D&D 4E What was Paizo thinking? 3.75 the 4E clone?

[Wulf Ratbane]

Cheap shot. You can do better, Wulf.

I don't need to do better. He doesn't know me from Adam. (And vice versa.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Okay, this assumption might be made out if ignorance, since I never actually played AD&D or OD&D, but I believe that D&D is improving or "evolving" over time. Subsystems for missing aspects get added, or existing subysstems they get cleaned up, streamlined, better integrated and overhauled.

Ah, but we must always remember when using this analogy that evolution isn't general "improvement". It is, always, moving an organism to better fit its environment. This might mean that it becomes highly specialized for a given environment, or it might mean that it becomes more generally capable without being specialized.

Looking at the analogy this way, some of the complaints about 4e (actually, almost all of them) are that it is becoming too highly specialized for too narrow an environment. Hence, the complaints about non-standard core classes and races, the strange names given to certain game elements, etc. (I.e., one does not "wyvern goldly", although one might shape spells.)

Likewise, 3.x was a fantastic "generalist" game, the complaints about which are twofold (IMHO):

* "Too complex": I.e., its specialist actions are undesirable.
* "Too simple": Aka, the Lowest Common Denominator arguement. I.e., it is too generalist.

A game really can be too complex and too simple all at the same time, if the simplicity and the complexity are not where you want them to be.

Discovering what you don't like, and why you don't like it, about a game is important. However, it is highly unlikely that someone else's "perfect game" is also going to be your perfect game. The importance of the OGL, IMHO, is that it granted third parties to offer all kinds of "fixes", allowing groups to tailor a near-approximation of their "perfect game" without doing all the "heavy lifting". I don't know that the GSL will do the same -- comments make me suspect that it is going to specifically avoid allowing the same.

Pathfinder, thus far, is almost completely OGC. That is, in my book, a good thing.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Why does Paizo have to increase its customer base significantly?

That's what their share holders will demand.

Oh, wait.

Ah, but we must always remember when using this analogy that evolution isn't general "improvement". It is, always, moving an organism to better fit its environment. This might mean that it becomes highly specialized for a given environment, or it might mean that it becomes more generally capable without being specialized.

Yes. That what I was saying in the latter part. There is nothing that can be guaranteed to be "better" in every way. Only for the time being, for a given enviromnent.

On the "General" vs "Specialist" argument - one could also say that 3E was "specialised", since it appealed to the kind of gamer that liked some game elements feeling like homework.
I think as a whole, D&D is always more a generalist, simply because so many people play it, meaning that it works (or is made to work) for enough people. But the people it works for on a individual base can change. (Both the person itself and the "set of persons" the game appeals to.)

I've only skimmed the Alpha document, but I seem to recall Paizo including their own XP chart. And flavor text can always be changed. So I don't see any reason Pathfinder couldn't continue beyond the print life of the 3.5 core books.

Yes. Stuff like that can ensure that Pathfinder can work even after the last 3.x core rulebook has been hunted down and burned by the WotC gaming police or be exchanged for an Exalted 2e Core Rulebook.

There are off course other aspects. Can it maintain enough customers? Can it approach new ones if others become disinterested in Pathfinder? I think Paizo is setting up itself to ensure that it can provide long-term support for Pathfinder with the Pathfinder RPG. But if it doesn't work out, there cooperation with Necromancer will probably ensure that they can give it up if it doesn't work out.

 

[Raven Crowking]

On the "General" vs "Specialist" argument - one could also say that 3E was "specialised", since it appealed to the kind of gamer that liked some game elements feeling like homework.

I nearly spit coffee out of my nose.



Seriously, though, decoupling skill points from level was the first big change I made to 3.X, and it remains the best. I do think that 3.x needs improvement in terms of mid-to-high-level play, but I don't think that changing the fluff of the races/classes (as opposed to mechanical change) is necessary (or wanted [by me, anyway]).

RC

 

[occam]

I think your reminder of "3.5 will go out of print" is a very important point. If the Pathfinder RPG is to work for a longer time, the core rulebooks for the game must stay available. The number of customers can't grow if people don't get access to the core rules required to play the game. And if they can pick just one book (Pathfinder RPG) as opposed to finding the 3 out-of-print 3.5 core rulebooks, it also makes the barrier for entry a lot lower.

