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

[IronWolf]

Yes, I think the success of Paizo is to a great part in their marketing and their reputation. As with any product selling company.

Paizo has a pretty loyal fan base it seems. Loyalty though is maintained over time though by consistently putting out quality product in some form or other. Either quality rules (or quality enough to have more good things about them than bad) and excellent quality fluff. Their openness with what is going on is certainly a help as well as is their candor in con seminars and podcasts. They just really come across as a company made of people that actually game.

 

[Jeffrey]

Agreed, IronWolf.

Marketing might make you take a look.

Quality of product makes you a customer.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Paizo has a pretty loyal fan base it seems. Loyalty though is maintained over time though by consistently putting out quality product in some form or other. Either quality rules (or quality enough to have more good things about them than bad) and excellent quality fluff. Their openness with what is going on is certainly a help as well as is their candor in con seminars and podcasts. They just really come across as a company made of people that actually game.

Don't forget embracing the OGL and their PDF options, or their subscription print/PDF model. Many people vocally point out their love of Paizo has amost as much to do with the OGL as it does anything else and others, still looking for WoTC to provide it, latch onto the PDF material.

 

[IronWolf]

Don't forget embracing the OGL and their PDF options, or their subscription print/PDF model. Many people vocally point out their love of Paizo has amost as much to do with the OGL as it does anything else and others, still looking for WoTC to provide it, latch onto the PDF material.

Totally. Love the OGL support.

Despite owning nearly all of the Pathfinder rulebooks the ability to look things up on the PRD site or d20pfsrd is wonderful. That brings a huge plus to running and playing Pathfinder for me. Coupled with not only PDFs, but super low prices on the rulebook category PDFs is great!

 

[ForeverSlayer]

We played a game of Pathfinder last night and once again I had the best time. I'm really liking my Gunslinger and I just love the rules a lot better than 4th edition D&D.

Quality of product are what keeps the customers begging for more.

 

[gamerprinter]

Your point? I already apologized in the post you quoted. Has this anything to do with my OP?

All I said in this one was that a game based on OGC from another company has to have OGC. I think Paizo would still made the rules OGC, because it is good for their company. But they also couldn't make the system closed content/IP if they wanted.

It is nothing inherently 'good' in a OGC product being OGC. It is part of the license.

I was only clarifying what was specifically 'borrowed' from Paizo that caused a problem and what steps were taken (or rather what step's weren't taken - as in C&D, etc). It was not my intention to villainize you or have that statement point at you, directly. It was only for clarification.

Nobody said OGC was good or bad - I don't know what you mean by that.

Though I disagree with your OP, I'm not 'against' you, so you needn't get upset.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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.

Addressing in order:
1. That some critics call outdated. Using the term critics without a limiter suggests unity of opinion, I doubt that you will even find a parity in the case of Pathfinder. I will be willing to bet that a greater percentage of folks consider Palladium's systems to be dated and in need of repair than those of Pathfinder. And with good reason - Palladium has been around longer, with no meaningful updates that I know of.

One thing that both systems do have in common is that there are folks that likes each, just the way they are.

2. I disagree - there were indeed meaningful changes to the rules, from the handling of skill points to the balance between classes and prestige classes, and embracing alternate class abilities.

3. Oddly enough, I don't particularly like the Pathfinder setting - a bit too much of 'something for everyone' for my tastes. Understandable, and my annoyance is only when taking the setting as a whole. An adventure path is typically within a self contained area (with a very recent exception), so it is possible to ignore those parts that I do not feel mesh well.

Rifts isn't a setting, it is a meta-setting, containing a myriad of sub settings. Again, not to my tastes, but I can understand why many folks like it. I had the same problems with Spelljammer and Planescape. Also, in a lesser degree, with the Pathfinder setting.

4. Actually, I have seen very few fans, devoted or otherwise, defending the systems in Palladium. I have seen a fair number defending the settings and metasetting, which in me estimation do not need defending, since most complaints are about the systems and the publisher, not the settings.... I think that even the fans of Rifts admit that there are some serious issues, but they feel that it is worth it. And since they are having fun, they are right.

The fact is that in the case of Pathfinder folks don't want the changes that some critics want to make. Using myself as the nearest example: I hate 4e, why the heck would I want Pathfinder to be more like a game that I hate? If it were more like 4e then I would not play it. And given that it is currently outselling 4e, at least in some areas, a majority of folks agree....

