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

[Erik Mona]

Paizo has sued a blog who has posted pictures from their card sets.

Not true. Paizo has never sued anyone.

--Erik

 

[JoeGKushner]

We'll have to check again in ten years, and then in twenty.

Some of the main differences are in how things are run and how they appear to the masses to be run. Palladium often does not appear to be run very well while Paizo does.

In addition, while there may be some similiar criticism of both companies that appear valid, it's important to note that Paizo has a full monthly schedule of publishing things while Palladium has the promise of publishing things.

Palladium is also iron fisted about their IP, perhaps foolishly so. Paizo, being build on the OGL, allows, encourages, and promotes those who use their rules and even, as with the paper fold outs, their images.

Another factor is that Paizo has miniatures from several companies out there, as well as a functional starter boxed set, along with a lot more going on.

Mind you Palladium has its hand in multiple genres, as well as some licensed properties, but it has appeared for many years that their best years have been behind them.

 

[Psychotic Jim]

The thing about the item picture cards and legal action being taken against a blog, was that the Obsidian Portal thing I remember hearing about a while ago? That one campaign message board was using those item card images? I thought all they did was just ask the site to put it behind a private firewall or something so that people not playing in that game couldn't get the images? Can somebody enlighten me here?

Anyway, returning to the main argument of the thread, I don't envy Paizo. They're kind of trying to find the magical Goldilocks between fixing what needs to be fixed/innovating and not rocking the boat. Not so much here, but over on the paizo boards there seems to be ongoing feuds over new stuff they've introduced (the gunslinger/gun rules, alchemist, summoner, new variant rules, the CMB stuff) or other stuff they've changed (the numerous spell overhauls/nerfs). Also, Paizo have been fairly open about not updating the psionics or epics rules as they stand, but if/when they get to it, it will be a total overhaul.

And then elsewhere there are people who still play 3.5 who believe Paizo actually made things worse with the changes they made. Like how they changed the feats, and numerous class changes/buffs they made to the core. I don't recall there being too many people familiar with palladium asking for earlier iterations of their system, but I've been out of the palladium loop for a few years, so I could be wrong here.

For my part, I think the thing here is that there's been a bunch of smaller, more subtle changes from 3.5 that are harder to notice (easy to miss until one stumbles upon them in play). Many of the spells have been nerfed (though, not as many as I'd like) and the polymorph/wildshape system has been totally rehauled. Grapple/trip/other maneuvers use a single system (CMB/CMD), and skill points have been subtly tweaked/simplified. Also, monster creation is a bit easier/simpler then what I recall from 3.5 (they have a general monster benchmark table, which seems to me a bit like 4e's page 42 in spirit.) I also like the three experience point tables and the default assuming a slower xp progression than was the default in 3.5. For my group, the totality of these small changes has worked pretty well, and this is coming from somebody who had given 3.5 for greener pastures (Mutants and Masterminds, also still a personal favorite).

For some, of course, these weren't enough, and for others, they went a wrong direction. There seems to be some effort to address the mistakes of the past (more of a focus on single-classed characters, reduction of prestige classes, avoiding adding new summon monsters into the summon monster repertoire) while keeping the essential essence of the game. There's been some dithering at times dealing with some lingering vague parts. OTOH, to be fair, I’d imagine it's much like walking a tightrope trying to appeal to many different, often competing wants, as I imagine it is with WotC and 4e.

 

[Dracones]

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.

Yes, but to be fair in earlier editions of D&D the mid to high level play was supposed to move towards keep ownership and henchmen. So while that wizard would have a tower in the middle of nowhere with his mighty spells, the fighter would have a small army and a castle.

But... most people didn't play the game that way. And D&D evolved into sort of how most people played the game. Point buy for stats or 4d6 drop lowest, no exp for gold, planned encounters vs random encounter tables, cleaned up saving throws, no class level limits for non-humans, getting rid of THACO, use of non-weapon proficiencies, starting hitpoints, optional classes(first full on new classes, then class kits, then what there is today) and PCs adventuring on up into the high teens and beyond.

Hopefully in a few/several years there'll be a new edition or options that can sort of tune it some more. Heck, even 4e isn't balanced. Some classes and powers are absurdly better than others.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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.

