D&D 4E Paizo and 4e - Vive le Revolution!

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If Clark and Bill W., Messrs. Mona and Pramas, Joe Goodman, and maybe that Cook guy got together and managed to make a SRD-based ruleset that appealed to 3E folks, it might just appeal a bit to the old geezers to and re-harness some of that original feeling from 2000 that WizBro was going to right the ship. The quality of work done by those publishers is completely outstanding, and I have no doubt at all that a "3.75e" would do the trick. Maybe it would be an "Advanced Blue Rose", or "Advanced Castles and Crusades" under a group trademark (although I doubt the Trolls would sign on, who knows?), but I don't want to inject my view of what I would like the game to look like.

The question I'd like to ask: Why do you think that other designers will not be able to make a good game, too? And why do you believe that the designer you named wouldn't make a system similar to D&D 4, too?

I am only familiar with the work of Monte Cook. I think many D&D 4 concepts or ideas are also hinted in his own works (be it actual rulebooks or just his LiveJournal/LineOfSight and so on posts he did on his site).
Races having an effect over a longer time the just the first level? Arcane Unearthed/Evolved introduced racial levels. D&D 4 seems to use a different approach, but still the same idea - race means more than just your initial ability scores and a few minor abilties.
More than 20 "core levels": Arcane Evolved introduced 25 level character classes
More than 9 spell levels: Arcana Evolved introduced 10th level spells, and in his homebrew, he also creates houserules for 20 spell levels.
Magical Abilities available all the time: One of his Columns discusses this topic, and he seems definitely in favour of it.
Enounter Based Resources: He published a variant Player's Handbook that created all character classes around this - Writer was Mike Mearls, now on the D&D 4 team.
Role Based, Simplified Monsters: Also with Iron Heroes, Villain Classes were introduced - which were simpfied approaches to create a common type/role of a monster. Demonic Knight, Champion, Dreaded Sorceror...


I think among the Designers, you will find a lot of common ground. Sure, each team grouping would create a slightly different game, but I have no doubt that you will find a lot of similar concepts. Now, just because designers like these concepts doesn't mean you are guaranteed to like them, too. But don't expect different designers that all come from experience with the same game to create entirely different rule systems. Now, the exact details would probably be different (and some implementations might be better), but until now, we don't know the exact details, so any final verdict is premature.

 

[Gundark]

Its good that they've been working on it since 2005...but come on, tell me that the platest doesnt seem awfully short....

My point was we don't know when the playtesting started. For all we know they could have been playtesting through-out all of 2006 and up until now. If you look at it this way that IMO is a lot.

 

[Psion]

How about a campaign setting that includes Rappan Athuk and Bard's Gate, Freeport, Ptolus, and Castle Whiterock? (I guess it needs to be a BIG f'n world

(shrug) My kitbash homebrew is close. I have Freeport, RA, and BG all in the same world, and assume Ptolus is in another world in the same cosmology. Don't own CW.

Two things: One, Rappan Athuk is very fun, but if 'extensively playtested' also means 'balanced' then, er, no.

Heh. I don't think "balanced" was the intent, at least as the term gets used here. RA was born out of the 1e-ish philosophy of adventurer Darwinism. Know when to flee. And Clark's as much as said that you aren't supposed to beat Rappan Athuk.

Secondly, how could RA exist in the same world as Freeport and Ptolus? Maybe if you're going for a Rifts-like 'everything but the kitchen sink' world, but come on: They have completely different aesthetics and styles. Athuk is old school nonsensical dungeoneering, Freeport is a mix of Lovecraft and Lieber, and Ptolus is post 3.x high fantasy... Don't get me wrong, I like and appreciate them all, but I prefer my campaign world, such as it is, to be more consistent in tone.

There's this other game world I use from time to time wherein the stories vary wildly in tone and feel. You might have heard of it. It's called Earth.

Are you suggesting, somehow, that the existence of a demon and undead filled labyrinth invalidates the existence of pirates elsewhere in the world?

I do get what you are getting at. That these publishers provide a different feel is what attracted me to them in the first place... they were giving something WotC wasn't giving. That said, a world's a big place, a universe even more so.

