Pathfinder 1E The good man WotC and the scoundrel Paizo

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ferdil

First Post
(The title is taken from Philip Pullman's book, «The good man Jesus and the scoundrel Christ»)

So, I was reading another thread, and read a poster write:

[...]Goodwill. Many people don't like WotC right now, and PAIZO has a ton of goodwill. Sure, lots of people don't decide on what to buy based on goodwill, but some DO. [...]

And, you know, he's right. Many people here indeed think and refer to Paizo as a good-hearted company that wants to keep on sharing with the OGL, distributing and updating the 3.5e ruleset, give candy to everyone. The same people ofter refer to WotC as a candy-stealing, evil monster who wants to kill D&D and kick its corpse until it is barely recognisable; a company who failingly wanted to appeal to videogame players, who releases books, supplements, and new editions only for money grabbing purposes. I know that I'm overstating, but you know it to be true at the core.

Now, only at an hypothetical level, what if it was the opposite?

I mean, Paizo didn't really invent something. I think they don't even have the resources nor the experience to develop a full-featured game like D&D 3.5e all by themselves. All they did before PF (correct me if i'm wrong, because i had never heard of them before) was to publish supplements and adventures.

All Paizo did was take an existing system released with an open license, add some changes and update what was strictly necessary (grapple rules, some underperforming classes), then resell it with a new brand. Heck, they didn't even solve one of the biggest problems of 3.5e, the all-powerfulness of wizards at higher levels, i.e. the exponential growing of spellcasters compared to the linear growing of other classes. You can speculate that they hadn't got a clue on how the system worked in the inside, otherwise they could have gone further and fix the huge problems of balance.
You could also say that they did this only to keep publishing adventures and modules the same way they did before, so they didn't need to change system or to reinvent theirselves. Some could say that they exploited 4e's situation (bad reception) by reprinting 3.5e at little cost compared to its production value.

And now they are getting near (some say they even outdid) WotC in terms of selling revenue. Well, I would call this a huge money-grab. You do relatively nothing compared to the huge work required to develop a big RPG, and become a selling competitor to the market leader. If there weren't the OGL, this could have been brought in court and Paizo would have lost. In fact, even though the laws on IP don't cover rules, Paizo basically reprinted whole sections of the 3.5e Player's Handbook with minimal changes.

In fact, the OGL, which was initially seen as a godsend by the RPG community, was a huge :):):):)-up for WotC. It permitted all sorts of alternative RPGs based on its excellent (at the time) ruleset, that one by one stole some market share to D&D. Paizo exploited this weakness without shame.

On the other hand, WotC worked their asses off to make 4th Edition, and they didn't do as well as they expected. The most insulting thing is that some people have been referring to them as the money grabbers, and then switched to Pathfinder declaring their love for Paizo. Now, you can say many bad things about the marketing, PR and administration teams at WotC, but that doesn't mean that the developers worked really hard on the system and made the changes that they thought to be best for the game. And now they lost half their userbase.

In my opinion, WotC is just a normal company faced with the economic crisis and the difficulties of standing up in a market like this. Paizo, insted, are the real money grabbers, exploiting others' excellent work.

Now, to conclude, a little disclaimer: I didn't want to talk about the products, which were both produced by WotC (I refuse to consider Pathfinder a Paizo product, even if it legally is) and are both excellent products. I wanted to talk about the companies. All of this is mainly to make you think about the issue, I didn't want to state any facts, even if I did.

Discuss.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

At its core, Paizo did some gutsy, yet smart, business moves, and it has paid off. On top of that they are a very approachable and consumer friendly company, again a smart business move. So Paizo is just a business doing things right. So its paying off.
 

Hard-core 3.5 fans are going to like Paizo, hard-core 4e fans are going to like WotC. The difference lies in the middle ground. Players who prefer 3.5 but don't like everything in Pathfinder can buy the game, make the changes they want, and pretty much be done with it. 4e players who want to change stuff have to revisit their houserules over and over again as WotC changes things. At the core, WotC is simply too responsive to the fans. They need to decide what they're going to do and then do it, not change gears and start and abandon projects over and over.
 


I mean, Paizo didn't really invent something. I think they don't even have the resources nor the experience to develop a full-featured game like D&D 3.5e all by themselves. All they did before PF (correct me if i'm wrong, because i had never heard of them before) was to publish supplements and adventures.

two things:
1) WOTC did not invent d and d either. Gary Gygax did, in colaborations with Dave Arneson (SP?)

2) "Your thinking doesn't necessarily have to be original; it just has to be solid"
page 44 - How successful people think by John C. Maxwell (c) 2009 ( I hope I did that right)
 

You know what, good for freaking PAIZO.

In the older REAL AD&D and D&D, it was killed by 3.X when it was released. All printing of hardcopy ceased. It stunk for any and all players who wanted to stick with older editions. They did release PDF's, but there was no one to stand up and say...hey...you old guy gamers...your game is still here.

And then, Hasbro did it again with 4e. 3.X was dropped like a stone and everything under the sun with it was called broken. Good for Paizo standing up and saying...hey...you old gamers...your game is still here. Sometimes someone needs to stand up for the little guys...or if not so little, at least those that the other commercial giant doesn't want to support.

I personally have NOT liked playing Pathfinder with a group due to some people's attitudes towards old school gamers in that group. However, I fully support the idea that Paizo has.

I personally love 4e and play it, and think it's a great system for Roleplaying. I also see how WotC has completely tried to isolate it's former fans from it by completely ceasing printing of it's legacy and history.