At a guess - You do not want Pathfinder, you want some other, largely different, game. You are playing Pathfinder because the folks that you want to game with are running and/or playing Pathfinder. Which has the side effect of rubbing your nose in the areas of the rules that you do not like, every time that you pick up the dice.

5. Very different levels of 'successful'. Palladium was a solid second or third tier publisher, Paizo may well be the top dog right now, at least until WotC figures out how to retake the #1 spot. I suspect that they will, but I have no idea of how. Maybe 5e?

I think that Palladium was an attempt to have a more detailed and complex first edition AD&D with better integration.The first time that I ever encountered Siembieda (finally remembered the spelling, I think that I have spelled it three different ways in this thread, all wrong until now) was when he was doing material for RuneQuest.

Ironically, RuneQuest is in many ways a simpler system than AD&D of the same time. And was, in my opinion, more realistic than either AD&D or Palladium.

The Auld Grump, there, on topic this time.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I was only clarifying what was specifically 'borrowed' from Paizo that caused a problem and what steps were taken (or rather what step's weren't taken - as in C&D, etc). It was not my intention to villainize you or have that statement point at you, directly. It was only for clarification.

Nobody said OGC was good or bad - I don't know what you mean by that.

Though I disagree with your OP, I'm not 'against' you, so you needn't get upset.

I think that WD is under the mistaken impression that the illustrations were covered by the OGL, which is never the case in regards to illustrations, settings, names, etc. unless the creator specifically enters it as OGC, rather, it is covered by IP law, not the OGL. Only the game system and the mechanics thereof are OGC. So, if I create a spider-goblin named The Auld Grump's Companion the stats would be OGC, but the name The Auld Grump's Companion would be IP, unless I chose to allow that name to become OGC.

If somebody else wanted to use the the stats and call it Bob the Goblin-Spider then they can go right ahead, making certain that I am given due credit under the OGL. (I used to use section 15 as a shopping list....)

Yes, I know that you know this Gamerprinter, just clarifying for the home audience.

The Auld Grump

 

[Walking Dad]

Back for some last comments, because TheAuldGrump mentioned me. And soirry if I'm sometimes a bit unclear. As I already stated, I'm no native speaker.

Nobody said OGC was good or bad - I don't know what you mean by
that.

Most recently? Look 2 post up from yours:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeGKushner
Don't forget embracing the OGL and their PDF options, or their subscription print/PDF model. Many people vocally point out their love of Paizo has amost as much to do with the OGL as it does anything else and others, still looking for WoTC to provide it, latch onto the PDF material.

Totally. Love the OGL support.

Despite owning nearly all of the Pathfinder rulebooks the ability to look things up on the PRD site or d20pfsrd is wonderful. That brings a huge plus to running and playing Pathfinder for me. Coupled with not only PDFs, but super low prices on the rulebook category PDFs is great!

And I have to apologize again for my vague and sometimes wrong posts.

My intent was to compare to systems and the surrounding fandom based on what they are seen by 'outsider'. Both systems have fans that are great people and have fun with them. I don't want to take it away from everyone.

Particularly my 5th point was irrelevant and I stated my 2nd point as fact when I was talking about impressions.

Have fun until I start a new thread. (here)

 

[gamerprinter]

I see what you mean, but I think you have misconstrued what those posts are. Rather than a love of OGC, I think it's the love of the accessability to OGC, not something good/bad about OGL.

As you say, Paizo couldn't make OGC to be non-OGC, but I don't they'd want to. WotC had an SRD for 3.5, however they made the progression tables to be non-OGC. WotC limited OGC to some classes, not all - look at all the various splats and Complete books for example. Why weren't these OGC as well.

Paizo chose to make their progression tables part of the OGC, so that all the rules are OGC. Paizo's OGC rules are not limited to Core. The APG, GMG, UC, UM are all open content. Paizo could have limited the Core itself to be OGC, then chosen to make all subsequent books non-OGC. They did not, so any perceptions that Paizo wanted to limit access to their rules because of the nature of OGC is simply not so.

I'm glad for the existence of OGC, and the accessability it provides, beyond that I don't see it as a good/bad thing in of itself, rather good in the accessability to it.