That still doesn't explain why they didn't just release the 3.5 OGL rules as-is, adding their own flavor text, XP charts, and redeveloping any other missing items they felt were necessary. Keeping a book in print doesn't mandate incompatible rules changes.

For the record. I am also one of the 5000 downloaders in the first days, but I am fully intending to go for 4E.

I'm another that downloaded the PF Alpha, mainly so I could have context for these discussions. I have no intention of buying the book later. I still don't know if I'm going to 4e, but the alternative is our own house-ruled 3.5, not somebody else's house-ruled 3.5.

 

[Cryndo]

Why does Paizo have to increase its customer base significantly?

Much depends on what you constitute as Paizo's customer base. I don't think we're thinking of that in the same turns. I don't consider myself part of Paizo's customer base, but I'm guessing you would consider me one of their customers. Technically, I'm still a customer of Paizo's, but I'm not going to be in very short order.

Subtracting out the customers such as myself that Paizo is going to or has lost, Paizo will need to make up for our revenue elsewhere or streamline it's operations, which a lean company like Paizo would probably have great difficulty doing. Growth, per se, isn't essential, but maintaining market share is pretty darn important.

 

[Cryndo]

I'm another that downloaded the PF Alpha, mainly so I could have context for these discussions. I have no intention of buying the book later. I still don't know if I'm going to 4e, but the alternative is our own house-ruled 3.5, not somebody else's house-ruled 3.5.

I too downloaded, but will not buy the Alpha. I was curious, but I've already bought books of house rules for 3.5 and really don't need another especially when there's another game that does a better job of fixing the problems.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That still doesn't explain why they didn't just release the 3.5 OGL rules as-is, adding their own flavor text, XP charts, and redeveloping any other missing items they felt were necessary. Keeping a book in print doesn't mandate incompatible rules changes.

Hey, if you get to chance to write your own Core Rules, wouldn't you want to tinker with them a bit? And even people that love 3.5 and don't want to go for 4E find some faults in the game. And Paizo tries to find ways to address. The Alpha is clearly too much, but apparently, they are even admitting that them self. But they might serve as a nice starting point.

but I don't think that changing the fluff of the races/classes (as opposed to mechanical change) is necessary (or wanted [by me, anyway]).

Is it necessary? Maybe not. I think using the general "Points of Light" setting as the "implied setting" is a good call. Did I personally need Dragonborn or Tiefling? No. But I am willing to believe that there are enough customers that are actually interested in them.
Do I care about Gnomes? Absolutely definitely not.
Do I care about dozens of Elven subrace? Yes. Hate them.
Do I care about Elves being supposed to be ideal wizards but without any "wizardry" on them, but do also like the Ranger/Woodsy Elven archetype? Absolutely. As a consequence, The Eladrin / Elf split is a great idea to me. I absolutely love it. Okay, the Drow still exist,but maybe that's all what we will see in Elven Subraces. I am fine with that, especially since the Drow at least have a clearly defined "niche".
Do I love the more "fairy-tale"/"Western Myth" feel of the implied setting? Yes, absolutely. The Great Wheel Stuff always felt like a high fantasy concept, remote from folklore or fairy tales. Off course, Astral Sea and Elemental Chaos are still remote, but Feywild and Shadowfell feel just right.

 

[Shadewyn]

There is another EN thread here;

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=222331

That has some insight folks should consider.

On the related links about the story and history of D&D I want to quote something on why D&D had to change. Folks are making a WILD assumption that the creative minds at Paizo actually have the resources to understand their own business. If the world that Paizo think it exists in is the handful of folks that post on their boards, or they think that 5K downloads of their alpha document on a slow game news day when folks are killing time until the next new thing comes along = 5K or more orders of Pathfinder then they are in trouble. I think the Paizo Publishing might be like the old world TSR potentially repeating the same business sins.

