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

[BryonD]

I think as well as 4E has done, they could have done something else that could have been a lot more successful.

I don't think "less radical" needed to be part of it. It could have been every bit as radical in different ways.

I also think PF doesn't really offer much insight to this one way or the other.

 

[ggroy]

Tastes change over time also.

I remember seeing no changes from 1e to 2e, while some of my friends loudly objected to it. And I loved 3.X (still love), even though I sweared "2e forever once"

For the longest time, I use to think "1e forever". (I then took a long hiatus from gaming, where I completely missed 2E AD&D and 3E D&D). When I got back into gaming and was playing + DM'ing 3.5E, I was still thinking "1e forever".

It wasn't until I started playing 4E, that I no longer was thinking "1e forever".

 

[Cadfan]

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

 

[SteveC]

I'd really have to say no on this one. If Pathfinder had been released by WotC as D&D 4E I wouldn't have adopted it, because it really didn't address any of the issues I had with 3X. The primary reason Pathfinder is around is to continue an in-print version of the OGL D20 ruleset, since a lot of people want to keep playing a 3X like game.

A truly new edition of a game needs, in my opinion, to do something truly new.

--Steve

 

[Gothmog]

Nope, the new edition of D&D had to be different to keep the D&D brand alive for WotC. Everything that could have been done had been done by the end of 3.5, and there was nowhere left to go. A game like Pathfinder can be a resounding success for Paizo because of its small size and lower overhead costs, while at the same time being an abysmal failure for WotC due to the costs and demands of running a larger company.

So no- to get the interest, sales, and expand their customer base, Wotc had to do something moderately to very different with 4e to generate interest/buzz and make it a success. A 3.75 simply wouldn't have flown. WotC has been smart with how they are handling the marketing of the new edition, adding to the system in chunks and using the DDI to insure a more evergreen sales strategy.

 

[ggroy]

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

This I can agree with.

Over the last few years, I played in several groups where we played some older out of print stuff like Cyberpunk 2013, 1st ed Earthdawn, Star Trek (Last Unicorn version), etc ... Unfortunately these game groups were very short lived, where most of them lasted less than 10 gaming sessions or so. Afterward we attempted to find replacement players, but to no avail. In the end, we dropped the games entirely.

Locally, the only active games I'm aware of which have no shortage of finding new/replacement players are 4E D&D games. 3.5E games seem to be falling by the wayside over the last year or so, that some of them are having a hard time finding replacement players. These are 3.5E games run at FLGS and some friends' home games, as well as others I'm aware of via the local gamer grapevine. I frequently get asked by friends if I'm interested in playing in their long continuing 3.5E games, replacing previously departed players. There hasn't been many Pathfinder games yet locally either at FLGS, local conventions, or via the gamer grapevine.

 

[pawsplay]

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

Far from it.

 

[Oni]

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?

I'm sure they could have made a fair bit of money by dumping out a system with a few minor tweaks and a new number on the cover, however 3.5 pretty much lost me as a WotC customer. When I heard about Pathfinder I was excited until a realized they really weren't going to change anything significant either. I'm not just going to buy into the same thing over and over again. 3.5 was annoying and Pathfinder to me has turned out to be a disappointment.

 

[Rechan]

I think it's a totally separate case, and that Paizo is held to a different standard than WotC (yet a harder standard than smaller 3rd poarty publishers). Had WotC turned out something like Pathfinder, I think they would have had a more stagnant customer base than they do now, and faced similar problems to what TSR did in the mid-90's, with a dwindling hard-core who enjoyed the greater mechanical depth and system mastery required. For Pathfinder, that's the audience that responded greatest, I think, those that find the mechanical and spiritual heritage was more present with 3E than 4E.

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.

 

[Jools]

Interesting theory. If it means 5e can be similar to 4e I'll be a very happy bunny. 4e got me into this whole DnD thing, I could never find myself going to a version more akin to 3e/pathfinder.