Pathfinder 1E Paizo Annoucement!

[Orcus]

They've made it very clear what the GSL will be and what it won't allow. While the specifics may still be under debate, the general shape of it is that it will be far more restrictive than the OGL, with the intent of allowing D&D supplements, not opening up a game system.

Lizard, I generally agree with all your past points but this one I dont. Maybe you didnt mean to go as far as you did here.

I absolultely think it is 100% up in the air what will and wont be allowed under the GSL. I dont know if it will let me do Tome. I dont know if it will let me do Adventure Paths. I dont know if it will let me do my Advanced Player's Guide. I THINK it will let me do all 3, but to say "they've made it very clear what the GSL will be and what it wont allow" is not true. Now, that said, I think you mean they have made it clear ONE thing you wont be able to do is a standalone game that doesnt refer back to the core books, like say Mutants and Masterminds. But aside from that, we have no freaking clue what the GSL will allow or not allow. I do agree it will be more restrictive than the OGL, which essentailly had no restrictions.

 

[Orcus]

Third, my prediction is that in the short term this will do well, and in the long term it will prove an unwise move. Eventually most people will move over to 4e, and leave the vestiges of 3e behind. I suspect in two-three years we will see someone like Necro buying out Paizo for pennies on the dollar.

By the way, I have assured Lisa and Erik and James and company that when I buy Paizo for pennies on the dollar that I will let them keep their jobs.

Demon lords are magnanimous, after all...

 

[Morrick]

4.0 VS 3.5 the battle begins or is it all in our head?

As a player from way back when D&D was actually a roleplaying game I find this sudden Hatfields and McCoy mentality very odd. It's sort of a divide and conquer mentality. Very unproductive. For those 4E minded players that seem to feel that 3.5 supporters are the anti-christs of the RPG community. I think you need to step back and look at 4.0 as it relates to 3.5 as it relates to 3.0 and so on. 4.0 is essentially a boardgame with roleplaying elements and that's ok. 3.5 is a close second. You can still however play 3.5 without a battle mat. I know I have played without one on several occasions. 3.5 is more complicated because it tries to be faithful to that Rping tradition that was the bedrock since D&Ds inception in the 70s. The phenominon of the "MIN/MAXER" or power gamer was something rarely tolerated back in the day of 1E and 2E. They were referred to as Monty Hall players among other things. 3.5 has gotten watered down like Everquest did in the MMO community don't blame it on the players or third party publishers blame it on WotC and their shortterm fast return business strategy.

With the capturing of the name brand so to speak by WoTC and the restructuring of the game with 3E followed by 3.5E. WotC gradually took D&D out of the Rping realm and into the land of Magic the Gathering. 4E was inevitable based on their development strategy. If you have played Magic or any of its contemporaries it's all about Min/Maxing in terms of game play. There is certainly a market for that type of game. So there is a market for 4E.

D&D however wasn't started with players or designers with that kind of mentality. It was designed to use your imagination, to work as a team, and to be a part of a story. The living worlds were a perfect example of that tradition still being considered on some level. So really out of this metamorphisis came two separate but valid gamestyles with two separate and valid types of players.

Most 3.5 enthusiasts don't have an issue with 4E. They have an issue with WotC. They have an issue with a Microsoft of the roleplaying community, which D&D under WotC has become, saying, "We are going to change the system, We are going to change the software AND we are not going to support the old system and software.(Microsoft at least supports there old software) If you don't like it, oh well, too bad." They have an issue with being forced to change there style of play because some upstart who probably never even considered D&D as a serious game 10 years ago has decided they are going to tell them that they really don't care about them.
If WotC want to create a boardgame called 4E and if I decide to go out and shell more money on a new gaming system I have no problem with that. It's when you tell me I have no other choice if you want to play D&D and particularly(and this is really the fly in the ointment) if I want to play organized D&D. If the governing board of competitive chess owned a license on the game and walked into a national tournament and told the players that next year they would be playing checkers and if they don't like it go home and play with your frends I doubt seriously anyone would be happy.

So before you start throwing mud at Paizo or ignorantly marginalizing 3.5 enthusiats you need to take a look at the BIG picture and stop arguing apples and oranges. Paizo is filling a void. They are not as diverse as Hasbro, WotC parent company. They can ill afford to make any marketing mistakes. If they invested all there resources in a product that tanks because the market bully is trying to coral the consumer then they loose there shirts and Hasbro says ooops our 3rd quarter earnings in that sector are a bit low hmmmm. They are playing smart and in so doing they are giving the consumer what he/she deserves; a choice.

 

[Scrollreader]

Thank you for playing. Let our lovely ladies tell you what you've won:


An elitist, unhelpful post, that throws mud at a corporate giant. Oh wait, you already have one. See above.





Humor aside, please try to offer your comments in a productive manner, if you'd like a civil response. If you just need to vent, while I do understand, I'm not sure this is the best place to do so. That being said, I'm not a mod, or even somebody who's been posting here very long. But even if unintentional, your tone is likely to cause others to disregard any actual arguments or salient points.

