Pathfinder OGL/3.5 RPG system from Paizo

[SteveC]

I'm not sure why it's important to you, Paizo, or anybody else whether Pathfinder eats into the market share of D&D or not.

If I thought it was relevant I might argue with you, but I'm happy to concede the point if you'll move on. Consider the point made.

There is a non-zero number of folks with exactly that attitude. WotC doesn't want them, and doesn't need them. Paizo thinks there's enough of them to make it worthwhile to cater to them, and Paizo can still make products for 4e.

So... I guess we're done here?

I just wanted to take a moment to address this, since a number of folks are seemingly quite surprised at people not liking the Paizo decision, and even seeming angry at it, I mean, what gives???

For me, I like Paizo products, and the people who are behind them are good people, so it has nothing to do with that.

It does frustrate me that I am not going to have adventure paths to purchase from them any more. It also frustrates me that after eight years of building a community of D&D, D20 and OGL gamers, this is the first major example of how that community is breaking apart.

I think that a fracturing of the gaming base doesn't serve anyone, and it makes it harder for the hobby to grow.

It also frustrates me tremendously that we seem to be going back to the "D&D done right" style of Fantasy Heartbreakers that the D20 License and OGL mostly put an end to.

I don't blame Paizo for this situation: they're doing what they think is best to keep their company viable and profitable. I do, however put the blame squarely on WotC for allowing this situation to develop, and for not realizing how the D20 License and the OGL in general helped them and helped gaming.

I'm going forward with 4E, and I was hoping to continue to buy products from a lot of the smaller RPG companies, especially PDF publishers. If more publishers go this way, I'll buy a lot less from these smaller companies, and I won't be alone. That also frustrates me because most of them are made up of good, talented people who can use all the support they can get.

It just looks like some dark times are ahead for the gaming industry.

--Steve

 

[Dragonblade]

Or like saying that Linux vs. Microsoft is significant?

Yet, there are many, many Linux users out there.

Indeed there are. And a fine OS it is.

 

[buzz]

Don't c'mon me-- you're wrong. There's no "hustle" here.

Who said anything about a hustle? I'm just saying, you will exchange cash for their goods when the final product is released. That final product will be not-identical to D&D 3.5. It's a new RPG, plain and simple. No different whatsoever from buying a copy of AE.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

It does frustrate me that I am not going to have adventure paths to purchase from them any more. It also frustrates me that after eight years of building a community of D&D, D20 and OGL gamers, this is the first major example of how that community is breaking apart.

I don't know that I'd say this is the first major example- IMO, the announcement of 4E was the first major example. There have been other demonstrations of it along the road to Paizo's announcement as well.

I don't blame Paizo for this situation: they're doing what they think is best to keep their company viable and profitable. I do, however put the blame squarely on WotC for allowing this situation to develop, and for not realizing how the D20 License and the OGL in general helped them and helped gaming.

And I think that's right on the mark. I understand why WotC decided it was more financially viable to release a new edition- they're a business after all. A lot of the changes that came about, though, seem to me to be fairly transparently an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle and regain control of IP (or, in many/most cases, create new IP to have control of).

I think that the OGL was put in place by people who (in the wake of the near demise of D&D under the waning days of TSR) saw a need to keep the potential for keeping the system alive, and created it in as much of a sense of altruism as is possible in business, but that same system- under different hands and eyes- was seen as possibly hindering profits, and a new version of it was needed/desired. That's where the fractioning came in, IMO.

I can't say I'm surprised by the negative reaction to Paizo's announcement by some, any more than I'm surprised by the negative reaction to 4E by some. I do think that Paizo- like WotC- is doing what they perceive as in their best interests, and wish them the best of luck. (and, in the interest of full disclosure, as someone who is not interested in what I've seen of 4E- at least most of it- I'm very excited that Paizo is taking the OGL ball and running with it, just as other publishers have done in their own various ways.)

 

[Lord Mhoram]

It also frustrates me tremendously that we seem to be going back to the "D&D done right" style of Fantasy Heartbreakers that the D20 License and OGL mostly put an end to.

True 20, Arcana Unearthed, Iron Heroes, Conan, C&C....

Even with those examples, I think that is something of a false comparison. Before if you had nifty new houserules that was your "D&D Done right" You published a game - under the OGL/D20 you published a supplement with alternate rules. A lot of games were alien to each other depending on what 3rd party books were allowed/disallowed/used. There were many "D&D done right" games being played, just not published.

