Pathfinder 1E Ryan Dancey Predicts Pathfinder RPG in '06

[DaveMage]

My main point, though, is that I don't think the design goal was purely "Make this incompatible with 3.5". I think that the goal was to improve the game.

I think the goal was some of both of the above.

 

[Greg K]

Man I hope you are wrong I'd like to think that RPG players aren't mindless lemmings that follow a name regardless of quality.

Quality is subjective. However, I found the following interesting. We have had one poll stating that roughly 2/3 of the people participating are going to 4e. We have also had a poll in which roughly 2/3 of the people participating said that they would not switch if the new game was not named DND.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Quality is subjective. However, I found the following interesting. We have had one poll stating that roughly 2/3 of the people participating are going to 4e. We have also had a poll in which roughly 2/3 of the people participating said that they would not switch if the new game was not named DND.

Which tends to give with my experience that only about 1/3rd of people really classify as human opposed to livestock.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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.

Well, I'm revolting....
Wait....
That sounded wrong.

The Auld Grump, who left this straight line just lying there, anyway?

 

[Jackelope King]

Which tends to give with my experience that only about 1/3rd of people really classify as human opposed to livestock.

Or they're in my boat, and hedging their bets by having access to the latest version of D&D so they can have a better chance of finding a game on any given day.

 

[crow81]

Or they're in my boat, and hedging their bets by having access to the latest version of D&D so they can have a better chance of finding a game on any given day.

What is gaming like in your area? You could always come up to NYC for a little Pathfinder

I think if you tell people they won't have to pay $100 bucks for new core books plus all the supplements that WotC will come out with plus $14.95 a month for DDI.

You might find a few takers. Heck Paizo has said it keep playing 3.5 their mods will work just fine.

But hey maybe you will like 4th ed better and to each his own

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think if you tell people they won't have to pay $100 bucks for new core books plus all the supplements that WotC will come out with plus $14.95 a month for DDI.

You might find a few takers. Heck Paizo has said it keep playing 3.5 their mods will work just fine.

What's with the people that don't have invested so much (any) money on 3E? What's with the people that have invested their money on 3E, but have gotten everything out of it they could and are now tired with it. What's with the people that buy new core rules anyway, since they want to know what it's all about?

For some people, it's not the money you invest, it's the fun you get out of it.
Other people will invest their money anyway, and it doesn't matter if it's for the current, the last or the next edition, or a different system. Is investing in modules inherently better then investing in a game system? What if I like making my own adventures and campaigns, but I am tired of using one game system because it's getting to complicated, or I have the feeling I've seen it all?

Which tends to give with my experience that only about 1/3rd of people really classify as human opposed to livestock.

There are three definitions of humanity.

1) The definition of the ideal of a human being.
2) The definition that describes actual humans.
3) The definition that a cynic uses to describe a human.

Don't confuse any of these definitions. 1) is what you strive for, 2) is what we are, and 3) is what you mistake 2) for.

 

[Minicol]

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.

Yes, that is true D&D is the most known RPG games. All the RPG circles have heard of D&D. Not all of them have a POSITIVE view of D&D however. It is often seen as a backwards hack and slash game, kind of an erstatz of Diablo without the graphics.

I had to work long and hard to make D&D accepted around the gaming table by my friends.

I don't think that 4e will help win people with these sentiments by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Odysseus]

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.

I do wonder if a some point in the future we will see some legal action by WotC against Pazio over Pathfinder. Trying to limit what the can do with the OGL, and set the legal limits of their GSL at the same time. And they may be rewriting the GSL as we speak with this in mind.

 

[Minicol]

Ok

I'd say that the brand name was much weaker in 1997 than it is in 2008. But that doesn't mean it wasn't still strong enough, even at its weakest.


Or they may die a shared death if 5E rocks.

By this time, we'll be ready for Pathfinder 2.0, not a problem.