Pathfinder 1E Opinions on Pathfinder

[Turtlejay]

Awesome edition war guys! Could you maybe port your edition war to another thread? One titled "edition war" maybe? Because I am kind of interested in *Pathfinder*, not OGL, Game Table, Dungeon and Dragon magazines, or any of the passive agressive sniping that has been going on for like, 15 pages.

Seriously, some of you all (on BOTH sides) are like sharks smelling blood in the water. Flocking to a perfectly good thread to derail it and talk smack about *other* people who came here to talk smack about a game you play?

I just wanna hear some opinions on Pathfinder, what do you think the odds are on that happening?

Jay

 

[Wicht]

I just wanna hear some opinions on Pathfinder, what do you think the odds are on that happening?

Jay

I quite like pathfinder.

The books are beautiful. The rules are nicely updated from 3.5. The new options for the classes (sorcerers in particular) are intuitive and things like channeling positive energy make me wonder why it wasn't done that way from the get go.

The books are beautiful and I am very, very pleased with the Bestiary. The monsters have good descriptions, evocative illustrations, and an overall good presentation, including cleaning up the stat blocks just a little by streamlining some of the more ubiquitious rules into the appendix.

The adventures (which is really what we are here for) are well written and stand on equal or better footing with any of the classic modules (for the most part). I am quite happy that my children were able to play Rise of the Runelords all the way through to the end. I think, as gamers, it will be something they can wax nostalgic about in the same way I can wax nostalgic about I6 or exploring the Isle of Dread. Over a year later they still mention besting Karzoug and the characters they took through that adventure from beginning to end. What more could you want from a game than that?

Did I mention how nice the books look?

 

[unan oranis]

I have always admired the extra level of quality Paizo has put into the art in their books, and from what I've skimmed through, their modules were a level above the competition, almost good enough for me to actually use - (different issue).

I also respect the labor of love the newest release must be, and although I haven't seen it in person I'd bet money that the quality is there, you can count on Paizo for that.

But the premise seems ultimately doomed to obscurity. At the bedrock of it, you have a complicated game that appeals exclusively to dnd players who are not interested in 4e.

So it's a lucky break for 3e lovers, and I salute Paizo for going with their gut - the dnd universe will be better for it.

Also, anyone who plays pathfinder 5e is a dummy who can't have intelligent conversations. Pathfinder Y.2e forever!

 

[billd91]

This is exactly the attitude I got when Paizo added content to Dungeon that I didn't want (Polyhedron). This is the attitude I got when the page count of my pre-paid subscription was reduced by the change to a monthly format. They aren't saints, they make mistakess too.

There were a lot of people who weren't interested in the Polyhedron content, but you know what? After giving it a go and experimenting with it, Paizo listened to customer feedback and got rid of it. Now you're complaining about their attitude for changing the magazines and doing what you wanted in this context even after you said above, in this very post:

In business you need to make a decision and stick with it.

Paizo listens to its customers and it shows in Pathfinder. The public playtest they ran for the Beta generated a lot of feedback that they used to improve the core rules. Certainly not everybody's favorite feedback or ideas made it into the final, but I believe enough did that I have confidence that the designers listened and considered the feedback carefully.

But right now, I can't help but wonder where your argument is going. You posted that:

I don't think they handled my remaining subscription to Dungeon well. And instead of offering a solution that satisfied me they blamed the problem on WotC. It is not WotC's fault that Paizo was unwilling to offer a solution that satisfied me as a customer.

And that leaves me wondering just what axe you're grinding. Considering that Paizo set up a webpage for people with subscriptions to choose their options for remaining credit including: shifting to the Pathfinder subscription, getting back issues, getting store credit, or getting a refund, I have ask you if not one, not a single one, of these options was satisfying given the situation or you're just trying to make hyperbolic points in an argument with someone criticizing WotC's customer service.

I would say this to anyone interested in Pathfinder or Paizo, they went pretty far to satisfy people with subscriptions extending beyond their control of Dungeon and Dragon magazines. They've done alright by me both in customer service (hey, I didn't care for the Polyhedron content either and was glad they listened to my feedback and removed it) and in revising the 3.5 rule set to produce the Pathfinder game.

If you like 3e at all, then PF can be a very good fit and the PDF of the core rules is available for a very low, aggressive price making checking it out not a very heavy burden. Heck, if you like looking at the rules online without the art (which is excellent), you can even find them for free as part of the Pathfinder System Reference Document. In that way, you have nothing to lose in checking it out.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Wasn't WotC sending out C&D's at a few places who made their own 4e virtual tabletops at one point because they didn't want anyone cribbing them?

It might just be my bad memory.

Please don´t do that. This is how those internet rumors get started. Either quote the cases you´re talking about or don´t say stuff like that. This thread is bad enough with all its "haah, you belive in stuff that has been proven by scientists to be silly!!!1!" and "don´t listen to that poster, his opinion doesn´t count anyway" stuff going on, as it is.