I personally foresaw this happening about 5 years ago, ponding if any company (or consortium of companies) would keep 3.x alive when WotC went to the next edition.

I think keeping a variant/offshoot of the 3.x rules alive for those players that want to play that game system, and want continued support is a good thing.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I was excited when I first saw the news. I rushed off to see the Alpha product...

but is it just me or is it 3.5++, souped up more powerful races, more powerful classes, more powerful PCs overall? I read it over, and it seemed like it completely obsoleted the entire 3.5 line. 3.5 compatible? Hardly... Those classes are better. Those races are better. I'd have to increase the power level of everything in order to use them. That doesn't just go for WotC products, it goes for well designed 3rd party products too.

Slow, Medium, and Fast leveling progressions? Never mind how that will negatively affect wealth by level and force me to recalculate everything. How will this affect APs, Paizo's main thing??? So, I go through the first adventure in Pathfinder with the Slow XP progression, how is the AP written to take into account the different levels that exist between different groups doing different progressions? That's the whole point, right? The AP?

I'm quite disheartened. I love Paizo adventures. But, I already own several OGL games. I don't want another non-3.5-compatible product. And, if Paizo's adventures use this Pathfinder RPG rules, well, then they aren't 3.5 compatible anymore, because I can't use any of my 3.5 stuff (without changing it to suit Pathfinder RPG!) to play the adventure!

What is going on here?

 

[buzz]

For me, I like Paizo products, and the people who are behind them are good people, so it has nothing to do with that.

It does frustrate me that I am not going to have adventure paths to purchase from them any more. It also frustrates me that after eight years of building a community of D&D, D20 and OGL gamers, this is the first major example of how that community is breaking apart.

I think that a fracturing of the gaming base doesn't serve anyone, and it makes it harder for the hobby to grow.

It also frustrates me tremendously that we seem to be going back to the "D&D done right" style of Fantasy Heartbreakers that the D20 License and OGL mostly put an end to.

I pretty much agree with all of this.

I do, however put the blame squarely on WotC for allowing this situation to develop, and for not realizing how the D20 License and the OGL in general helped them and helped gaming.

Hmm... I do agree that Paizo should have been one of the first groups WotC went to when 4e playtesting started. Keeping them in the loop from early on seems like it should have been a no-brainer.

As for "dark times"... I dunno. I don't think Paizo's efforts can really "fracture" the fanbase in a significant way; not any more than any competing RPG does. Some people are going to like playing WotC products, some people aren't.

I'm just bummed because I love Paizo's products, but now they're effectively not going to make as many products that I can use anymore.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I do, however put the blame squarely on WotC for allowing this situation to develop, and for not realizing how the D20 License and the OGL in general helped them and helped gaming.

I'm going forward with 4E, and I was hoping to continue to buy products from a lot of the smaller RPG companies, especially PDF publishers. If more publishers go this way, I'll buy a lot less from these smaller companies, and I won't be alone. That also frustrates me because most of them are made up of good, talented people who can use all the support they can get.

So why reward them for fragmenting the community and turning their back on what made the OGL movement so wonderful?

 

[BryonD]

Oh, c'mon, Wulf. The end product is a new RPG, for which you will pay money. The initial free playtest PDFs are part of the marketing.

They said somewhere that the product would be available (as PDF) for free.

 

[SteveC]

True 20, Arcana Unearthed, Iron Heroes, Conan, C&C....

Even with those examples, I think that is something of a false comparison. Before if you had nifty new houserules that was your "D&D Done right" You published a game - under the OGL/D20 you published a supplement with alternate rules. A lot of games were alien to each other depending on what 3rd party books were allowed/disallowed/used. There were many "D&D done right" games being played, just not published.

The thing is, with the games you quoted: they all have the same baseline: the 3X SRD. I view the OGL as a sort of salad bar: you take what you want to make your meal. To that end, I have used classes, feats and rule mechanics from most of those games in D&D campaigns that I have run, and the rules fit in quite well. The result for me was better gaming out of a pool of resources.

Once we go to 4E, it becomes much more difficult to take something from one of these sources and port it in, because we start with a different baseline.

When I think of each of the games you mention, they all could have been done with their own system, but they weren't: the creators saw wisdom in drawing from the strengths that D20 brought to the table, both in rules familiarity and creating a player base. One of the things that a friend of mine did for a few years at Gen Con is ask new companies why their system couldn't run off of D20 when it was basically "D&D done right." We haven't seen very many of these companies in the last few years, because of the OGL.

Now, without the OGL, we're back to everyone for themselves again, which is too bad!

--Steve