Pathfinder 1E Ryan Dancey Predicts Pathfinder RPG in '06

[dmccoy1693]

Link

With so much of the 30+ year legacy D&D game in the SRD, I believe it is impossible to ever make a game that would be accepted by the fans as "D&D" without it being possible to alter whatever is necessary to make the Open Game version of D&D compatible with whatever product is being currently sold as "D&D" by WotC. A game divergent enough to break that legacy with the SRD is simply not going to be tolerable to anyone vested in the D&D player network. Such a radical break would almost certainly result in a 3rd party version of the game, published under a new brand name, becoming the de-facto inheritor of the D&D player network externality, coming into direct competition with whatever faux "D&D" product is being marketed, and probably crushing it.

Emphasis Mine.

 

[Wicht]

It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. In particular that last part of his prediction about which would, in his opinion, crush the other.

 

[Garnfellow]

I don't think 4e was intentionally designed to be so different as to be incompatible with previous editions, which is what Ryan describes. I suspect that the 4e designers were given fairly free reign to kill sacred cows if it made for a better game, but I'm pretty sure they weren't issued an "Order 66" to purge all backwards compatible material in order to close off the new edition.

As such, while 4e seems pretty different from past editions, and while WotC may yet figure out some way to prevent people from pulling 4e mechanics "back" into the OGL, I just don't see 4e as being so different that it causes the kind of consumer revolt Dancey is talking about.

Pathfinder will not be going head to head with D&D. I suspect both will be fairly successful within their respective and different markets.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I don't think 4e was intentionally designed to be so different as to be incompatible with previous editions, which is what Ryan describes. I suspect that the 4e designers were given fairly free reign to kill sacred cows if it made for a better game, but I'm pretty sure they weren't issued an "Order 66" to purge all backwards compatible material in order to close off the new edition.

Some food for thought posted by Ethan Skemp of White Wolf (not speaking for WW). Link

The philosophy behind using specific names like "Golden Wyvern" would be a lot better received if it were a more euphonic and descriptive term, I betcha. Right now it's got just a bit too much of the "Find a term nobody else is likely to have used before in order to establish clear IP" ring to it.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

With so much of the 30+ year legacy D&D game in the SRD, I believe it is impossible to ever make a game that would be accepted by the fans as "D&D" without it being possible to alter whatever is necessary to make the Open Game version of D&D compatible with whatever product is being currently sold as "D&D" by WotC. A game divergent enough to break that legacy with the SRD is simply not going to be tolerable to anyone vested in the D&D player network. Such a radical break would almost certainly result in a 3rd party version of the game, published under a new brand name, becoming the de-facto inheritor of the D&D player network externality, coming into direct competition with whatever faux "D&D" product is being marketed, and probably crushing it.

That RS Dancey is one crafty fox.

I agree with him entirely up to the, "...and probably crushing it." point.

The D&D brand is stronger than he thinks. A significant number of folks will go wherever the brand goes. (Clark Peterson proudly counts himself in this group-- and for the record, I am not knocking it.)

Eventually you can just roll out the old "D&D player network" and replace them with a new network with no particular attachment to the legacy. That means new players, and players with no attachment to anything but the brand name.

If I were going to "save" D&D from the OGL, that would be the heart of my strategy.

 

[carmachu]

I don't think 4e was intentionally designed to be so different as to be incompatible with previous editions, which is what Ryan describes. I suspect that the 4e designers were given fairly free reign to kill sacred cows if it made for a better game, but I'm pretty sure they weren't issued an "Order 66" to purge all backwards compatible material in order to close off the new edition.

As such, while 4e seems pretty different from past editions, and while WotC may yet figure out some way to prevent people from pulling 4e mechanics "back" into the OGL, I just don't see 4e as being so different that it causes the kind of consumer revolt Dancey is talking about.

Pathfinder will not be going head to head with D&D. I suspect both will be fairly successful within their respective and different markets.

While I agree with you there was no "kill order 66" out in designing 4e, it was pretty clear they went at D&D with a chainsaw and changed things that didnt need fixing. I think part of it was with a clear intent to move away from the OGL so they could have a tighter control on the GSL....or even none at all.

Looking around as a whole, that just fits with trying to put the genie back in the bottle.


I dont know about a consumer revolt. Doubtful, but one never knows. But 4e is VERY different from past canon, so we'll see. I dont think Pathfinder will go head-to-head with 4e, but its a nice option, especially with how their going about creating it. It definately will have an advatange of feeling like "ours" rather than the 4e feel of "we know whats best".

 

[carmachu]

That RS Dancey is one crafty fox.

I agree with him entirely up to the, "...and probably crushing it." point.

The D&D brand is stronger than he thinks. A significant number of folks will go wherever the brand goes. (Clark Peterson proudly counts himself in this group-- and for the record, I am not knocking it.)

Eventually you can just roll out the old "D&D player network" and replace them with a new network with no particular attachment to the legacy. That means new players, and players with no attachment to anything but the brand name.

If I were going to "save" D&D from the OGL, that would be the heart of my strategy.

I agree with you on the saving of D&D from OGL.....it really appears they're moving farther and rather away from it, and perhaps even the GSL, judging by their actions and delays. If they can stall for another 2 months, 4e will be out and they'll have to worry less.

BUT, and there is a but, if they dont have any liscence, it might cause the rest to jump on the pathfinder bandwagon, all the other 3rd parties and that might hurt WotC more than you think. Maybe.

WotC appears to be shooting for a new target audience, rather than muhc of their fan base.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I agree with him entirely up to the, "...and probably crushing it." point.

I'd have to agree. D&D has name recognition that no other RPG has. Period. Ask any non-gamer if they heard of games called Vampire, Werewolf, the World of Darkness, RuneQuest, Traveller, Spirit of the Century, Muntants and Masterminds, or Call of Cthulu, you might get a yes on either Vampire or CoC. MIGHT. Unless someone starts a TV show called Pathfinder (or maybe, My Role Playing Game is better then Your Role Playing Game) there is no chance of the D&D name being debunked at the biggest name anytime soon.

 

[BryonD]

The D&D brand is stronger than he thinks.

Would you have said that in 1997?

 

[buzz]

While I agree with you there was no "kill order 66" out in designing 4e, it was pretty clear they went at D&D with a chainsaw and changed things that didnt need fixing. I think part of it was with a clear intent to move away from the OGL so they could have a tighter control on the GSL....or even none at all.

I don't think this is pretty clear at all. In fact, I think it's actively contradicted.

If WotC wanted out of the OGL business, all they needed to do was not release 4e under the license. There was no need for any extensive mechanical changes. They could have created Pathfinder and just not made it open.

On top of this, all of the IP WotC cares about (and people grouse about) is not Open Content, so the OGL isn't even an issue.

I think it's far more obvious that there is plenty in 3.5 that does need fixing, and WotC obviously gave their design team a lot of leeway to fix them without having to be precious about D&D's sacred cows. Everything I've seen, and the argument that gets hammered home over and over again in the Wizards Presents preview books, is about enhancing and facilitating play. Both mechanically and setting-wise.

Anyway, w/r/t the OP:

Ryan is a wise man. Nonetheless, Pathfinder isn't going to "crush" D&D in any way, shape, or form.