Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

[pemerton]

WotC created the D20 and OGL licenses. They allowed other companies to use them. They even laid off or fired many of the staff who *created* the "operating system" of D20. Many of those designers now work with Paizo. It's not immoral for them to work on it at all.

Sure, I've never said I disagree with any of this. Nor am I saying I agree with it. I don't want to express a view either way.

All I'm saying is that WotC's assertion of its IP rights, which are grounded in contractual rights, in relation to the TSR PDFs, seems to me no more immoral than Paizo's assertion of its IP rights, and its contractual rights in relation to WotC's IP. And I don't see how WotC asserting those rights is underhanded. It may be disappointing to some people who wanted access that material, but that's life in a world in which cultural production is privatsed and commmercialised.

 

[pemerton]

The issue isn't ease of incorporation, it's ability to opt out.

I would say that it's possible, particularly if you had actually printed your character sheet, since you would still have the pre-errata version of the power right there in front of you.

Granted, that won't help you when you make your next character.

It seems to me that, now, there are two ways of gaining access to the D&D rules.

You can buy books. You then own a product with rules printed in it. You run the risk that those rules might have problesm unforeseen at the time of writing. WoTC issues errata intended to correct for any such risks that are realised. Incorporating that errata is your problem.

Alternatively, you can subscribe to DDI. You do not own a product, but you have a contractual relationship with WotC, pursuant to which they will provide you with what they regard as the best version of the D&D rules, continually updated to minimise rthe risks of unforeseen problesm emerging out of those rules in play. If your preferences diverge from WotC's vision of the "best version", that is your problem.

Other models are obviously conceivable (but, perhaps, not fincancially viable for WotC?). I personally like the first model (and don't subscribe to DDI), but I'm also the closest person to a Luddite that I know.

 

[billd91]

I would say that it's possible, particularly if you had actually printed your character sheet, since you would still have the pre-errata version of the power right there in front of you.

Granted, that won't help you when you make your next character.

I think the annoyance isn't just the next character but the next time you update your original character with a new level on the DDI.

 

[Hussar]

I think the annoyance isn't just the next character but the next time you update your original character with a new level on the DDI.

As a non-DDI person, I have no idea if it retroactively goes back and updates all your powers. Probably would I suppose. Yeah, I could see that as annoying. We're using the unerrata'd Come and Get It in our current 4e game. But, since everything is done P&P or through Maptools, it hasn't really been an issue.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

To answer AuldGrump:

I think that WotC focusing on digital might be a good thing moneywise, but for me it would be a bad thing in terms of what I buy.

Now, I only play a little 4e, so I only own the 3 core books and don't buy supplements or subscribe to D&Di.

However, I follow the events surrounding it, and had this been happening for 3e, I'd be very, very dissapointed if the trend extended further in the direction it is going. I just don't like pdfs and computer content for my D&D books. I've never liked it, usually only buy print books or print on demand, and if I ever buy a pdf, I print it out.

So, I guess I'm saying, it is probably not a bad strategy, but to please me, I'd need to be able to buy book form as well.

 

[MacMathan]

Despite my post on digitalization I agree with Aber. There should always be hardcopy books available is stores. Perhaps lesser print runs or even POD but it is still a good idea.

 

[prosfilaes]

The problem with this logic is that while you may not think its important any train of logic that doesn't end with the hobby dying a horrible death due to attrition has to include balanced game mechanics. Its just going to turn people away as they try and adjudicate some form of balance like the 3.5E tier system.

That's silly; the hobby survived 28 years with systems no more balanced than 3.5 as the market leaders. WoD vampires and mages were less balanced then anything in 3.5, and yet the mixed WoD was much more popular than any of the games like GURPS and HERO that tried for that balance.

 

[gamerprinter]

Balance is an admirable if unachievable goal.

 

[Mournblade94]

The problem with this logic is that while you may not think its important any train of logic that doesn't end with the hobby dying a horrible death due to attrition has to include balanced game mechanics. Its just going to turn people away as they try and adjudicate some form of balance like the 3.5E tier system.

This claim certainly borders on the ridiculous. I know some gamers for which balance is important but it certainly is not most.

Many gamers left WOTC's fold recently. It is very possible one of the reasons they did so was 4e's almost exclusive focus on balance. I think the title of this thread is evidence enough your claim is shaky.

 

[prosfilaes]

Balance is an admirable if unachievable goal.

Every goal has its cost. It's trivial to make a balanced party; just give them all the same characters. One of the complaints about 4e is that it's already gone too far that way. Giving players the options to play interesting, distinct things with varying degrees of complexity is also an admirable goal, but it tends to work against balance.