 

[tyrlaan]

For the specific game experience I want, 3E is far and away a superior choice.
If I only managed to imply that, then I apologize.

But I do find it amusing that in a PF thread loaded with digs against 3E that *THIS* post is setting off a powder keg.

Appreciate the apology, even if it's veiled in a caveat. I'll take what I can get on the internet

However, I will point out that I stated "comments like this" *CAN* set off a powder keg. Fortunately that hasn't happened, but I was illuminating a possibility in attempts to halt such a thing from happening.

To be honest, the comments I've read in this thread that cast aspects of 3.x in a negative light don't seem to be telling anyone that 4e is a better game (though I'm always open to the concept of being corrected). Are they saying 4e is a better game for that person? Yes, but that's very different than omission of words (accidental or intentional) when expressing something that is based on personal taste.

Not that the following concept is anything new (and at the risk of sounding preachy), but there's a lot of aspects of communication that can't be relied upon in online chat. All we have are words, so it's important to choose our words wisely and it's important to read the words of others carefully.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Jesus, did someone really just say Paizo was to blame for Wizard cancelling the print versions of Dungeon and Dragon?

Who said that?! No one is to blame. It's all a matter of business decisions.

For the specific game experience I want, 3E is far and away a superior choice.
If I only managed to imply that, then I apologize.

But I do find it amusing that in a PF thread loaded with digs against 3E that *THIS* post is setting off a powder keg.

Some of us are making criticisms about 3E, yes. Some of us said it's not for us, yes. But no one has claimed that anyone has "settled" for 3E.

Wasn't WotC sending out C&D's at a few places who made their own 4e virtual tabletops at one point because they didn't want anyone cribbing them?

It might just be my bad memory.

Virtual tabletops that incorporate WotC owned material, maybe. But people have been using virtual tabletops for years that don't contain specific game content.

There were a lot of people who weren't interested in the Polyhedron content, but you know what? After giving it a go and experimenting with it, Paizo listened to customer feedback and got rid of it. Now you're complaining about their attitude for changing the magazines and doing what you wanted in this context even after you said above, in this very post: Paizo listens to its customers and it shows in Pathfinder. The public playtest they ran for the Beta generated a lot of feedback that they used to improve the core rules. Certainly not everybody's favorite feedback or ideas made it into the final, but I believe enough did that I have confidence that the designers listened and considered the feedback carefully. But right now, I can't help but wonder where your argument is going. You posted that: And that leaves me wondering just what axe you're grinding. Considering that Paizo set up a webpage for people with subscriptions to choose their options for remaining credit including: shifting to the Pathfinder subscription, getting back issues, getting store credit, or getting a refund, I have ask you if not one, not a single one, of these options was satisfying given the situation or you're just trying to make hyperbolic points in an argument with someone criticizing WotC's customer service. I would say this to anyone interested in Pathfinder or Paizo, they went pretty far to satisfy people with subscriptions extending beyond their control of Dungeon and Dragon magazines. They've done alright by me both in customer service (hey, I didn't care for the Polyhedron content either and was glad they listened to my feedback and removed it) and in revising the 3.5 rule set to produce the Pathfinder game.
If you like 3e at all, then PF can be a very good fit and the PDF of the core rules is available for a very low, aggressive price making checking it out not a very heavy burden. Heck, if you like looking at the rules online without the art (which is excellent), you can even find them for free as part of the Pathfinder System Reference Document. In that way, you have nothing to lose in checking it out.

I'm not grinding any axes. I'm just pointing out that when I was dissatisfied with Paizo on three separate occassions Paizo fans told me my attitude was uncalled for and that I should go pound sand. Paizo also stuck to their guns, made their customer service decisions and left me feeling dissatisfied in each case. Do I hold a grudge against them? No. And if you read my previous posts you would find evidence of that. I said I would like to try playing Pathfinder. I said I think it's a shame that they aren't producing 4E material, because I would buy it from them. I said that they have a great track record for good material. My only point was that there are people out there holding Paizo up on a pedestal while demonizing WotC. To each their own reaction to companies' business decisions, but this is the type of fan that I think Dannager is referring to. I wouldn't put much stock into that type of fan if I was Wotc or Paizo either because they are the same ones that will rabidly turn on Paizo when they believe that Paizo has "sold out."

 

[carmachu]

That's not true. You absolutely can make the customers happy. Most of them, at least. But unfortunately the tabletop roleplaying customer base has a disproportionately high number of what can only be called bad customers - the spoiled, entitled sort that would rather whine about how they would do things differently instead of appreciating the reality of the situation the hobby is in. These customers are not worth pleasing. WotC was right to ignore them because, truthfully, driving them away from the hobby would only improve it.

