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

[Walking Dad]

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 3.5 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.

Paizo has sued a blog who has posted pictures from their card sets. Their rules have to be OGL, because of the license they.
This part is false. I misremembered the event. But like every company, they do what is necessary to protect their IP. Palladium did seemingly to much, though.

And deciding to staying close to the 'old' rules was a clever marketing strategy, not necessity for a new game. Look at Fantasycraft that came to be at the same time.

 

[Walking Dad]

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. ...

Sorry, but I do consider you a fan of the system. You are even making publications for it. Not what I meant with 'critics'.

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.

So Iron Heroes, Fantasycraft, Buy the Numbers and Trailblazer, who changed parts of 3.5 and people who made Star Wars Saga fantsy rules were all inspired by the later 4e?
4e has nothing to do with this thread.

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.

Not all on anything, but most 3rd party and houserule fixes were targeting the same points (Christmas Tree items and full attack mechanics for example).

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

No I play currently more 4e and until some month ago, when my main DM disappeared, I was playing mostly Pathfinder. But I actually prefer mostly M&M. You can't make a statement that all () players prefer the games the play most. Some just have not many groups for other system in their vicinity, so they play their second or third favorite

 

[Deset Gled]

In my mind, Palladium is an RPG company that started with an original product (the Palladium Role Playing Game) that only managed to stay afloat as the product aged (badly) because of their 3rd-party licenses (Robotech, TMNT). Paizo is a company that was born from a 3rd-party license (D+D magazines) that only managed to survive losing the license because they created a (semi) original product.

So, to me, they are actually mirror opposites of each other.

I make no claim of the historical accuracy of these statements; it is just my unlearned interpretation of my personal experiences.

 

[Walking Dad]

And I say that 'aged (badly)' is subjective. And the same criticism is taken by the critics against Pathfinder. And some people love Rifts/Golarion for the setting.

The criticism is concentrated on the crunch, not the fluff.

So they are opposites in some ways and similar in others IMHO.

 

[Dracones]

And I say that 'aged (badly)' is subjective. And the same criticism is sometimes taken again Pathfinder. And some people love Rifts/Golarion for the setting.

So they are opposites in some ways and similar in others IMHO.

Not even close. Maybe if you compared Rifts vs 2nd or 1st edition D&D, because frankly it hasn't changed any since then.

D&D has evolved a lot through the years. The main complaint against Pathfinder is that it breaks down in the high levels of play. The same complaint is lodged against 4e, so that's hardly an "aging" problem. In fact the older editions didn't suffer quite so much from this problem.

You really seem to want to force Pathfinder into the same category as Palladium/Rifts for some personal reason.

 

[dagger]

Would have hoped DC Adventures / MM3 would got more love...

Seems success isn't necessarily related with the quality of the rules but the demand of the fans

(I'm still sometimes perplexed by the Paizo love, but they do a great marketing. Congratulations!)

And I'm very happy 4e is still successful (getting their money for books and DDI).

http://www.enworld.org/forum/press-releases-announcements/313551-top-5-rpgs-summer-2011-a.html

1) Who are these critics and why should I care what they say? It's their opinion and if that is all it takes to be a critic then I guess we all are.

2) Thats the point

3) Good thing, don't ya think?

4) You can say this about any game system.

5) Yes Pazio is the only successful company right now producing RPG content. Oh wait..... Besides I am not sure what number 5 has to do with anything.

 

[Zil]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/press-releases-announcements/313551-top-5-rpgs-summer-2011-a.html

Who are these critics and why should I care what they say? It's basically their opinion....

You know, them, the nameless panel of mystery experts that people like to refer to when they want to limit the scope of a debate to include only their bias. If enough people make the reference then it can become a fact.

 

[JeffB]

Call of Cthulhu, ........ have had fans say they haven't changed enough over the years.

Tangent

I've yet to meet one- I guess the folks who are not happy with BRP at all might say that and prefer TOC or what have you, but the overwhelming majority of CoC fans seem quite content with a system that has remained largely unchanged since 1981. I for one, think it's a marvelous thing and it's too bad ANY of D&D's designers (or 3.x D20 variants) have never been able to please the vast majority of fans in that same manner with any edition.

 

[Zil]

D&D has evolved a lot through the years. The main complaint against Pathfinder is that it breaks down in the high levels of play. The same complaint is lodged against 4e, so that's hardly an "aging" problem. In fact the older editions didn't suffer quite so much from this problem.

I would have to agree with that. High level D&D was much easier to run back in 1E, at least with regard to time it took to work through combat. Later versions, including Pathfinder, tend to slow down at high levels due to the number options available.

I have never had an issue in my 3.x or Pathfinder games with the so-called Christmas tree of effects nor have I had issues with 3.5 or Pathfinder wizards stealing the show. If anything, it has been the bruiser fighters that do so, but perhaps that is just the style of my players.

Getting back to the original assertion that Pathfinder is like Palladium, I just do not see it. If any analogy is apt it would be a software fork of an open source project where the original copyright holder decided to move their future versions to closed source and someone else decided to create a fork to preserve the open version.

As for Pathfinder not evolving, you can already see Paizo starting to push the game in new directions with the Advanced Players guide and other books. Sure, it's not a radical change like 4E, but who says the game really needed radical change? Clearly not everyone given what has happened in the gaming market.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Early editions of D&D, though, are arguably even worse in the caster/melee divide at high levels. Once a 1E magic-user can cast Fireball, the rest of the party essentially becomes his support team. In later versions of the game, that's less the case, even if things still degrade (or degrade in different ways) in the teens and above.

There's been progress over the years, albeit uneven.