Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder: Is it evidence that new editions don't need to be that different?

[ProfessorCirno]

I'm not sure the issue with 4e is that it's "too radical," I think rather the problem is "too radical in some places, not radical enough in others."

Personally, when I heard that 4e was going to be more similar to Star Wars SAGA, I got a bit excited. I love Star Wars SAGA; I love the simplified saves (though I dislike the NO ARMOR EVER except you soldiers) for example, and I REALLY love the talents system. The thought of a proper D&D and cleaned up version of that sounded great. The actual game, however, was very much not like Star Wars SAGA, which disappointed me. In this case, changing to a more SAGA-esque system would be a very radical change, but it would also be a very different radical change then what we got.

Most of the gripes with 4e that I've seen from myself and from others who would enjoy a new edition* isn't "They changed too much," but rather "I dislike where the changes were made."

*This bit is important.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Also I would attribute it to this:

1) Blowback against WotC and 4e,
2) 3.5 is out of print, while Paizo is now "THE 3.5 in print" maintainer,
3) Paizo "Continuing D&D" as far as some are concerned.

So it's not just the different standards for a smaller company, but a reaction to 4e, that allowed Paizo to make D&D 3.75 more swallowable.

I'll agree that especially 2 & 3 are what does it. Hell, that's why I like Pathfinder - I like 3e a lot more then 4e, and Pathfinder gives me more 3e goodness.

While every edition has had a departure from the last, I think it can be argued that 4e had a much bigger and more radical departure then previous ones, which left a bigger fanbase behind then usual. Furthermore, with the internet, that fanbase can connect with each other more readily, which gives companies like Paizo a better chance at continuing the previous edition with them.

 

[BryonD]

I think Pathfinder demonstrates how strongly gamers want to be part of an actively published game instead of a discontinued one.

That is backward.
The fans are not there because PF was published. PF was published because the fans were there.

 

[Remathilis]

Also I would attribute it to this:

1) Blowback against WotC and 4e,
2) 3.5 is out of print, while Paizo is now "THE 3.5 in print" maintainer,
3) Paizo "Continuing D&D" as far as some are concerned.

So it's not just the different standards for a smaller company, but a reaction to 4e, that allowed Paizo to make D&D 3.75 more swallowable.

Agreed. A lot of Paizo's wind in the sails (sales?) comes from a group of people who disliked the changes 4e made, wished to sell/buy OGL material, or liked 3e but wanted another coat of varnish over the harsh areas in the rules.

Paizo does not need to sell millions of copies to be a success. It doesn't even need to have D&D-level brand name recognition. All it needs to do is develop 3e in a direction WotC chose NOT to go in and keep the project Open so that big and small publishers can join in on it (as well as support Organized Play, if your into that).

I'm not sure the issue with 4e is that it's "too radical," I think rather the problem is "too radical in some places, not radical enough in others."

Personally, when I heard that 4e was going to be more similar to Star Wars SAGA, I got a bit excited. I love Star Wars SAGA; I love the simplified saves (though I dislike the NO ARMOR EVER except you soldiers) for example, and I REALLY love the talents system. The thought of a proper D&D and cleaned up version of that sounded great. The actual game, however, was very much not like Star Wars SAGA, which disappointed me. In this case, changing to a more SAGA-esque system would be a very radical change, but it would also be a very different radical change then what we got.

Most of the gripes with 4e that I've seen from myself and from others who would enjoy a new edition* isn't "They changed too much," but rather "I dislike where the changes were made."

*This bit is important.

I'm with you here 100% I love SWSE, and thought it would be a good jumping off point for 4e. It would need A LOT of work to make it D&D-compatible (namely, fix the math-problems like Skill Focus:UtF vs. any Defense) but you could have done a great 4e using Saga's base system. Sadly, they didn't go that route (which now appears as a true 3e/4e hybrid game, and isn't really compatible with either) and opted for the changes they did.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Do you think Pathfinder is a sign WOTC could have been less radical in a new edition and still done extremely well?

Yes.

 

[Shemeska]

Everything that could have been done had been done by the end of 3.5, and there was nowhere left to go.

What planet are you from?

But more seriously, a lot of things that WotC is now doing with 4e could have been done with 3.5 (Dark Sun for instance). There were many, many topics that WotC hadn't covered yet, and which people were asking for that never appeared prior to WotC bailing and going with 4e. I still wish they'd actually done more FR regional supplements, because once they started doing FR 'super modules' they abruptly stopped the regional supplements.

FC III, Giants, Fey, Dark Sun, continued FR support, 3.x DDI including a non-vaporware VTT, etc etc.

 

[CleverNickName]

Which brings me back to 4e. Do you think Pathfinder is a sign WOTC could have been less radical in a new edition and still done extrememly well?

It is hard to answer your question without seeing what a non-radically different 4E would look like. I think that most people who play 4E do so because they genuinely like 4E...not because they hated 3.x and wanted something different.

I do not think it was a mistake for the Wizards to make such radical changes to the game when they made 4E. At the time, the 3.5E game had gone just about as far as it could go...the fan base was split between those who loved the existing system, and those who wanted something different. So the Wizards saw a need, and wrote a very different game to fill it.

If the Wizards made a mistake, it was by choosing to support only one segment of their fan base...if they had continued to develop 3.5-compatible products alongside 4E, Pathfinder wouldn't have a leg to stand on and a much larger segment of the fan base would be buying their products.

In other words,

I think Pathfinder demonstrates how strongly gamers want to be part of an actively published game instead of a discontinued one.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Which brings me back to 4e. Do you think Pathfinder is a sign WOTC could have been less radical in a new edition and still done extrememly well?

2nd\ edition was proof that the owner of Dungeons and Dragons could come out with a new edition barely worthy of new edition status and still do extremely well.

 

[MerricB]

The only thing the success of Pathfinder shows is that there is support for Pathfinder. Unfortunately, you can't extrapolate much from that with relation to D&D.

 

[ggroy]

2nd edition was proof that the owner of Dungeons and Dragons could come out with a new edition barely worthy of new edition status and still do extremely well.

2E wasn't that drastically different from 1E, that it was trivially easy to convert a lot of 2E stuff to 1E.

Some of my "1E forever" friends back in those days, continued buying 2E AD&D modules and supplement books for their 1E AD&D games.

In analogy to today, I wonder how much much Pathfinder stuff is easily convertible to 3.5E (or vice versa).