Pathfinder 1E Is Paizo the new Palladium? (It isn't!)

[billd91]

If you have to include the caveat that you're not trolling, then you clearly recognize that people will perceive your initial post as being unnecessarily controversial. If you reach that point, I would recommend rethinking the initial post and how it is worded at the very least.

Frankly, I'm sure I understand the point of the original post at all. And following Crothian's post, I'm even more unsure. I don't really see how the points of similarity between Paizo and Palladium don't include most other long term RPG companies as well.

 

[Umbran]

You know, pointing to that article, and to that thread, does not mean that you are not trolling. It could just mean that you are being oblique about it.

Right. And this "Well, what you said doesn't *prove* you're not trolling..." is somehow less oblique?

Either call him a troll to his face, report his post, or drop it so the thread can move on, please. If you think the thread is trolling, walk away - don't distract from discussion by making people try to prove a negative.

 

[Crothian]

1) The critics on NWoD were for changing to much. Same with 4e. But Pathfinder (and Rifts) are the only cases I know were they were criticized for not changing enough.

Call of Cthulhu, Hero (I think I'm not as familiar with it) and GURPS have had fans say they haven't changed enough over the years. THere are not many though as most games just don't last that long.

3) GURPS world backgrounds/fluff are often used with other systems? I honestly thought it was the other way around. They have officially adapted other 'world' to their system the OWoD line, for example).

Steve Jackson Games has adopted other games as licenses for the GURPS system that is true. But fans have found that GURPs historical books for instance do a great job of separating the rules from the information. GURPs does a great job of focusing their books on specific subjects so one can buy the book of what interests them. I own about 50-60 GURPS books just to use in other games. I don't own any of the core rules or rule focused books.

4) As I said, both the D&D 4 and M&M fanbase are much more critical on their 'chosen' system.

I don't want to get into an argument on what fanbase is more critical. I don't think their is an answer to that. I think the fanbase that one is submerged in the most would seem like the most critical.

Palladium has a bad reputation now and thus it seems like an insult to some people to make the comparison. But while I obviously cannot speak for any of the people at Paizo I have to imagine that they would love to still be producing books and be in business as a RPG company after 30 years. There has to be only a handful of companies that can say that.

 

[gamerprinter]

1. Both use a system for their games that critics call outdated/needing a fix.
2. One has not made meaningful changes to the rules. The other has promised the same thing to the fans.
3. Both have settings with very flavorful backgrounds, used even by the critics with different systems.
4. Both have a very devoted fan base that will defend the mechanic bits of the system against any critic.
5. One were very successful, one is right now.

It seems there are some similarities in regard of system adherence (avoiding new editions) and in the wishes of the fandom.

Am I totally wrong???

Before you answer, I want to say that I'm really not trolling. And please read the link in this thread to keep things civil. Thanks.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ding-edition-wars-other-heated-arguments.html

Edit: I hope my changes cleared my attentions enough.

Yes, you are completely wrong.

1. Do all the critics agree? I certainly don't think so. I find the Pathfinder rules updated, as I still feel 3.5 is the best rules of D&D ever created. Pathfinder fixed the little things that needed fixing, as the base rules are still the best D&D rules ever. (I don't see 4e as updated rules, rather completely different rules for a completely different game.)

2. We didn't want rules changes, we wanted 3.5 to remain on the store shelves. The change wasn't a request by the fanbase, rather the instigation of the home company (WotC). Those fans who wanted something new got it as 4e, but the rest of us who didn't want a change, got small changes anyway under the Paizo flagship product.

3. Settings are game system agnostic in general. Golarian, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Ravenloft... these are places that RPG storylines take place. I can effectively run Ravenloft, for example with D&D 1e - 4e if I wanted, I could run it in GURPS, Runequest, Fate, really any system I would prefer to use. The unique rules of a setting might need slight adaption to whichever system you require. Settings are never intrinsic to one game system or other. Settings are minimal in mechanics, they are fluff locations for the most part.

4. All systems have dedicated fans - D&D and Pathfinder aren't unique that way. OSRIC fans think theirs are the best, just as GURPS fans and Fate fans do as well. I don't think there is a game system that it's selection of fans don't believe theirs isn't the best.

5. Success in whose eyes? Success can be measured in small amounts, depending on the company in question. For mega companies like Hasbro, the success of say Dragon Age by Green Ronin is no success at all. However for Green Ronin, Dragon Age is a huge success. Everybody knows that there are no effective means of measuring a company's market share. The IVC2 report comes out quarterly and no one thinks that it's report is completely factual. If one can't trust public reports, how can anyone say, their game system is definitely leading the pack - no one can. So how do you measure success?

 

[Walking Dad]

... If you reach that point, I would recommend rethinking the initial post and how it is worded at the very least.

...

Could you make a good suggestion? English isn't my native language and I'm willing to make my point as inoffensive as possible.

 

[billd91]

Could you make a good suggestion? English isn't my native language and I'm willing to make my point as inoffensive as possible.

Since you're using the Humor tag for the thread, I think you'd have been better off coming out stronger with the humor. Something like:

Paizo and Palladium: Separated at birth?

Supporting evidence:
1. ...
2. ...
...
6. They both start with P.
7. Both companies have sucked money directly out of my wallet/bank account by offering stuff my weak willpower cannot resist.

That may have been disarming of any controversy without having to declare that you're not trolling. Of course, this is the internet, and nothing intended to be non-inflammatory is guaranteed to be non-inflammatory.

