, why can the gentle folks at Paizo and the Crafty Crew do this, but when Wizards of the Coast does this - whether with 3.5 or 4E, or even Essentials - many people cry foul? Is it just a matter of Wizards being The Man in the RPG world, so anything they do is inherently following some Evil Scheme To Rule The World? Or is it because there are many more WotC consumers? Or is it something else? (Maybe WotC is truly, inherently evil, and I just missed my save vs. charm many years ago?).

A variety of reasons-

Pazio has a well of trust and good will- they havent lied to their customers. WotC? Used that well up from 3.0 to 3.5 conversion.

Second? One is a rules change= 3.0-3.5 and 4e to essentials, The world guide to the inner sea is not a rules change. Its an expasion on an area, and doesnt neceassarily negate the first, but rather expands.

Their not the same thing.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Whereas, errata and new editions don't erase the previously existing information. The older books are widely available. You don't need new information to play the game the old way. I could go back to my 1st edition books, back at my parents house in my old bedroom, pull them out, and play 1st edition just as well now as then, even though new options came later. So you don't have a situation where the companies' adopting of a new standard damages the old product. The old product remains fully functional, indefinitely.

For my part:

(1) Pretty much everyone at my table wants to own a copy of the rulebook. If the rulebook isn't available for sale, it can cause problems.

(2) Books can and do suffer wear and tear.

(3) Supplementary material is, in fact, important for many people.

(4) Some people would be annoyed if, "Do you want to play a game of Scrabble?" suddenly defaulted to mean some sort of dice-rolling game because Hasbro decided to "update" the rules to something that still had a board and tiles, but played very differently from the Scrabble they grew up with. And would be annoyed even if they still had their old Scrabble board in the closet.

This is a thread about how 4e errata is (allegedly) criticized according to a different standard than non-4e errata

Is it? When did that happen?

 

[Mistwell]

I agree that a setting is not the same as the underlying rules.

But, I suspect even if Paizo did come out with another edition of the Pathfinder rules, or a larger amount of errata that could trigger a "this is a new edition" type reaction in some, they would probably get less ire from the RPG community.

And, I think there are a variety of factors behind that:

1) Paizo is a much smaller company, and so in general they are given some more leeway in decisions they make (which I think is wise). If Paizo doesn't do what they need to do, to make the money they need to make to at least break even, then they are at much more risk of going belly-up than a company backed by a large corporation like Hasbro. So, we should cut them some slack if they make unexpected decisions they think are crucial to their bottom line. A bigger company should also make decisions with their bottom line in mind, but I think it's fair to cut them less slack if they make unexpected decisions, since they have more time (backed by more money) to transition those changes and test them with their customer base.

2) Paizo, as a niche company, has a more hardcore fan base. Somewhat like Apple computer fans, or fans of the canceled TV show Firefly, companies that go after a niche of the market rather than a general market tend to get more dedicated fans. Dedicated fans, in general, will cut their favored creators more slack than more generalized fans.

3) The monetary investment by fans into Pathfinder is (so far) significantly less than it could be for fans of 4th Edition (so far). In other words, the most one could have spent investing in every Pathfinder book to have come out so far is less than the most one could have invested in every 4th edition book to come out so far. It's understandable if reactions change as monetary investment changes.

There is a factor I can see which would result in a more negative reaction to an unexpected big change to the Pathfinder underlying rules (if that were to happen - which as far as I know it hasn't happened). And that is the investment some fans made into helping craft those rules to begin with, with the beta testing that went on. If Paizo made an unexpected big change to the current rules, I think some fans might feel slighted because of that intellectual investment they made.

However, I doubt we'll be seeing any unexpected big changes. So far, Paizo transitions things pretty openly, and slowly. If they were to come out with a new edition of Pathfinder that was significantly different than the current one, I bet we'd know about it well in advance, and there might even be another opportunity to openly beta test it and take suggestions from the fans.

 

[carmachu]

But, I suspect even if Paizo did come out with another edition of the Pathfinder rules, or a larger amount of errata that could trigger a "this is a new edition" type reaction in some, they would probably get less ire from the RPG community.

I agree it be different, but its also on HOW Paizo goes about it vs WotC.

1) Paizo is a much smaller company, and so in general they are given some more leeway in decisions they make (which I think is wise). If Paizo doesn't do what they need to do, to make the money they need to make to at least break even, then they are at much more risk of going belly-up than a company backed by a large corporation like Hasbro. So, we should cut them some slack if they make unexpected decisions they think are crucial to their bottom line. A bigger company should also make decisions with their bottom line in mind, but I think it's fair to cut them less slack if they make unexpected decisions, since they have more time (backed by more money) to transition those changes and test them with their customer base.

Paizo is a smaller company, and its given more leeway in their decisions, not because their a smaller company per say and might go belly up, but they are pretty much always up front and communicating VERY well with their customer base- Look at the various play tests with Pathfinder and Advanced players guide. You knew alot going in and what was coming and what was what.

If Pazio today decided to do a new edition, and did it the same way they do things and communicate, there would be less ire becuase its not a)being lied to ala 3.0/3.5 and b) the communciation and being able to see whats coming buy them alot more leeway then WotC's lines.

2) Paizo, as a niche company, has a more hardcore fan base. Somewhat like Apple computer fans, or fans of the canceled TV show Firefly, companies that go after a niche of the market rather than a general market tend to get more dedicated fans. Dedicated fans, in general, will cut their favored creators more slack than more generalized fans.

Runs with Wotc, GW and all the big boys too.

3) The monetary investment by fans into Pathfinder is (so far) significantly less than it could be for fans of 4th Edition (so far). In other words, the most one could have spent investing in every Pathfinder book to have come out so far is less than the most one could have invested in every 4th edition book to come out so far. It's understandable if reactions change as monetary investment changes.

Mmmmm, no. I dont know about that. That only counts if your counting hardcovers. If you invest in pathfinder companions as well, and bought some adventures an dan AP or two, you've invested probably as much as 4e folks.

Of course the sticking point is of course DDI investment- but that varies from person to person, along with books. I know some probably invest in all the 4e books and DDI, but the flip side is I do know personally a person that has split a yearly 4 ways and thats all he uses, and doesnt buy books.....

But on the flip side, Paizo's method didnt invalid alot of what they sold you before.....where as experience with Wotc sees you buying then same books again(ala 3.0/3.5 I freely admit I dont know if that will be the case with essentials).

There is a factor I can see which would result in a more negative reaction to an unexpected big change to the Pathfinder underlying rules (if that were to happen - which as far as I know it hasn't happened). And that is the investment some fans made into helping craft those rules to begin with, with the beta testing that went on. If Paizo made an unexpected big change to the current rules, I think some fans might feel slighted because of that intellectual investment they made.

But at the same token, if they get to invest in crafting rules for Pathfiinder 2.0.......