Pathfinder 1E Paizo Annoucement!

[Cthulhudrew]

Furthermore, I don't like their business model. At all. "Okay, we'll give you a slightly improved version of what you already have for free so you can playtest it. Then, a few months later, once we iron some of the kinks out, we'll charge you for it so you can help us fix it better! Then, once we're satisfied with it, we'll charge you TWICE AS MUCH for the final version. And we may switch to another game at that point."

That's not their business model, though. No one has to pay for the Beta release- it will be available as a free download. If you want a print copy, then you have to pay for it- which makes sense, as it takes considerable more investment on their part to make print copies than it does to make .pdfs.

Both the Alpha and Beta playtests are intended to be fully open for people to access, play, and provide feedback.

As for final pricing- given how far off the rules are, I'd be surprised if prices didn't change (and I'm not sure where anyone's getting that $50 price tag anyway- I don't see it quoted in any of the releases).

As for the contention of them switching to another game, I'd say it's probably unlikely- given the advance they need on all of this- but that if they do, it will be a decision they make as they witness the results/reactions of the playtesting, and what they may witness of the reaction to 4E.

 

[carolina]

It'll be $49.95 for the entire game. One book, one game.

Last I saw, Wotc's three book 4E came in around $104 -- as a comparison.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Same here. I love tinkering with my skill points every time I level. What skills did I use during the adventure? What skills is my character currently interested in, and thus is pursuing between-adventures training for? What skills are no longer interesting, and thus no longer pursued? What skills is it out-of-character to pursue? All that is very character-defining for me, and I love the feeling of steady progress, as a contrast to the 'jumpy' aquisition of feats.

I'm really, really going to miss that, if and when my DM goes for 4E...

I am another person who will miss skill points.

In fact, if I could change one thing about the upcoming Pathfinder RPG, it would be to retain skill points. I really hate the SAGA changes. They are fine for NPCs and monsters, but players should get to allocate their skills as they wish.

Ken

 

[helium3]

That is absolutely not what she said.

--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing, LLC

Ok . . .

Today, we have announced our decision to create the Pathfinder RPG, the flagship game system for all of our Pathfinder products. This roleplaying game will be based on the Open Game License (OGL) and the 3.5 SRD released by Wizards of the Coast. We came to this decision by listening to you, our customers, and also listening to our own hearts. Our Pathfinder Chronicles campaign setting was designed around the tropes and values of classic fantasy roleplaying, and the Pathfinder Adventure Path books were designed to provide the best gaming experience using the 3.5 system. After careful evaluation of our options, we believe that the 3.5 core will continue to be the best system to tell the stories we've got planned for Pathfinder.

So the above paragraph says what, then? It certainly doesn't say, "We think 4E is going to be awesome and we'll switch over to 4E as soon as we've had the rules long enough to develop a full length Pathfinder AP using them."

I've highlighted the last sentence, as it most clearly (IMO) makes my point. When you make a definitive statement that X is better than all other options, by virtue of the logical argument created, all other options are not as good as X. You can't really have it both ways. If you can, please share.

I really don't think it's that unreasonable for WotC to read this in the same way I am. I stand by my original point. The letter she wrote is far less conciliatory than it could have been.

 

[Baka no Hentai]

If you don't even know who Paizo is, then I tend to doubt you have a good feel for the marketplace.

This is possible, though I have only anecdotal evidence to go on. Neither myself nor anyone in my gaming circle have ever heard of the pathfinder series. While we are familiar with some necromancer supplements and of course the magazines, we know little of Paizo as a business entity, much less as a leader in RPG products. And we have been playing D&D for many years.

This I can only attribute to the fact that we by and large purchase our D&D materials from local hobby-shops. We do not frequent any D&D related message-boards such as ENWorld... in fact the only reason I came to these boards was to find information on 4E.

Perhaps you are right, and the area I am in is not representative of the larger gaming community as far as Paizo's presence in non-internet venues. I dont believe that to be the case however... to take forum-goers as any kind of representative sample of a market is usually folly.

 

[haakon1]

Wow. I think your post just singlehandedly pushed me into the pro-4E camp. This is not the sort of gamer I am or want to be. A game should be fun and that's it. None of this "my game is more intelligent than your game" bull.

It depends on the definition of fun. IMHO, any edition of D&D (so far) is playable if you stick to its original core rules, but the official version becomes "unplayable" every time due to rules bloat ("crunch") developed to pump more money out of the powergamer/munchkin types. I'm also annoyed that powergamers "burn through" editions faster and demand new crunch . . . I'm in more-or-less the same Gygaxian campaign world I've been in since 1981, with many different parties, and I'm tired of updating stuff to fit new crunch . . . crunch changes are an obstacle to my fun, not an enhancement.

Add in that I have to pay for the displeasure of outdating all my stuff, and I'm pretty pissed at whichever corporate entity is churning the rules to "revenueize" my fun. Add in that they are going for a total reset and the residual anger about cancelling Dungeon and Dragon, and well . . . Bellevue beats Renton.