 

[Walking Dad]

Yes, you are completely wrong.

1. Do all the critics agree? I certainly don't think so. I find the Pathfinder rules updated, as I still feel 3.5 is the best rules of D&D ever created. Pathfinder fixed the little things that needed fixing, as the base rules are still the best D&D rules ever. (I don't see 4e as updated rules, rather completely different rules for a completely different game.)

The critics agree mostly that the full-attack routine is bad and that spellcasters still have to many utility options, for example. They also think that the monk is unbalanced.
So yes, the same points are mentioned pretty often.
There are also 3rd party supplements who try to fix them.
(and this thread isn't about 4e)

2. We didn't want rules changes, we wanted 3.5 to remain on the store shelves. The change wasn't a request by the fanbase, rather the instigation of the home company (WotC). Those fans who wanted something new got it as 4e, but the rest of us who didn't want a change, got small changes anyway under the Paizo flagship product.

I got the difference. So you think the Palladium fans actually wanted and update and the Paizo fans not. If this is the case, then this is a very good point.

3. Settings are game system agnostic in general. Golarian, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Ravenloft... these are places that RPG storylines take place. I can effectively run Ravenloft, for example with D&D 1e - 4e if I wanted, I could run it in GURPS, Runequest, Fate, really any system I would prefer to use. The unique rules of a setting might need slight adaption to whichever system you require. Settings are never intrinsic to one game system or other. Settings are minimal in mechanics, they are fluff locations for the most part.

Fair point.

4. All systems have dedicated fans - D&D and Pathfinder aren't unique that way. OSRIC fans think theirs are the best, just as GURPS fans and Fate fans do as well. I don't think there is a game system that it's selection of fans don't believe theirs isn't the best.

Can you please repeat the last sentence with less negations? I have trouble to understand its meaning. Thanks.

5. Success in whose eyes? Success can be measured in small amounts, depending on the company in question. For mega companies like Hasbro, the success of say Dragon Age by Green Ronin is no success at all. However for Green Ronin, Dragon Age is a huge success. Everybody knows that there are no effective means of measuring a company's market share. The IVC2 report comes out quarterly and no one thinks that it's report is completely factual. If one can't trust public reports, how can anyone say, their game system is definitely leading the pack - no one can. So how do you measure success?

Success for Palladium in that they sell their products now for 30 year. Success for Paizo like getting reviewed on CNN:
Pathfinder gets reviewed on CNN!

 

[Dracones]

Because Palladium is widely considered to be badly run, badly edited, badly balanced, under financed, and under the control of a micromanaging megalomaniac maybe? Trust me, if there were rolling eye emoticons on this board, I would be using them.

Not only that, Palladium is a very closed company when it comes to its gaming systems. "Sue happy" comes to mind.

WotC also switched gears, in part, to regain control of their game. D&D 3.5 and under was OGL and I don't doubt Hasbro didn't like that.

Paizo couldn't really make any massive changes to 3.5 when they brought it over. They needed to bring the 3.5 community over to them. I really doubt the game will remain all that static as time goes on.

 

[gamerprinter]

The critics agree mostly that the full-attack routine is bad and that spellcasters still have to many utility options, for example. They also think that the monk is unbalanced.
So yes, the same points are mentioned pretty often.
There are also 3rd party supplements who try to fix them.
(and this thread isn't about 4e)

I could call myself a critic on some things, but I mostly do not agree that full-attack routine is bad, nor that spellcasters have too many options. I'm quite comfortable with giving spellcasters options, because they are so physically weak compared to martial classes (more easily killable than fighters). Until you get to higher levels. I have no problems until 18th + levels, but then I don't care for games at that level or higher. So with the levels I play now, the game is quite balanced in my opinion. My martial characters don't need more options. Being this is my opinion, and can call myself a critic, then I have to say, that I do not mutually agree with other critics, as you suggest we agree...

Though the thread isn't about 4e, the point regarding 3.5 rules needing updating (which is doesn't/didn't) is only in regards to 4e. WotC along with some fans think that the 3.5 rules needed updating, for those 4e must be included in this thread. For the rest of us, yeah, 4e, doesn't belong, becausing updating 3.5 doesn't belong.

But there are all kinds of critics (look at the critics against 4e) - some critics agree, many do not. I don't think there is a consensus among critics. Your point 1 suggests there is. You can't make a statement that all critics agree on anything, let alone this point.

Can you please repeat the last sentence with less negations? I have trouble to understand its meaning. Thanks.

Yeah, everybody prefers the game system they currently play the majority of - whether that's 4e, PF or any other game.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Though the thread isn't about 4e, the point regarding 3.5 rules needing updating (which is doesn't/didn't)

And yet we have a host of non-WotC products that do that very thing, like Trailblazer, Pathfinder (which could have changed much less, legally, and been fine) and many other products.

Just because one dislikes what WotC did with 4E doesn't mean that 3E didn't have its own problems. The later supplements like Book of 9 Swords and Complete Mage were full of attempts to patch very real issues with the core game. Many of those solutions have been adopted by many of the people making improvement products or add-ons.

I think Pathfinder is in kind of a weird spot. They changed enough things (many of which needed to be changed) that you can't not read through the massive rulebook at least once before running it, but it leaves intact many 3E issues that are far from sacred cows.

I understand, and to an extent, appreciate, why they're not going to do a Pathfinder 2.0 any time soon, but I don't think it'd be the worst thing in the world if they did.