Pathfinder 1E Things you Think WoTC should follow from Paizo

[xechnao]

I think chasing trends and fads can be a risky path when you have an enduring tradition in your hands.

Oh, I totally agree on this risk and this is what I was advocating against - although you seem to have misunderstood me (in fact what I said was that "I doubt it is untrue that geeks can be served by a more classic game, a game made to have a long standing presence in time")- but I think the endurance does not lie in the traditional D&Disms but on the concept of tabletop roleplaying.

 

[ggroy]

I dunno, I always felt that the Spellplague was Time of Troubles Pt 2. Not to mention the way the Radiance worked in Mystara.

I was thinking more along the lines of a big bad event drastically affecting a world, and the setting's present time period being in the aftermath of it.

 

[Bumbles]

I was thinking more along the lines of a big bad event drastically affecting a world, and the setting's present time period being in the aftermath of it.

Eh, how many of the various campaign settings have had other cataclysms?

Greyhawk's was more in the distant past, same with Mystara, but Birthright was pretty close, and even Ravenloft had one. Dark Sun was the epitome of it.

I think that the BBE is just one of those things they throw in every now and then, no matter what.

 

[BryonD]

Oh, I totally agree on this risk and this is what I was advocating against - although you seem to have misunderstood me (in fact what I said was that "I doubt it is untrue that geeks can be served by a more classic game, a game made to have a long standing presence in time")-

ahh, the ever-popular double-negative.

but I think the endurance does not lie in the traditional D&Disms but on the concept of tabletop roleplaying.

I'm not certain. There are so many variables at play it is hard to parse them.

I've stated several times that I, personally, have no loyalty to the name "dungeons and dragons" and have left and returned and left again purely based on the quality of the rules. So I certainly would not claim it is pure "D&D". But there have also been many many table top RPGs, and it has not been simply the base "concept of table-top roleplaying" that drove the endurance of one vs the crash and burn of another. D&D has dominated the fantasy genre and those other games that did well in fantasy had there own distinct niche "isms". And games that have done well in other genres (WoD, Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu, and so on...) have tapped into a broader foundation of being true to core archetypes of the genre rather than the most recent fad variation. Fad games did well in some cases, but they faded out as the fad they tied themselves to faded. Solid traditional games, otoh, connected with many more people, even if not as deeply with any one small "latest trend fan set", and were more capable of fitting the latest fad just through differences in the play at the table rather than focus within the rules themselves.

 

[xechnao]

I'm not certain. There are so many variables at play it is hard to parse them.

The way I see it, they need to make a game optimized on the basic premise of a group of players that each one is controlling a unique human character within a group that faces a challenging world of adventure, without any "isms" and baggage: let the "isms" be possibilities of the building of such worlds, feasible through the possibility of custom modding.
I see absolutely no reason that a game like this could not become a classic.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Did you mean that ironically?

We don't need Golarion because we have Castlemourn?? You'd be better of saying we don't need Golarion because we have the FR grey box. At least old FR had more than one book to support it.

(And I don't mean that as a dig against Castlemourn - I helped on the development on one version of it - but it's a pretty dead end product line unfortunately and Golarion has had far better treatment in my opinion, so I'd say we don't need Castlemourn since we have Golarion.)

Please reread my discussion with Mournblade. I never said anything about Golarion being bad or going away - but this thread is about what Wotc should learn from Paizo. And one things the OP mentioned was another generic gameworld with support similar to Golarion - and i don´t want that from Wotc. Please don´t be that defensive about everything Paizo.

 

[BryonD]

The way I see it, they need to make a game optimized on the basic premise of a group of players that each one is controlling a unique human character within a group that faces a challenging world of adventure, without any "isms" and baggage: let the "isms" be possibilities of the building of such worlds, feasible through the possibility of custom modding.
I see absolutely no reason that a game like this could not become a classic.

Agreed. (GURPS would fall in your description)

I also see no reason a game like that could not sink like a stone.

What you describe is a critical component. I fully agree with you.
But saying a car has good wheels doesn't make it a good car, even though wheels are vitally critical to a car.

If the game does not have all the critical components, then it will sink.
And tapping in to some broadly common set of understood tradition is also critical for wide success.

GURPS did this by offering interchangeable ready-built traditional mods. And even with that I don't think GURPS was ever the #1 game in any genre. I think GURPS success was more tied to being second or third in almost every genre. (and maybe also being an early player in the low magic / gritty alternative)

I don't think a game will succeed as a major market player unless it can tap into common traditional expectations as a baseline of expectations and player understanding. Being customizable is a big plus on top of that. Everything you said is a plus. But these elements support each other.