 

[The Little Raven]

But the safeguards to ensure the OGL could never be revoked were probably the smartest bit. Dancey must have known that future management would not be as farsighted as Adkinson was. Or maybe it was Adkinson's idea, seeing as he sold off WotC to Hasbro not long after 3e came out.

1. Dancey was pretty much the full force behind the OGL push. He had to convince the current (as of 1998/1999) management of WotC to get behind the OGL, which was an uphill battle until people started to swing to his side.

2. Hasbro purchased WotC in 1999, a full year before 3rd Edition was released. This means that Hasbro accepted the idea of the OGL and allowed it to proceed.

 

[The Little Raven]

It'll be interesting to see what WotC's response is, if they respond at all.

If they are selling early Beta hard-copies at GenCon '08, then I expect to see a picture of Scott Rouse or some other WotC luminary purchasing a copy of it, just to show the "lines have been drawn in the sand" theorists that while competitors, they're still friends, colleagues, and have the utmost respect for eachother's work.

 

[The Little Raven]

As a player from way back when D&D was actually a roleplaying game

Is there any point in suggesting that more recent versions of D&D aren't roleplaying games (amusing, since OD&D openly claimed to be a miniatures wargame), besides trying ruffle feathers?

 

[helium3]

That seems a rather extreme reaction, given that you have no way of knowing why they did it. WotC hasn't said. Paizo hasn't said. And I doubt either will any time soon.

So in effect, there's a pretty good chance you're boycotting a company for making a 100% rational, legitimate decision. Sure, it's disappointing to lose a product you love--I wish Dragon and Dungeon were still print mags myself--but "punishing" WotC for doing so without any knowledge of the reasons seems more than a little silly.

I'm with Ari on this one.

 

[Mouseferatu]

As a player from way back when D&D was actually a roleplaying game

So, five minutes ago?

I've been playing since Red Box basic. I've played every edition since. I roleplay just as much now, in my 4E playtest group, as I ever did then. And there are lots of people on the board who've been gaming longer than I have.

So thanks, but wrong. Try again.

4.0 is essentially a boardgame with roleplaying elements and that's ok. 3.5 is a close second.

Nonsense. It's an RPG with a tactical combat system. The "it's a boardgame" comment is getting old--especially since I've yet to see it come from anyone who's actually seen the whole rules set and given it a fair shake.

The phenominon of the "MIN/MAXER" or power gamer was something rarely tolerated back in the day of 1E and 2E. They were referred to as Monty Hall players among other things.

Again, nonsense. They may have had different nicknames--"Monty Hall" vs. "munchkin"--but they were just as common. Maybe you were lucky enough not to run into them, but I can assure you they were no rarer then than they are now.

It's true, however, that they didn't have the Internet to magnify their voices. But they were there.

D&D however wasn't started with players or designers with that kind of mentality. It was designed to use your imagination, to work as a team, and to be a part of a story.

So, the newest edition of the game, which has introduced...

1) An entire new class based on maximizing teamwork,

2) A new skill challenge system designed to ensure that everyone can participate,

3) Helpful hints for new gamers on what sorts of roles each class plays, and why it's best to work with people with other roles,

4) A brand new philosophy behind how to build a campaign world (something that would be unnecessary in a purely tactical game),

5) Rules for giving XP for things like quests and non-combat challenges,

6) A new planar cosmology with backstory and plot seeds scattered throughout...

...is no longer intended to encourage imagination, storytelling, and teamwork?

Huh? :\

Most 3.5 enthusiasts don't have an issue with 4E. They have an issue with WotC.

Good to know you know what "most" of an entire group of people are thinking. Funny, but most of the comments I've seen on these boards from people who don't like what they've heard have to do with playstyle, rules, or flavor elements--all aspects of the game, not the company.

"We are going to change the system, We are going to change the software AND we are not going to support the old system and software.

New editions of D&D have never gone out of their way to support older versions. Early 2E products were compatible with 1E, because the system hadn't changed a lot, but as the edition wore on, that became less and less of an option.

some upstart who probably never even considered D&D as a serious game 10 years ago has decided they are going to tell them that they really don't care about them.

Okay, everything else has been bad enough, but AFAIAC, this qualifies as a personal attack. There are folks working at WotC now who have been in the business, let alone the hobby, since before 3E. Many of them worked for TSR, or started their careers writing for Dungeon or Dragon Magazine. They play regular games, and most of them have been doing so for multiple editions.

You're clearly tossing around insults purely for the sake of trying to make your point seem more legit, but you equally clearly know nothing about the people you're talking about.

If you'd wanted to just defend Paizo's decision, that would be fine. But the rest of this is absolute, utter garbage that has no place in polite conversation.

 

[Greylock]

I'm with Ari on this one.

Then you fail to understand my motivation. I am not trying to "punish" WotC. I am not "boycotting" WotC. No more so than saying I am punishing or boycotting, say, the State of Illinois simply because it's not a place I want to be.

I am buying Paizo's products. I am buying other companies products. I spend money on items of interest to me. This 3.75 interests me. I will buy it. If you or Ari think I am buying it to punish WotC, then you're living in a very different world than I.