You mean... THEM?

I have to say that I have not encountered that vast sea of Critics that WD mentions either.

I will go so far as to call them anecdotal.

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.

That was kind of the point of the way I phrased it, I am not emotionally engaged in this, I just found his starting with an insult, then pointing to an article on how arguments happen, and become heated, to be disingenuous.

So, I responded in like manner - without insult, I hope, because: a. I am not completely certain, just mostly certain; b. it might be a fun argument; c. doing so in a like oblique manner amused me. Like playing chess with only pawns, bishops, and the king.

I did not report the thread because I did not think that it was offensive enough to garner a report. But I do think that it is offensive enough to garner a retort that his tactic had been noted.

My main actual point was that a like offensive argument, comparing WotC to Palladium as an example, would also be considered an insult. And that he knew that it was an insult when he made his opening post. It was not the post that I was commenting on, but only the disingenuous nature of his post.

Without his pointing to that article I would have passed without comment. I would have rolled my eyes, then moved on. The article was irrelevant to the fact that I am pretty sure that he wants an argument.

So, you don't have to worry about me carrying on in a rant.

I believe 'trolling' originally began as a reference to the fishing term (cruising the forums, fishing for arguments) not the monster reference that it is currently considered. Trolling came first, the term 'troll' came as the definition of 'those that troll'. I reserve the term 'troll' for 'fishermen' of more personally insulting combative bent.

So, no I don't think that WD is a troll in the thin and rubbery, loathsome sense. If you use 'Troll' to mean 'One who is fishing for arguments' then that is a more defensible position, and one that he might well qualify for.

And do you honestly want folks calling each other trolls to their faces? I somehow have my doubts.... So, he veils his insults and others veil their retorts. If folks remain civil, little to no harm is done.

Or, in a Pythonesque manner you can say that he is looking for the Argument Department, not Abuse.

So, let us begin to compare WotC to Palladium, shall we?

No, I am not going to do that, either.... WotC is making completely different mistakes than Palladium, and their current game is bad (in my opinion) in a completely different way - being overly concerned with balance, rather than completely uncaring about the matter. For all that I dislike 4e it had decent editing, is well tested, and WotC is much less prone towards tort mayhem. Something to do with being sued by Palladium in the past, perhaps?

[MENTION=547]Psychotic Jim[/MENTION] - Yes, that is the incident, and yes, that is how Paizo asked to have it resolved.

And given that I never used either the Epic rules or Psionics, I have no horse in that race.

The Auld Grump

 

[gamerprinter]

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.

No system is perfect, nor was 3.5 perfect by any means - which still doesn't counter my feelings that it was the best version currently made.

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

I didn't mean to refer to me as a critic of Pathfinder, rather a critic of varying RPG game systems. I didn't realize you were specifically counting PF critics alone in your statement (but I guess it does make sense, that's what you mean, when I reread your OP.)

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.

No, I didn't mean that 4e alone as a point in this thread, rather when looking at 'updates to 3.5', like Iron Heroes, Fantasycraft, Trailblazer, 4e must be included in the arguement as it too is an attempt at updating the rules. 4e doesn't stand in a unique position in the discussion, but it should still be a part of it. That's only how I intended to include it in the argument.

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).

Strangely my gaming group has no house rules pertaining to 3.5, we used the rules as is - though perhaps we didn't use every rule, as we didn't have every book. But what you had we used and didn't deviate from. I've only added mechanics since started using PF, not changed existing ones.

 

[Walking Dad]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking Dad
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.

Why are you quoting me from another thread? And I still think that there are other better systems from less known publishers without good licenses (-> smaller fanbase). ICONS, Cortex Plus ...

And I am still wondering about Paizo's success (higher sales than D&D4).

Is this something bad?

---

1) Shall I look up their usernames here, on RPG.net and Paizo's own board. And critic is good, because it helps things to get better.

2) Yes. Any thing you want to say. It isn't formulated as a critic. Pathfinder has not many changes because they wanted backwards compatibility. Or am I wrong?

3) Yes, very good for the publisher. But do you agree that it is true for both companies?