It also it intresting in light of the "why 4E?" That appears now and then on this board. I would venture to say that the WotC marketting machine has very carefully calculated how many people will swap over from 3.5 to 4E based on previous data of the 2E and 3.0 swaps and current surveys. If Paizo doesnt have the marketing department to do that research they should at least follow the industry leader that did.

What if the gamers that remain 3.X are the same gamers that no longer buy game supplements?

What if the gamers that advidly remain 3.X are casual gamers who no longer seek to bring new players into their groups or expand the hobby?

What if the gamers that remain 3.X are a far far smaller portion of the market than Paizo thought?

What if Paizo dumps time & money that a smaller 3rd party publisher can not afford to loose into a business area that has no viable commercial market and in doing so looses their opportunity to get a first mover advantage and cash in on their name brand and reputation on teh next new thing?

Ryan S. Dancey
VP, Wizards of the Coast
Brand Manager, Dungeons & Dragons

~ On what was found when TSR went bellyup and WotC bought it

Back into those financials I went. I walked again the long threads of decisions made by managers long gone; there are few roadmarks to tell us what was done and why in the years TSR did things like buy a needlepoint distributorship, or establish a west coast office at King Vedor's mansion. Why had a moderate success in collectable dice triggered a million unit order? Why did I still have stacks and stacks of 1st edition rulebooks in the warehouse? Why did TSR create not once, not twice, but nearly a dozen times a variation on the same, Tolkien inspired, eurocentric fantasy theme? Why had it constantly tried to create different games, poured money into marketing those games, only to realize that nobody was buying those games? Why, when it was so desperate for cash, had it invested in a million dollar license for content used by less than 10% of the marketplace? Why had a successful game line like Dragonlance been forcibly uprooted from its natural home in the D&D game and transplanted to a foreign and untested new game system? Why had the company funded the development of a science fiction game modeled on D&D - then not used the D&D game rules?

In all my research into TSR's business, across all the ledgers, notebooks, computer files, and other sources of data, there was one thing I never found - one gaping hole in the mass of data we had available.

No customer profiling information. No feedback. No surveys. No "voice of the customer". TSR, it seems, knew nothing about the people who kept it alive. The management of the company made decisions based on instinct and gut feelings; not data. They didn't know how to listen - as an institution, listening to customers was considered something that other companies had to do - TSR lead, everyone else followed.

In today's hypercompetitive market, that's an impossible mentality. At Wizards of the Coast, we pay close attention to the voice of the customer. We ask questions. We listen. We react. So, we spent a whole lot of time and money on a variety of surveys and studies to learn about the people who play role playing games. And, at every turn, we learned things that were not only surprising, they flew in the face of all the conventional wisdom we'd absorbed through years of professional game publishing.

 

[nutluck]

I've only skimmed the Alpha document, but I seem to recall Paizo including their own XP chart. And flavor text can always be changed. So I don't see any reason Pathfinder couldn't continue beyond the print life of the 3.5 core books. As another poster here has already mentioned, however, while some 3.5 fans may switch over to Pathfinder, I don't see Paizo gaining many new players. While they may get some through word of mouth or Pathfinder players inviting them into their gaming groups, the average joe in a bookstore is going to go for the D&D books that have much more name recognition. So I think Pathfinder's initial core of constituents can't help but dwindle and the game will eventually die. In the meantime, though, it looks like a lot of fun.

You make it sound like nobody every buys anything but DnD books, yet there is a lot of companies and a lot of games out there that do just fine. ICE makers of Rolemaster and Harp, Steve Jackson maker of GURPS, White Wolf maker of WoD stuff and exalted, Mongoose which basicily left d20 behind and do their own stuff, Penicale makers of Savage Worlds, ect. Lots of games and companies exist and make a profit just fine.

Consider old World of Darkness is still played and it has been out of print for around 6 years now and no easy way to get the main books. I think it would be doing better if you could still get the core books for it.

Now Paizo may or may not sell their new game well and may or may not stay in business. But if they do or don't has nothing to do with WotC or 4e and everything to do with if they make a good quality product. Because if they make the later word of mouth with get them new customers and if it sucks they will sink. Only their own abilities will ultimently matter.