Pathfinder 1E Paizo Annoucement!

[thatdarnedbob]

If the Pathfinder RPG is one of the top five bestselling products that Paizo publishes in 2009, I will eat a stinky sock.

 

[helium3]

But if they don't plan on switching to 4e based on what they know, why would they possibly say what you want them to? Maybe the restrictions of the new license would cramp what they are doing too much, so why not say 3.5 is a better fit for what we are doing? I'm not seeing the problem here.

You're right. There really isn't a problem here, in the sense that business is business. And why does there have to be a problem? The RPG industry is absolutely fascinating and I just like to discuss it. The only actual problem I had was with the denials about the content of Lisa' letter to Paizo's customers. And a big part of that was my unfortunate use of hyperbole.

What's really interesting to me is, considering how close the relationship between Paizo and WotC used to be, how amazing it is to see that they've put themselves in a situation that's far more adversarial than they needed to be in. I mean, they now have a direct interest in convincing as many people as possible not to switch to 4E, and to switch to Pathfinder instead. And they're doing it three months before WotC rolls out their new product. And they're releasing the rule-system in a manner that allows for maximal customer input and playtesting. Pretty much the opposite of what WotC is doing. The more I think about, the more amazed at how aggressive Paizo is really being here. They must really smell blood in the water for some reason.

 

[JohnSnow]

The more I think about, the more amazed at how aggressive Paizo is really being here. They must really smell blood in the water for some reason.

Either that, or they're still really pissed at losing the licenses for Dungeon and Dragon.

You don't have to smell blood to be pissed off enough to go for the jugular.

 

[Mirtek]

If the Pathfinder RPG is one of the top five bestselling products that Paizo publishes in 2009, I will eat a stinky sock.

We're lucky to be living in the age of youtoube so that will be easy enough for us to see

 

[helium3]

And how is this different from how the 4e designers advertised 4e at the cost of 3.x in their blogs?

Well, the major difference is that the 4E designers actually know the in's and out's of their new product and perhaps honestly believe it's better. Another major difference is that they were pimping their own product, not taking potshots at the soon-to-be-released product of a competitor.

Not that doing that is wrong. They're competitors now. Taking subtle potshots at your competitor's products is part of what you do. It'll be interesting to see what WotC's response is, if they respond at all.

 

[Ingolf]

In what alternate reality is this true? Please point me to the awesome rules-making skills of Paizo. Just quote the book or the magazine, I am fairly sure I have most of them, and tbh, while Paizo is the shizzle as far as adventures goes, they have yet to prove being able to handle extensive rules and balancing of a system. Based on their alpha, I will go as far as say, that I think they are in over their heads.

This.

Seriously, I have read the "alpha" release of the Pathfinder RPG they put out yesterday, and if anyone is under the impression that being a good adventure writer makes you a good rules person - check again. If anything, they made many of the things about 3.5 that I find unsatisfactory even worse.

Yes, I understand it's a pre-release version. I question the wisdom of releasing it for public consumption at all if this was the best the could do.

 

[helium3]

Either that, or they're still really pissed at losing the licenses for Dungeon and Dragon.

You don't have to smell blood to be pissed off enough to go for the jugular.

Well sure. It's entirely possible that's a big part of this. But, I suspect not. Or, if that's why, they're taking a huge risk.

Besides, wouldn't they have announced Pathfinder RPS right after losing the license in that case?

 

[catsclaw227]

If they hadn't, D&D would be a much smaller part of the marketplace. The OGL created a standard system in gaming, the 'long tail' of which kept reaching back to WOTC, even for 'stand alone' games. People buy Conan/B5/True 20 *in addition to* D&D; very few people use them without having first been D&D players. The D20 system kept gamers in the "D&D Space", even if they weren't playing D&D, leading to all sorts of ancillary beneficial effects for WOTC.

They're going to feel its loss.

Wait a sec... Did you already get the GSL? So you know what has been allowed and what has been disallowed? What is this "loss" you are talking about?

 

[helium3]

They can't say that. People would interpret it to mean that they'd LIKE to be publishing under 4e, but because they can't due to release schedules and the need to get product out the door, they'll have to publish something crappier instead.

I, too, share your distaste of phrases like "right for the stories we want to tell," mostly since its a vague, content-free emotional catch phrase appropriate only for marketing speak. But this was marketing speak, so that's fine.

Right. I think we're actually on the same page here.

Marketing speak drives me batty. Though, good marketing speech doesn't need to be free of content.

But yeah. They're not publishing under 4E because they don't want to. Not because they have no choice.

 

[Azzy]

Well, the major difference is that the 4E designers actually know the in's and out's of their new product and perhaps honestly believe it's better. Another major difference is that they were pimping their own product, not taking potshots at the soon-to-be-released product of a competitor.

The only pot-shots that Paizo are taking at WotC seem to exist solely in your head. You're reading adversarial intent into a marketing statement where none exists. It's like you're going out of your way to create a conspiracy that doesn't exist.