Pathfinder 1E Is PAIZO becoming the next Wizards?

[BryonD]

Sure, there's a nice bit of cool new content here and there. But I'd go out on a limb and say Mutants and Masterminds was a whole lot more innovative than Pathfinder, when all's said and done.

Right, but you are veering into strawman territory with that point.
As I said PF as a whole was not intended to be innovative, it was intended to keep a solid version of the 3X ruleset in active publication.

Paizo is innovative.

Pointing out that a product that was intended to be innovative is, in fact, more innovative than one that was not intended to be innovative is not at all meaningful to whether or not Paizo as a company is innovative.

 

[Henry]

Having played Pathfinder for about six months now, I'll say while it's not a completely different edition, it's not far off. The feel of power of wizards is definitely different. Casters are still quite powerful, and probably still moreso than non-casters, but not by very much, and part of it is the brakes they applied to most of the common means that casters had to blow other classes out of the water.

I only wish good things from Paizo, just as their managers only wish good things for 4E, because it's still the case that D&D is the gateway drug for the industry, and that's definitely not likely to change within the next fiscal year; more to the point, everyone knows this, and knows that larger percentage of those who start with D&D move on to other territory, like Pathfinder, White Wolf, etc...

 

[Umbran]

Pointing out that a product that was intended to be innovative is, in fact, more innovative than one that was not intended to be innovative is not at all meaningful to whether or not Paizo as a company is innovative.

Dude, look back at the conversation (I paraphrase):

Me: "The product isn't innovative."

You: "True, but it has some innovative bits."

Me: "On the scale of these things, that content is cool, but not really innovative."

I'm being redundant, sure, but not making a strawman. And it isn't really fair to characterize it as such when you were the one who didn't stop at "but". If you don't want something considered relevant, you probably shouldn't bring it up.

Be that as it may...

There are two basic ways to be an innovative company - have innovative product, or innovative business practices.

Paizo makes fine stuff, but doesn't score too highly in either. They are successful not due to innovation, but simply by doing their job well - good content, presented with a minimum of fuss and nonsense. I don't see that as making them leaders, unless now all that's required to be considered a leader is decent quality.

 

[BryonD]

Dude, look back at the conversation (I paraphrase):

You are the one not looking at the conversation. (I quote)

Go back to your post that I replied to.

dmmcoy1693: ... but Wizards is no longer the key innovators and shakers of the industry. I look to Paizo for industry leadership, not to Wizards anymore.

You: I like Pathfinder. But it isn't innovative

Me: There is a difference between PF being innovative and Paizo being innovative.


You are the one that changed the topic away from Paizo and turned it into being about Pathfinder. I simply put you back on topic. Both of my posts were redirecting to the point at hand about *PAIZO*. If you want to start a different conversation about the Pathfinder system, then go for it.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Stuff.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. You make some fair points but you are not convincing me the same as I am not convincing you.

*extends hand for a shake*

 

[billd91]

When examining the "industry leadership" of a company in the present as compared to the past, you can't simply pick out all the things they're no longer doing as evidence of a lack of leadership while ignoring all the things they are doing that they weren't doing before.

But the question is - were other companies doing these things before? For a bunch of them, yes. Supported character builders aren't new, they've been available for Hero and GURPS for years. Online support also available for years, particularly from Steve Jackson Games.
The fact is, not much WotC is going is particularly visionary any more and a lot of it reactionary. Cutting into the 3rd party market with a terrible initial license, pulling back digital sales. Both retreats from positions that used to be leading the industry.

 

[innerdude]

Well, I know for me, among other things, one of the things that turned me off to 4e was that it didn't feel "innovative" so much as it felt "calculated."

To me, much of the rule system felt like it was put in place not because it was the "best," or most "innovative" evolution of d20, or PnP RPGs, or because it was really going to provide a better role-playing experience. It seemed like a lot of 4e was put in place because it fit into the best "marketing scheme" for WotC. Emphasis on minis (cash cow), easier to build a digital interface for (DDI and subscription revenue streams), trying to capture the MMO crowd, the new artwork for a younger audience, the "Emo" dragonborn and tiefling races.......as a whole it all just had this calculated, sterile, corporate marketing-department feel to the whole production.

Paizo as a company, and most of their product feels the exact opposite to me. Certainly, they're trying to make money, but not at the expense of quality production. It's not innovative from a mechanics standpoint, but from the standpoint of creating a quality experience, they are definitely innovative. They grasp like no other current RPG company how to meld the elements of a fantasy RPG adventure into a sum that is greater than its parts, particularly in their adventure paths. But if at some point they get big enough to start acting "corporate," I'll likely abandon my loyalty to them as well.

 

[Windjammer]

Having played Pathfinder for about six months now, I'll say while it's not a completely different edition, it's not far off. The feel of power of wizards is definitely different. Casters are still quite powerful, and probably still moreso than non-casters, but not by very much, and part of it is the brakes they applied to most of the common means that casters had to blow other classes out of the water.

I'd love to hear more about this (in particular, what you have in mind re: the bit I bolded).

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Well, I know for me, among other things, one of the things that turned me off to 4e was that it didn't feel "innovative" so much as it felt "calculated."

To me, much of the rule system felt like it was put in place not because it was the "best," or most "innovative" evolution of d20, or PnP RPGs, or because it was really going to provide a better role-playing experience. It seemed like a lot of 4e was put in place because it fit into the best "marketing scheme" for WotC. Emphasis on minis (cash cow), easier to build a digital interface for (DDI and subscription revenue streams), trying to capture the MMO crowd, the new artwork for a younger audience, the "Emo" dragonborn and tiefling races.......as a whole it all just had this calculated, sterile, corporate marketing-department feel to the whole production.

Paizo as a company, and most of their product feels the exact opposite to me. Certainly, they're trying to make money, but not at the expense of quality production. It's not innovative from a mechanics standpoint, but from the standpoint of creating a quality experience, they are definitely innovative. They grasp like no other current RPG company how to meld the elements of a fantasy RPG adventure into a sum that is greater than its parts, particularly in their adventure paths. But if at some point they get big enough to start acting "corporate," I'll likely abandon my loyalty to them as well.

Hmm, lets see: Emo, MMORPG, corporate design-by-commitee... you forgot anime. And i remember reading nearly exactly the same post back on the old Planet AD&D, only that (of course), TSR was the organic, roleplaying games for gamers company while 3rd and Wizards was all about cold, chrome-and-steel design.

Not even close to okay. See my warning below. ~ PCat

 

[wedgeski]

Emphasis on minis (cash cow), easier to build a digital interface for (DDI and subscription revenue streams), trying to capture the MMO crowd, the new artwork for a younger audience, the "Emo" dragonborn and tiefling races.......as a whole it all just had this calculated, sterile, corporate marketing-department feel to the whole production.

PF is a wonderful product, but it has been as single-mindedly targeted at the disenfranchised d20 crowd as Wizards has aimed 4E at its new market. There is nothing *wrong* with this, mind you.