4) No. Many fanbases I know are pretty outspoken about things they dislike (example: 4e expertise 'math-fix')

5) I already said in a further above post that this was a bad comparison point.

 

[Walking Dad]

Not true. Paizo has never sued anyone.

--Erik

Please take my apology I misremembered this event:

The thing about the item picture cards and legal action being taken against a blog, was that the Obsidian Portal thing I remember hearing about a while ago? That one campaign message board was using those item card images? I thought all they did was just ask the site to put it behind a private firewall or something so that people not playing in that game couldn't get the images? Can somebody enlighten me here?

...

All I wanted to say is that you are naturally defending your property. Nothing wrong with that.

But having a system based on an OGC system would make it very hard to make non-OGC rules content for it, even if one wanted.

(BTW, thanks for updating your PRD. It is a great tool for my online games )

 

[Walking Dad]

You mean... THEM?

I have to say that I have not encountered that vast sea of Critics that WD mentions either.

I will go so far as to call them anecdotal.

The makers of Trailblazer and other products that tried to fix things that are 'defended' from a, if not numerous but vocal, number of fans as 'features' are anecdotal?

That was kind of the point of the way I phrased it, I am not emotionally engaged in this, I just found his starting with an insult, then pointing to an article on how arguments happen, and become heated, to be disingenuous.

Palladium is now an insult??? I'm proud to have the Nightspawn book in an edition before it was renamed Nightbane. I have fonder memories of Rifts than AD&D 2nd.

So, I responded in like manner - without insult, I hope, because: a. I am not completely certain, just mostly certain; b. it might be a fun argument; c. doing so in a like oblique manner amused me. Like playing chess with only pawns, bishops, and the king.

It were my impressions of the current Pathfinder game (not as a whole but the points I made) and they reminded me on the things I heard of Palladium.

I did not report the thread because I did not think that it was offensive enough to garner a report. But I do think that it is offensive enough to garner a retort that his tactic had been noted.

And I heard it and tried to move the thread, which was one of your points and tried to remove offensive parts.

My main actual point was that a like offensive argument, comparing WotC to Palladium as an example, would also be considered an insult. And that he knew that it was an insult when he made his opening post. It was not the post that I was commenting on, but only the disingenuous nature of his post.

Really???

Without his pointing to that article I would have passed without comment. I would have rolled my eyes, then moved on. The article was irrelevant to the fact that I am pretty sure that he wants an argument.

I don't want an argument, I want a talk/discussion. No answer to my 5 points until the 8th post.

So, you don't have to worry about me carrying on in a rant.

...

And do you honestly want folks calling each other trolls to their faces? I somehow have my doubts.... So, he veils his insults and others veil their retorts. If folks remain civil, little to no harm is done.

Which other companies do you count as an insult? Rifts has even it's own tag here.

Or, in a Pythonesque manner you can say that he is looking for the Argument Department, not Abuse.

So, let us begin to compare WotC to Palladium, shall we?

No, I am not going to do that, either.... WotC is making completely different mistakes than Palladium, and their current game is bad (in my opinion) in a completely different way - being overly concerned with balance, rather than completely uncaring about the matter. For all that I dislike 4e it had decent editing, is well tested, and WotC is much less prone towards tort mayhem. Something to do with being sued by Palladium in the past, perhaps?

I'm not feeling offended by this. I disagree on the overbalancing, but we could discuss this in another thread (or with PMs), if you want....

The Auld Grump

 

[dagger]

Why are you quoting me from another thread? And I still think that there are other better systems from less known publishers without good licenses (-> smaller fanbase). ICONS, Cortex Plus ...

And I am still wondering about Paizo's success (higher sales than D&D4).

Is this something bad?

That's your opinion.

Also, you post makes it seem like Pazio is only selling well because of marketing. Which also has a barring on this thread because some think you are trolling.

---


1) You can list whomever you want, it will not change anything.

2) Yes, this is a good thing. So we can use many products from 3.0/3.5/d20.

3) Didn't say it was not good for another company. You seem to think it matters or makes them like Palladium. I think its irrelevant.

4) So we agree or only PF fans defend their system?

Anyway, I am out.