4e DOES make money, much of it unseen by those thinking Paizo is making close to as much as WotC. It's not...BUT...for what Paizo did for itself and the gaming community, especially the D20 and 3.X community...Good on them.

I applaud the move by Paizo. I think their success is also built off good customer relations, and the desire to support a game many like and felt disheartened (some would say betrayed) when the support from it's mother company ceased. Paizo always had a hand in the involvement with 3.X, and some would say the biggest betrayal happened to them when Dragon and Dungeon was put online.

I support WotC with my money and their products I also support...however I have admiration for Paizo and hope that they continue to do most excellently.

(or is that...as Bill and Ted would say...Most Excellent)
 

two things:
1) WOTC did not invent d and d either. Gary Gygax did, in colaborations with Dave Arneson (SP?)

2) "Your thinking doesn't necessarily have to be original; it just has to be solid"
page 44 - How successful people think by John C. Maxwell (c) 2009 ( I hope I did that right)

Yeah, I know that they did not invent RPGs.

However, allow me to do some differentiation between «inspired» and «copy-pasted three quarters of the core handbook».

False premise. WotC didn't invent D&D either. Both product lines are derivatives of the work of GG and DA.

Yeah. I know that. That was not my premise at all. Paizo basically copypasted 3/4 an handbook, it's a bit more than «derivative». They could do that only because of the OGL.

Hard-core 3.5 fans are going to like Paizo, hard-core 4e fans are going to like WotC. The difference lies in the middle ground. Players who prefer 3.5 but don't like everything in Pathfinder can buy the game, make the changes they want, and pretty much be done with it. 4e players who want to change stuff have to revisit their houserules over and over again as WotC changes things. At the core, WotC is simply too responsive to the fans. They need to decide what they're going to do and then do it, not change gears and start and abandon projects over and over.

I was talking about the companies' «ethics», and in general about how Wotc is often criticised for being a money-grabber. I was talking nor about the products, and nor about the marketing succes of either one.
 

Honestly I consider Paizo a company that is excellent at one thing and one thing only. Presentation (especially including PR). They know how to write prettily. And make themselves look good, whatever the substance indicates.

But then I look at their output. Their "open playtest". Pick the results then claim you're holding an open playtest. I'm currently running the Kingmaker AP in 4e. And it's well presented - but if that's what Paizo considers an open sandbox, they should get back to their railroads. To start matters their worldbuilding ... the rivers flow into the hills and away from the plains? Then there's the way even in a hexcrawl they manage to railroad. Take, for instance, the castle at the end of module 1. One way in (password) with deus ex machina zombies to prevent you trying anything more sneaky. One way to disable the stag lord, handed you in the first bandit camp. The place is a riddle-dungeon with a right solution and set up to intentionally disable others.* Things get a lot worse in later modules. (Module 2 is good and module 3 is not bad (barring the Lich) but module 4 starts with a forced PC choice that goes against what any of my gaming groups would do and completely misses the power of 10th level + casters for the entire module, I'm sorry I paid good money for module 5 and won't be buying module 6.

Glorantha? There's a lot of very good stuff there. Some wonderful ideas. But as a world it simply isn't viable; too kitchen-sinky in a bad way. You can't have Athas and the Realms in the same world without serious thought as to the interactions. Glorantha's like that. If they'd set Glorantha up more along the lines of planescape with massive buffers, it would probably be wonderful. 4e on the other hand has produced some outstanding setting books that allow different types of games. A Realms game isn't a PoLand game isn't an Athas game isn't an Eberron game.

Wizards on the other hand has crap PR for D&D. But it delivers the goods, however ugly they are. I'm not happy with their modules either in general. But I can port modules between systems and 4e is extremely easier to port to. (As I said, I'm running Kingmaker in 4e - and think that's significantly lower prep time than trying to run it in PF would be). Their characters are good and strongly thematic without overshadowing other roles. And the system is easy to run, flexible, and requires little prep. It does a damn good job. The core problem is that WoTC does not tart itself up at all. It just is and does what it does well where the rubber meets the road. And the point I care about is where the rubber meets the road, not the advertising copy promising me two tickets to that thing I love.

* My version has the Tuskwater to the back and the Shrike to the East for natural borders. And to the west are wraiths rather than zombies; more interesting. And the PCs are currently running a plan to terrorise the castle and make them think the wraiths are about to get them.
 

False premise. WotC didn't invent D&D either. Both product lines are derivatives of the work of GG and DA.

With the number of folks who say that 4e "is not D&D", perhaps it isn't mechanically as derivative as you imply.

And, if you take your logic a step up, GG and DA didn't invent RPGs, as their work is derivative of David Wesely's "Brauenstein". "Derivative" does not mean "no invention is involved".

Before you defend this point, ask yourself a question - would you, in the presence of the developers of 3e or 4e, say to their faces, person to person, without the anonymity of the internet between you, that they didn't invent anything in those games? If not, then perhaps you shouldn't make this argument.

If you would... well, folks can think of that what they will.
 

I am not looking for an argument, but for me it comes down to this:

Paizo wants my gaming money, and they show they want my gaming money.

WotC wants my gaming money, but everything they've showed me indicates that their desire for my gaming money is accompanied by an indifferent shrug: "Hey, no biggie. If not you, some new guy. Take care, now."

Paizo now gets my gaming money.

WotC changed, in a major way, in my opinion. Will Paizo change, given their impressive success? Maybe. But until they do -- until they no longer have what I want as a customer, in perception and products -- Paizo gets my gaming money.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top