Pathfinder 1E Paizo Annoucement!

[Azzy]

No.

Darn. Because if you were, I would first ask you how much the NDA allow you to speak and then proceed to ask you tons of question that have nothing (or, at most, only cursorily) to do with the actual mechanics of the game. But, alas....

Though I figured any NDA would preclude giving even impressions, so it wouldn't have worked any way (sour grapes).

 

[Wormwood]

Taken together 4e should have bigger piles of dead bad guys.

If anything can bridge this divide, it's bigger piles of dead bad guys.

*sniff*

I told myself I wouldn't cry. . .

 

[Azzy]

Most of us tend to favor fairly plot-heavy campaigns with lots of ongoing character development, and playing every-other week somewhat gets in the way of that. We are all, alas, grownups, with careers and families and all the other things that tend to drive out the fiddly little details of last week's game, to say nothing of the game before that.

Ah, I'm fortunate in the fact that I haven't spawned yet. Otherwise, I understand--it fairly difficult to get games other than 40K going lately. *sigh*

What we do instead is rotate DMs at the end of each campaign "story arc" with an occasional (though rare) change of system. Right now we're wrapping up a SWSE game on the heels of a year-long Ptolus campaign, then a filler game (non D&D as it happens) until 4e is released in June.

Hey, maybe if you asked really nicely you could get them to agree to playing Spirit of the Century as the filler game.

BTW, I'd never heard of that game before. It looks like it might be a hit with at least one of my friends.

Also, I agree completely with your opinion of the "haters" - and I think it's gotten a lot worse since Paizo's announcement. I've read the free Pathfinder RPG .pdf and it failed to impress, but I still wish them well, even though I am dissapointed they will not be supporting 4e.

I think that once both games are actually released the haters will pipe down a bit.

 

[Taluron]

I thought I'd miss the old skill points, but after thinking about it, I can live with a Saga-esque skills. Skill points, for me, become book-keeping that outweights the fun at higher levels. For me it's a big part of what makes generation of high level characters so cumbersome. It's not easy, and you can find many, many errors in skills in products from very reputable D20 companies.

This also announcement comes right as I'm really beginning to enjoy Paizo's work with Pathfinder and losing interest in 4E. I started off really optimistic about 4E, but the more I see the less I like.

Maybe 4E will surprise me when it comes out, or grow on me after a while. For the short term, it's nice to have this as an option to 3.5.

My feelings on skill points are exactly the opposite.

One of the reasons my gaming group came back to Dnd with 3ed was skill points. We had stopped playing Dnd at all for several years. We where using other game systems that provide for more choices in skills, etc. Mostly Hero system. The problem is that one fantasy battles in Hero system can take HOURSSS. So can superhero fights but thats a different discussion. The use of skill points allowed us to individualize the characters in an area other than combat.

We're on the fench over 4th. Our intention is to get at least the PHB and go through it. But [paraphrasing] our primary DM. "It's gonna have to thrill me a whole lot to get me to change editions AGAIN". The DMs entire campaign multiverse was originally created in 2ed. We switched a 2ed thieves run to 3ed. Its still going on intermittently alongside other 3ed character groups. None of our DM run TSR/WoTC campaign world so the changes to fluff/planes/etc are mostly irrelevant to us.

I started out feeling good about 4th but as I see more I like it less. I fully agree that I won't have the full context to go on until I see the finished product so we're waiting to decide.

We do like the combining of certain skills. We're already swithcing to Perception and Stealth. But the loss of skill points is likely to be house-ruled no matter which edition we go with.

 

[xechnao]

A suggestion for Paizo after having visited their site.

Make a board (something like a unique post in a thread) everyone can post, something like wikipedia but moderated by your guys.
Each post added will be a numerated sentence addressing a new problem in a very briefly. For example:
.
.
.
10) Iterative attacks dominate tactics.
11) Too much and constant importance of daily resources: 15 min adv day.
12) Insane calculation of stacking bonuses and penalties
.
.
.

