D&D 4E Paizo and 4e.

[Darkwolf71]

My apologies. I was mentally lumping you together with people over at the Paizo board who are explicitly wishing for 4E to flop.

S'ok. I've been playing tis game for too long and through too many versions to want to see failure. Although the very existance of the OGL pretty much ensures that we will have a d20 version of D&D whatever the fate of 4e and WotC.

 

[Riley]

Paizo puts out some of the best (if not the best) adventures on the market, and until the Expedition series, far better then anything Wizards put out in a while. Now the difference in the gulf has been reduced to Paizo being just "considerably better" then Wizards adventures.

Strangely, many of the best WOTC adventures were penned (at least in part) by Paizons. Castle Greyhawk and Red Hand of Doom leap to mind immediately.

 

[SteveC]

Strangely, many of the best WOTC adventures were penned (at least in part) by Paizons. Castle Greyhawk and Red Hand of Doom leap to mind immediately.

Yep, I think that's funny as well. I was going to basically say, hey WotC doesn't do adventures very well, but I thought about it and they have some pretty decent ones out there...and when I looked at them, they had Paizo folks involved. Interesting.

--Steve

 

[Azgulor]

Fair enough.



Actually, I think Paizo has dug their own hole here: Pathfinder.

By committing to Pathfinder, they've killed their ability to adapt quickly. They have six month spans where they must use one edition. (And, let's face it, Paizo probably knew before anyone else that 4e was coming, due to the cancellation of the magazines). Orcus and Necromancer aren't in that bind.

Cheers!

Considering Pathfinder is hands-down the best RPG product(s) I've seen this year, if that's a hole, then I wish more publishers would follow suit.

 

[Rechan]

It'd sure be nice if the Paizo guys could write some Eberron adventures.

 

[Rechan]

Wow, it seems to me that some folks just want to be offended.

Maybe I am wrong about the tone with which you were intending, but it came across to me like you were saying "I'm not one of those bottom feeding fanboy wretches".

So I apologize if I am mistaken, but it's really easy to lump you with hazel monday and his "True enough, as evidenced by the amount of peole who've pledged undying loyalty to a game system they haven't even seen yet. I wish gamers in general were a bit more discerning in their tastes."

I've had it up to here with being associated with sheep because I don't agree with someone. I get that enough in politics.

 

[GVDammerung]

It is my impression that Paizo is setting itself up as the anti-4e company, aided by the fans on its forums.

Meanwhile, the vibe I get from Necromancer Games they'll move to 4e as soon as possible, and adapt it as necessary to keep the feel they want.

Does anyone else get this impression?

Cheers!

Cheers yourself, Merric. I get your "optimistic" take on Wotc, a drum you beat nearly constantly on this site to the point of abject predictability. I think, however, the foregoing crosses the line from Wotc booster, to Wotc crusader/zealot by actively characterizing Paizo as "the anti-4e company." Its one thing to sign the praises of Wotc and another to set up any company that doesn't toe the Wotc line as the badguy, the "anti-" company, which is what you have done to Paizo herein to my reading. Optimist or flack? I think you crossed the line in your phraseology.

You intentionally or blythly ignore what is driving Paizo - WOTC has failed to deliver the 4e OGL, d20 license and SRD in a timely manner to allow third party publishers to make business decisions. What do you expect? Paizo and other 3rd party publishers to wait and wait and wait on Wotc untill their business is compromised? Wotc is a business and so are these 3rd party publishers. If Wotc won't do business then it just msakes sense that the 3rd party publishers will have to figure out how to do business without Wotc.

Do you get it? This is a stew of Wotc's making. If your prefer, it is Wotc's fault that the conversation is taking place because Wotc has failed to timely deliver the 4e OGL, d20 license and SRD. You don't even consider this but jump to the "anti-" label.

I'm thinking other than "optimist" here.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Shadowrun 4e, anybody? Not well recieved by the existing fanbase. Not all changes are gold simply becasue they are new and shiney.

Something I don't get, by the way (and didn't actually suspected, until now. But I am absolutely not in the loop regarding Shadowrun, since our group gave up on it). The new system has cleared most of the old inherent errors (except multiple Actions due to high Initiative/Reflexboosting). They might have introduced one thing that might sound good on paper (it did to me), but might be bland and reduce variety in characters (streamlining magical traditions).

On Topic:
What I really hope is that Paizo finds a way to continue making good adventures. They certainly have the talents for it. I wouldn't mind playing a Paizo adventure with 3.x after 4th edition hits the market, but I still want to play 4th edition, too.

I wouldn't mind, by the way, if Paizo wouldn't limit itself to D&D adventures. Other D20 Systems and other game systems + settings (especially Shadowrun and Warhammer, hell even Torg!) need good adventures. But I doubt that's feasible. Still, I can dream...

 

[GVDammerung]

I think assuming that a game that runs any system other than the currently supported WotC system is doomed to die is a little unfounded. Lots of non-d20 games exist now, and are profitable. I don't see why games that remain 3.5 compliant wouldn't be able to do the same in theory. They have the benefit of using a proven rule system that a lot of people in the hobby already have exposure to, and the potential support of other game companies who also choose to remain 3.5 compliant.

. . .

The open gaming license ensures that this edition change doesn't have to be as definitive as those of the past. Just how profitable will it be to go either way? I'm sure all of the companies with strong, ongoing, product lines are doing the research on that as we speak.

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

The 4e launch is unlike any other (A/O)D&D Edition change ever because 3x can still continue to be supported. A 3.75 Edition would be analogous to an Exalted or a Rifts, as much as it would be analogous to 4e D&D in terms of market space. That is would be a closer cousin to 4e D&D in terms of gameplay would only boost the chances of a 3.75 Edition finding itself a profitable audience/niche.

 

[Odhanan]

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

The 4e launch is unlike any other (A/O)D&D Edition change ever because 3x can still continue to be supported. A 3.75 Edition would be analogous to an Exalted or a Rifts, as much as it would be analogous to 4e D&D in terms of market space. That is would be a closer cousin to 4e D&D in terms of gameplay would only boost the chances of a 3.75 Edition finding itself a profitable audience/niche.

Correct. There are no precedent to this edition change because of the OGL. Someone with a good reputation on the market might be able to create a niche with a continuous 3.X support.

For the first time in gaming history, following the edition change is not the obvious business decision.