Pathfinder 1E This is why pathfinder has been successful.

[Crothian]

But that wasn't the supposition, nor was it the stated subject of your post. 3.x did in fact have a strong setting/story/adventure element as an aspect of its success.

The subject is the subject of the thread that Pathfinder is successful because of the AP's but somehow D&D is not. 3e doesn't follow that rule. It was successful with out the adventures. Sure, they had other companies do them but that is a very different business model. If we take a look at the books Wizards put out we will find them very not story oriented. Even the settings didn't have a story they just defined different parts of a world that was a static in time.

 

[Reynard]

The subject is the subject of the thread that Pathfinder is successful because of the AP's but somehow D&D is not. 3e doesn't follow that rule. It was successful with out the adventures. Sure, they had other companies do them but that is a very different business model. If we take a look at the books Wizards put out we will find them very not story oriented. Even the settings didn't have a story they just defined different parts of a world that was a static in time.

Why are you ignoring multiple years of extremely high quality Dungeon magazine adventures and adventure paths, plus stuff like the core "adventure path" and Red Hand of Doom? 3E and 3.5 had tons of official adventures, many of them pretty damn good.

 

[Crothian]

Why are you ignoring multiple years of extremely high quality Dungeon magazine adventures and adventure paths, plus stuff like the core "adventure path" and Red Hand of Doom? 3E and 3.5 had tons of official adventures, many of them pretty damn good.

I'm ignoring the items not done by Wizards. Paizo did great things with the magazines. Red Hand of Doom was a fine adventure. But it is not what the original poster is talking about. From the first post

This is why wizards has not had much success. They focus on the rules and not the worlds

You can't look at the two and a half selves of rule books that came out for 3e and say that they were not successful. And you can't look at the couple of settings and maybe 2 dozen adventures Wizard put out over the life time of 3e and say that was the key to their success.

 

[Ahnehnois]

3e was a very successful game and it didn't focus on adventure or much on setting.

Pretty much.

Paizo is successful because their content is open, their customer service is great, their advertising isn't as insulting, their production values aren't as lousy, and, most importantly, because the rules system they use is more flexible, balanced, and appropriate. The adventures are nice niche products and certainly have been good for the company, but frankly I think anyone could have made a living with a decent repackaging of 3.5. Conversely, if the GSL had been different and instead of a rules system they had published only adventures for 4e, I doubt they'd have much profile, probably less than in their Dragon and Dungeon days, which are magazines that were cut because they weren't profitable.

D&D is always about playing your game, telling your story. That, unfortunately for those in the rpg business, doesn't cost anything.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Right, which is a completely different strategy then the one Pathfinder is currently using and the one true way according to the first post.

Well, you got half my post and held onto it. Seemed to forget the large amount of Forgotten Realms and Eberron material, not to mention the liscensing of offical material like Ravenloft, Dragonlance and Gamma World. (and Dungeon magazine and it's numerous adventure paths...)

 

[Crothian]

Well, you got half my post and held onto it. Seemed to forget the large amount of Forgotten Realms and Eberron material, not to mention the liscensing of offical material like Ravenloft, Dragonlance and Gamma World. (and Dungeon magazine and it's numerous adventure paths...)

Because I don't think it mattered Joe.

Anything that was done by another company was outsourced and thus completely different then the Pathfinder strategy.

Forgotten Realms and Eberron while done in house were not the focus of 3e like Galorian is for Pathfinder. Wizards specifically kept there settings out of the rules and segregated them. Pathfinder embraces its setting and everything written seem to assume to be for it.

 

[Reynard]

I'm ignoring the items not done by Wizards. Paizo did great things with the magazines. Red Hand of Doom was a fine adventure. But it is not what the original poster is talking about. From the first post



You can't look at the two and a half selves of rule books that came out for 3e and say that they were not successful. And you can't look at the couple of settings and maybe 2 dozen adventures Wizard put out over the life time of 3e and say that was the key to their success.

I feel like you are moving the goalposts there, but that's okay. Compare the volume of setting material for Golarion and the the Forgotten Realms. It's a pretty big stretch to say there is more Golarion info out there than was put out in a similar amount of time for 3.x FR.

 

[Crothian]

I feel like you are moving the goalposts there, but that's okay. Compare the volume of setting material for Golarion and the the Forgotten Realms. It's a pretty big stretch to say there is more Golarion info out there than was put out in a similar amount of time for 3.x FR.

There were no established goal posts.

In the like 4 years of 3e (before 3.5) there was only about a dozen FR books published. I think Pathfinder has the beat in it's first 4 years.

 

[Relique du Madde]

5he big difference between Paizo and WotC is that Piazo has one setting and rule set to worry about while WoTC was constantly supporting multiple rule sets and upgrading the rules for them.

They were both successful, but on different scales.

-Sent via Tapatalk

 

[JoeGKushner]

Because I don't think it mattered Joe.

Anything that was done by another company was outsourced and thus completely different then the Pathfinder strategy.

Forgotten Realms and Eberron while done in house were not the focus of 3e like Galorian is for Pathfinder. Wizards specifically kept there settings out of the rules and segregated them. Pathfinder embraces its setting and everything written seem to assume to be for it.

Substituion levels first popped up in the FR Heroes of Valor book.

Background Feats made their core apeprance in FR 3.0 book and made it into the 3.5 revision bit.

Races like Warforged became popular because of the 3e rules.

There was even a monsterous manual thing in the 3.0 days for Forgotten Realms as well as a Races of. (And Races of Eberon for that mater.)

I'll grant that with everything, FR and Eberron were not the sole focus but a lot of rules made it into the core from them and into 4e from there.