So anyone who doesnt follow WOtc is a bad customer? You pretty much confirmed what I said earlier. You pretty much represent that portion of business that really doesnt understand customers or what they really want.

The table was always designed as a part of DDI. What you're discussing is simply revisionism. The digital game table was simply supposed to be an option available to Insider subscribers. They ended up unable to complete it because the economy started to tank, corporate demanded cuts, and the software development team was seen as less important (and rightly so) than the RPG designers.

That entire paragraph is revisionism. None of those things were related to the the game table not getting done. WOTC has always had a history of not getting things done or done right in electronic terms. Gleemax anyone?

 

[carmachu]

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I don't think they handled my remaining subscription to Dungeon well. And instead of offering a solution that satisfied me they blamed the problem on WotC. It is not WotC's fault that Paizo was unwilling to offer a solution that satisfied me as a customer. So everyone has their own opinion on who made better choices. I believe each company made the choice that was right for their company.

Its not my opinion at all. Your logic is flawed. Try this one more time:

The only people to blame for the cancellation of the magazine are the ones that called the license back. Who called the license back and cancelled the contract.

WotC. Paizo didnt get teh choice in the matter. Wotc is the one that owns the license, it is they who get the say in the matter.

What would have satisfied you, out of curosity? If it was keep the magaizne, you have to take it up with Wotc who owns the license, owns the magazine. Pazio does not.

The fact you blame them just shows, as someone just said, how big of an axe your grinding.

This is exactly the attitude I got when Paizo added content to Dungeon that I didn't want (Polyhedron). This is the attitude I got when the page count of my pre-paid subscription was reduced by the change to a monthly format. They aren't saints, they make mistakess too.

SUre, I dont disagree with that. I hated polyhedron added. Paizo or whoever had it at the time is to blame.

However, they arent responsible for the cancelation of the magazine. Thats like saying marget Weis is responsible for teh cancellation of the dragonlance license.

Only for that niche of players that would use it. Continued research may have shown that the majority of players would not use the game table. The research may have also shown that of those players that use virtual tables many find existing methods to be adequate so as not to be interested in WotC's offering.

Uh huh. Speculation. Wotc made a huge deal of getting together with your friends across the country if I recall.

It is not a fact. You have no clue what went on behind the scenes. It is a fact that print magazine sales are declining, much like the newspaper trade. It is my recollection that Erik Mona was happy to see a new model where they weren't in the business of finding advertisers to support their income (because advertisers are also paying less for ad space in a falling media). Another poster mentioned stress around the change. Stress =/= Bad Things Happening. The change was a good direction for Paizo (obviously), but it would still be a stressful time moving to the new paradigm.

Ok lets follow the logic.

Who owns the dragon and dungeon license? Wotc.

Who called in the license? WotC

So....who's to blame for the cancellation? Whose the bad guy?

WotC. This is the fact. They hold the license, they cancelled it.

Whether its because the decline of print as you say or whatever reason.....its irrelevant to the fact that they, WotC, cancelled the contract. Not Paizo. Wotc.

They didn't cancel the magazines! They pulled them in-house and the magazines continue today. Whether you like the new format or publisher is irrelevant. Who's to blame a company for keeping intellectual property they own?! Were they supposed to just give the names of the magazines up to a company that 1) didn't like being in the magazine business anymore (Erik did says he would love to continue the magazine if allowed, but its viability was slipping anyway) and 2) doesn't want to support the new edition. It's really that simple.

Cancled. If I dont have a print magazine in my hands, its not a magazine. What you have now is a E-zine. Not the same thing.

Its good that you acknowelege that WoTC owns the intellectual property. They can keep it and turn it into support for their new edition. I never said otherwise.

What I said, and you keep dancing around, is that they are the bad guys for cancelling the magazine. And they, Not Paizo, did.

[
My speculation is that Paizo would not have continued publication of the magazines even if WotC had offered it to them. I mean, they decided against supporting 4E after learning the details. In business that could become "why offer when there is no interest?"

Unless Lisa or Erik say, its really specualation. But I might agree with that, considering how they eventually reacted to the OGL/GSL debacle.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

If I recall correctly Paizo was in a holding pattern for a while waiting to see if they would support 4E. It was WOTC who didn't supply them with a GSL before hand and Paizo couldn't afford to wait until WOTC was ready to give them data that they would need to decide the course of their business.

So instead of hitching themselves to a wagon that was only concerned with the release of their new edition Paizo went it's own way with Pathfinder. Also, again, if I'm remembering correctly, the GSL didnt come out until just before or maybe a just after the actual release of 4th Edition.

So yes, the mechanics of 4E was a factor of Paizo not going 4E, but it wasnt THE factor. There were a bunch of things that contributed to it. WOTC not getting the GSL done in time being one of them.