Yes, that's wrongbadfunism and geek rage, but whatever . . . you go your way, and I'll go mine, I guess. If you really want revenge, rather than telling me I've pushed you to 4e, tell me I'll buy 4e anyhow (yes, I will) and that I'll end up playing it because oldtimers will always come around eventually, just like we did with 3e (quite plausible, but we'll see).

Only if WotC is feeling particularly vindictive.

Well, they did cancel Dragon and Dungeon just to piss me off and kill Greyhawk, so they ain't exactly coming up "good" on my Know Alignment.

Plus, they probably have legitimate legal claims -- if Paizo's basically doing D&D without buying the rights, that's kinda feels wrong, OGL or no OGL. I'm not sure what the legal issues would be, if any, but I suspect Hasbro has some kind of recourse.

 

[Timespike]

Plus, they probably have legitimate legal claims -- if Paizo's basically doing D&D without buying the rights, that's kinda feels wrong, OGL or no OGL. I'm not sure what the legal issues would be, if any, but I suspect Hasbro has some kind of recourse.

Only if they go after True20 (Blue Rose in particular) and every other major (and minor) fantasy RPG out there as well. Besides, if you 4E devotees are correct about 4E being wildly superior in the mind of the average gamer (and you may well be; few of us have seen it yet and those who have are prevented by NDAs from talking about it) Hasbro won't need to sue. They'll bury Paizo by having a better product.

 

[JohnSnow]

And If 4E fails badly enough (it could happen) Paizo might just end up buying D&D outright from Hasbro after Hasbro shuts Wizards of the Coast down.

(Personally, I can't wait until Paizo starts publishing print versions of Dragon and Dungeon again!)

That's just pure fantasy. It will NEVER happen.

And this, right here, is why this Pathfinder RPG thing is bad for the hobby. Paizo just set themselves up (intentionally or not) as the embodiment of the hope that Fourth Edition will fail spectacularly.

In marketing, perception is reality. And the perception this moves creates is that Paizo WANTS 4E to fail. Since I don't agree with that, I don't want to support Paizo as a business. So, as intriguing as some of their APs looked to me, I'm not going to be playing 3.x after June. And I'm not going to buy their products because I don't want my purchase to be to be misconstrued by Paizo as supporting this move.

Lots of people will probably buy the free rules upgrade, because it's free. But when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, I think most people won't spend a thin dime.

Part of me wants to boycott all Paizo-published materials (including Necromancer's stuff) to show Paizo that decisions like this have consequences, but that wouldn't be fair to Clark, who's actually supporting Fourth Edition wholeheartedly.

I think we can safely say the GSL just got a lot tighter. Of course, I've long suspected it will contain a clause like this:

"Content released under the Open Gaming License (OGL) may be converted and released under the GSL, provided the new releases conform to the conditions herein."

In other words, I think they'll allow previously released content to be converted to Fourth Edition, but write the license in such a way as to prevent back-conversion of Fourth Edition material to the OGL.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

So the above paragraph says what, then? It certainly doesn't say, "We think 4E is going to be awesome and we'll switch over to 4E as soon as we've had the rules long enough to develop a full length Pathfinder AP using them."

Does it need to?

I've highlighted the last sentence, as it most clearly (IMO) makes my point. When you make a definitive statement that X is better than all other options, by virtue of the logical argument created, all other options are not as good as X. You can't really have it both ways. If you can, please share.

When I read that statement (and the part you bolded), I get- "We believe that 3.5 core will continue to be the best system to tell the stories we've got planned for Pathfinder."

They know what kind of stories they are going to be telling. They know their product, their staff, their world. They have some idea (probably more than many, despite the lack of a GSL) what kind of changes might be required to continue to produce those products under 4E. They have decided that- to do things they way they want to continue to do them- 3.5 (or some iteration) is best for them.

They in no way say 4E sucks, or that it won't be a good system. Just that it doesn't work for what they want to do.

I don't see what you're saying about her not being conciliatory at all. Frankly, I'm not at all sure she (or Paizo) even have a need to conciliate with WotC, as their relationship doesn't seem to be in any way hostile, nor have they done anything that I'm aware of to publicly cheese them off (perhaps conciliatory wasn't the precise word for the point you were trying to make).

In any event, I don't see anything hostile there, nor does it seem like them giving the finger to anyone. It's very politically put, IMO. She is just saying "this is the direction that we feel is best for our company at this time."

 

[Timespike]

I think we can safely say the GSL just got a lot tighter. Of course, I've long suspected it will contain a clause like this:

"Content released under the Open Gaming License (OGL) may be converted and released under the GSL, provided the new releases conform to the conditions herein."

In other words, I think they'll allow previously released content to be converted to Fourth Edition, but write the license in such a way as to prevent back-conversion of Fourth Edition material to the OGL.

I think it'll be tighter still. They'll probably put some sort of clause in there preventing companies who have published product under the OGL after a certain date from ever being allowed to publish under the GSL.