It's all sort of beside the point. If there really was such a collaborative project, one would assume if it were to be run rationally, there would have to be some agreement on what the product would encompass.

 

[Xaaon]

What I would like to see is adventures produced by the 3rd parties that had dual stat blocks...I would prefer the 3.5 set being the main set, but conversions for the 4th ed players.

 

[JVisgaitis]

What I would like to see is adventures produced by the 3rd parties that had dual stat blocks...I would prefer the 3.5 set being the main set, but conversions for the 4th ed players.

The way that encounters are set up now in 4e makes that an impossibility. You need more than just a statblock, you need to re-envision the entire encounter. I'd be surprised if any publisher goes through such lengths when producing adventures. We definitely won't be doing it.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Likewise. I believe that encounter design already will be vastly different for a game with mostly per-day abilities and a game with mostly per-encounter abilities, which makes adventures for each game pretty much incompatible.

 

[Treebore]

I can virtually guarantee that the answer to this is no. Right now Paizo can sell to any player of D&D. If they shot off and made their own system they'd only be able to sell to a limited audience. This is a complete pipe dream.

That was said many times to a guy named Bill Gates and a couple of guys who started a company called Apple.

Figuring out how to turn "pipe dreams" into reality makes people rich and/or successful in this world.

As for the "dream", just support 3.5E. 3.75E is already out if people are reading the books WOTC has published, with Book of the 9 Swords being the most obvious.

So support 3E, turn the non OGL stuff of 3E into something legally useable, and Paizo and Company have a solid fan base. The biggest reason people will leave 3E is lack of support. IF 3E continues to be supported, and therefore active and alive, a sizeable customer base will support them. I would bet significantly more than 40,000 a month.

I agree that if anyone is going to keep 3E alive they better start making noise now. They better have the financing to make it widely known. I think only Paizo, Green Ronin, and Mongoose have the depth of resources to make such a venture happen successfully. Maybe Goodman. Necromancer definitely couldn't do it on their own. Only a Paizo partnership would make them viable.

I think it would work, all is needed is a company with the resources, and guts, to take the leap.

Still, I am in a good positon with Castles and Crusades. Whether they go 4E or stay 3E, its all good product for me.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

The biggest reason people will leave 3E is lack of support.

Or, perhaps, because 4E is better than 3E? Or 3.5. Or 3.75. Or 3.82.

Who knows? I don't. You don't.

But I guarantee you two things:

1) 4E will replace 3E in every relevant gaming and/or business metric, and

2) Any company trying to jump off the Progress Bus will be Left Behind.

Including Paizo. They're good, but they're not WotC. Even if the gather a couple well-intentioned henchfolk (e.g., Necromancer, Goodman, <insert any boutique gaming company here>, etc.), they'll never do more than appeal to a set of folks that don't like 4E or don't like the idea of Change. That'll be a subset of the overall market. A small subset.

So there's a third guarantee:

3) The number of people playing 3.5/3.75/3/82 will be less than 4% of the RPG market by 4Q2008.

And, lastly, a disclaimer: I'm not a 4E fan. I'm not anti-4E. I've read things that interest me about it, and I've read things that scare me. But I'm not going to hide from it, nor will I encourage companies I like to shout out "Power to the People!" and start some 'revolution' that will lead only to their budgetary deaths.

Bad Idea.


W.P.

 

[carmachu]

My point was we don't know when the playtesting started. For all we know they could have been playtesting through-out all of 2006 and up until now. If you look at it this way that IMO is a lot.

Or...it just started. Which would be bad....

 

[psionotic]

That was said many times to a guy named Bill Gates and a couple of guys who started a company called Apple.

Not really. The Microsoft and Apple guys got rich precisely because they had the bright idea that computers should be approachable for the masses: Not the niche property of a technical elite.

And while having different third parties come up with a 3.75 edition might be great for the few of us who are into rules tinkering, it would never rise above being a niche property: unheard of by most casual players, unapproachable to new ones (who shop at Borders, for example).