Interestingly, you said you think that WotC should do the opposite of Paizo. But now you are advocating players look to themselves for "building of worlds" and "custom modding". If that is the opposite of anyone it is the opposite of WotC and their current "points of light" and absolute minimal prep time design philosophy for 4E.

 

[BryonD]

Please reread my discussion with Mournblade. I never said anything about Golarion being bad or going away - but this thread is about what Wotc should learn from Paizo. And one things the OP mentioned was another generic gameworld with support similar to Golarion - and i don´t want that from Wotc. Please don´t be that defensive about everything Paizo.

Interesting.
You ask him to reread your words, and yet you defend yourself for not having called Golarion bad or saying it was going away, despite the fact that he didn't accuse you of any such claim. Perhaps you should do some rereading yourself.

He offered a very legitimate response to what you said.

Please don't jump to the conclusion that everything positive about Paizo is defensiveness.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, they should learn how to write good adventures from Paizo. Maybe they need to steal their authors. I think WotC got the game designers, but I sometimes feel they just don't have the authors - or at least they don't let them write great adventures often.

And maybe I shouldn't limit this to adventures. Generally, in the fluff department people say they want to see more, and WotC doesn't seem to find the right way to do it.

To pick a recent example -there is some fluff in the "Big Trouble" article in Dragon. But is it really enough? Couldn't it have been more?

Maybe it is not the inability to do it, but just not leaving enough space for it. The PHB layout discussion touches a little on that. People are missing play example and connecting fluff and all that. It makes sense it is missing, since it would delude the use at the game table. It makes sense to have it, because it can inspire people to play or to create new adventures. I don't know how to combine game table usability and reading fun in a good layout either. Maybe it's not possible. Maybe they need to use Dragon articles or dedicated books for it. (If you combine good artwork and good fluff with very little crunch, you might have something that interests a different set of people.)

 

[kenmarable]

Please reread my discussion with Mournblade. I never said anything about Golarion being bad or going away - but this thread is about what Wotc should learn from Paizo. And one things the OP mentioned was another generic gameworld with support similar to Golarion - and i don´t want that from Wotc. Please don´t be that defensive about everything Paizo.

I wasn't trying to be Paizo defensive. Honestly, I just read "We don´t need another Generica. We have Castlemourn for that." And my first reaction was "Bwuh?!! Someone's heard of Castlemourn??" My second reaction was "Uh... I don't think that dead product line is filling any market niche whatsoever."

No offense to Castlemourn since I like the setting, but unfortunately I wouldn't exactly consider it successfully filling the "generic fantasy setting" market niche. (MWP is even selling it at their website for 67% off cover price! A sad end to what could have been a great setting.) I was just dumbfounded by your reference to Castlemourn filling the need for a generic fantasy setting making Golarion redundant. That's all.

But no need to sidetrack further. As a matter of fact, I agree with you that I don't want another generic fantasy setting from WotC either. In fact, as much as I love Paizo, I haven't jumped on board the Golarion train because 1e-3.x Forgotten Realms has always been my generic fantasy setting of choice. Now, they have done some great stuff with Golarion, but like you and/or others have said, it's still designed to be a "you can play an sort of fantasy and pseudo-historical campaign you like". There's even fantasy Egypt, there's fantasy Japan, etc. I don't have a need for that sort of setting even if it is full of great ideas (got too many books filled with similarly great ideas I haven't used yet).

Personally, I want more Dark Sun, Planescape, and other very, very non-generic settings. Once I had one generic setting (which for me will probably always be pre-4e FR), I don't really need any more no matter how incredibly well done they are. What I really need are settings I could never dream up! Eberron walks a fine line between having good generic placeholders (i.e. Breland/Cormyr/Andoran/good guy European) with some crazy, unique ideas that make it stand out from the other settings. Golarion has some fun bits, too, just not nearly enough unique ones to make it my preferred setting.

What *I* would like (but could possibly be in the minority) is for even crazier settings. A setting that is entirely based in the Shadowfell. An undersea setting. Dark Sun 4e or other post-apocalyptic barren wasteland fantasy setting. An Astral Sea piracy setting. Unfortunately, those are inherently risky and not perceived as mass-marketable, so I'm not holding my breath for a company like WotC being able to afford that kind of risk.