After this list is made have subscribers vote a top 10 list for the problems. After the top 10 are voted make 10 different boards for each and have people propose solutions or part of solutions for each board. These should be numerated again and people should refer to the numerated solution the want to comment on. Then tide up solutions as best as you can and make a new poll as the suggestions most accepted. The winner should pass to Alpha 1.1


This is just an idea of mine mostly posted here to have you notice that you can do something to help out the alpha as best as you can. Probably there are better ways to do it than what is posted here. Keep playtesters informed ASAP though!

 

[Azzy]

Hasbro would never give up the brand of "Dungeons&Dragons"; they might, however, outsource the publication of the paper&pencil roleplaying game. They care about the IP, but the actual game? It's of vanishingly little consequence from the bottom line, and they might make just as much money outsourcing it.

What I's see happening in such a circumstance is Hasbro putting the D&D RPG on ice for a few years (doing what they did with GI Joe) and going forward with D&D Minis, maybe some boardgames and however else they can merchandise the brand name. After some time, they bring D&D back (probably with an entirely new system) as an RPG and depending on whether they try to market it to the nostalgia crowd or market it to the new generation of teens and young adults. Probably the first time they'd decide to reintroduce it, it would be to the latter and later they'd introduce another version ("we'll call it Advanced Dungeons and Dragons") targeted at the older, nostalgia crowd.

But that's assuming 4e goes to hell in hand basket and sales are truly wretched. Which, if you ask me, is highly unlikely.

 

[Azzy]

If anything can bridge this divide, it's bigger piles of dead bad guys.

You win the thread.

 

[Lizard]

But that's assuming 4e goes to hell in hand basket and sales are truly wretched. Which, if you ask me, is highly unlikely.

I think sales are going to be great for an RPG; I just don't think they'll match 3e. We'll see. I've been outside the zeitgeist before. (Most of the time, actually...)

 

[AZRogue]

These are my thoughts on the issue:

I think 4E provides a very nice system that will be fun to play (my group has completely enjoyed our playtests) and will appeal to new gamers (I have a new player in my group, a current member's cousin, who has never played RPGs but loves playing our 4E demos) and old time DnD players who don't enjoy an over dose of complexity.

But I'm very glad that 3E will live on as well because, IMO, the awesomeness that is the OGL deserves that. It was a bold move, and 3E was a bold system that tried to make unified rules for a host of situations. This, itself, is the problem my group has with it, especially at higher level, but it is a remarkable achievement regardless and the OGL was such a great concept that it really deserves more than to just fade away.

Everybody should play the games they like and after the dust settles I think we'll find ourselves able to enjoy the fact that we are all gamers instead of focusing on those separate things that define our individual style.

4E is offering me something that I've wanted for a while now. 3E is probably the most powerful incarnation of DnD ever conceived. They both deserve to exist. Hell, I still play AD&D quite often, and like it.

 

[amethal]

D&D is pretty much the only game out there with that oh so precious commodity, name recognition. Outside of really zealous Internet fans, Paizo has virtually no name recognition for either their company or for the Pathfinder brand; they are essentially building Pathfinder from the ground up in the face of the established dominant brand in the industry with a 35-year head start. We call games like this "Fantasy Heartbreakers" or "OGL Heartbreakers" for a reason.

Leaving aside who "we" might be, what reason is that?

I have 6 Pathfinder issues on my shelf (dratted overseas post holding up number 7), and from what I can see of the Paizo boards there are plenty of people who have subscribed to Pathfinder. This is not "from the ground up".

Paizo are attempting to improve 3.5, a game whose flaws its creators are trumpeting at every opportunity. They are not hoping to knock 4th edition off the number 1 spot, or even make a significant dent in its sales. They are trying to make a game which will sell enough copies to keep the company going, in the hope that in fact it will be successful (in Paizo terms, not WotC / Hasbro terms).