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

[Nytmare]

I don't think this was Paizo's intention, but it did occur to me that if someone were to try and take the OGL/SRD and incorporate as many "4e-like" changes as they could, they could create completely open, OGL compliant stuff that's functionally, albeit not technically compatible with 4e.

This is actually what I assumed all WOTC's legal foot dragging had been about. I don't know how they're going to really fix it.

In the end, what Paizo has done is really clever. They invited their entire fanbase into a club while appealling to as many 3.5 and 4th Ed grumblings as possible, gave the entire fanbase access to the bragging rights of being playtesters, and now all they have to do is spend the next year letting their own fanbase design the game that the fanbase wants to play.

 

[Agamon]

The whole point of Pathfinder is that it will be backwardly compatible. So ALL of your 3/3.5 books will be useable with Pathfinder. That's why Paizo just picked up a couple million new customers with this announcement.

A couple million, eh? LOL. A lot of the 3.5 hanger's on are already Paizo customers, so while I agree it appeased many current customers, it both added and subtracted from the custmer base. If Pathfinder was doing okay before this, it will do just as okay after.

 

[Jayouzts]

Anyone remember IBM?

The bulk of the market for D&D is going to 4E. The remainder of that market just got more fragmented today with Paizos move. If you wander over to the boards for "gamers wanted" today you can already see the issues folks have locating new gamers. Now the given market for D&D-esque gamers will be fragmented into several pieces.

It was a bonehead move.

I disagree with the premise that the "bulk" will go 4E. A sizeable percentage has no intention of switching. Perhaps not a majority but a sizeable enough percentage they can carve out a nice share of the market.

There is precedent for Paizo's move in the computer industry. Back in the 80's IBM got tired of all of the 3rd party companies making cheaper (and sometimes better) versions of compatible computers. So they rolled out the IBM PS-2 line which was incompatible with what was on the market. Software companies were so certain that everyone would switch to the PS-2 but they started making PS-2 compatible software. The exception: Microsoft. They rolled out Windows and Microsoft Word for the existing PC architecture. Instead of dumping their DOS PC's for the PS-2, they simply upgraded to Windows. Today Microsoft is the dominant player in the Software market. IBM does not make PC's anymore.

Remember, back then Microsoft was an upstart company and IBM was the 800 pound gorilla.

Yes, I know Computers and games are two different products. And it could fail. But there is precedent for a similar move to be successful.

I would not dismiss this move so quickly.

 

[Psion]

Not to be pedantic, but BRP has seven ability scores (8 in CoC), no character classes, no experience points, no class levels, armor as DR, etc.... Other than the fact that the idea of RP games can be traced to Gygax and Arneson, BRP has nothing in common with OD&D.

Sorry, I think trancejeremy is right on here. Sure they are different in telling ways. But its the ways they are similar that is conspicuous. 3-18 scale, the attributes that are the same (adding one or two attributes to D&D and making your own game was a pretty common spin in those days.)

That's not an indictment in any way. It's just influence the way it were.

 

[kennew142]

I was referring to people that are currently subscribing. They already knew that the current AP (and most likely the next one as well) were going to be 3.5, so why cancel now?

1) Because I buy stuff to use in the future, not now.

2) Because I buy stuff to read for inspiration in my own campaign.

3) Because I consider buying new rules and mechanics for a game system I don't use to be a waste of my money. If Pathfinder were just adventures, with no new mechanics, I would consider buying them.

For me, it is a combination of the above. As many have said, I have enough 3e material to last for many years. It is the system that I don't enjoy anymore. I can convert the Paizo material to 4e without a problem, but why should I? I will have the Necromancer products, the WotC products and the Goodman games products for inspiration, maps, monsters and NPCs I won't have to convert. For me, there is no real upside to continuing to buy product that will be incompatible with 4e at the time I choose to use it.

I'm not buying any 3e product right now anyway. 4e comes out in about 60 days. When it does, I hope to be able to buy as much third party stuff as I can to broaden the material I have to pillage for ideas. Unfortunately, Paizo chose not to serve my needs, wants and desires. I hope their new system does well for them. I doubt it, but I hope that I'm wrong.

I have also decided not to use adventure paths in the future, or to play in them if I can help it. My group prefers a slower rate of advancement than 3e or 4e supports in the RAW. We also dislike the hurried pace of APs in which characters move from 1st to 20th level in about a year of game time. Although 4e will be no better in this regard than 3e, the rules appear to be easier to houserule than earlier editions. Long APs that assume 2-3 level advancement per adventure are not compatible with slower advancement, especially when the plot requires the characters to move from one adventure to the next at a rapid pace. Stand alone scenarios are better for our campaigns.

Ironically, if Paizo had decided to make 4e Pathfinder, the very parts of the product that turn me off now would be the biggest draw - the new mechanics and such.

 

[Psion]

A couple million, eh? LOL. A lot of the 3.5 hanger's on are already Paizo customers, so while I agree it appeased many current customers, it both added and subtracted from the custmer base. If Pathfinder was doing okay before this, it will do just as okay after.

Okay? Reportedly, they are doing well with Pathfinder Chronicles, so if they prevent erosion in the face of a new edition, that alone is enough to be a "smart business move".

This doesn't have to be a coup, and I don't think it is. It's clear to me that, despite that I have had a very positive experience with 3e I would like to continue, that some of you didn't. We both have choices we think will suit us. That's a good thing.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

This doesn't have to be a coup, and I don't think it is. It's clear to me that, despite that I have had a very positive experience with 3e I would like to continue, that some of you didn't. We both have choices we think will suit us. That's a good thing.

My sentiments exactly. Live and let live, pretty much.

 

[Warbringer]

Yeah, *that's* why I think 4e is a superior game in nearly every respect to 3.5 (or Pathfinder): Product identity.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Back off. He wasn't saying what you think... he was saying what makes a tough decision for him.

Sheesh gods forbid that people have doubts about 4e... it's natural..it doesn't make us 'haters'

I have doubts about buying a new Series 7, does that make me a Mercedes hater??? No, it makes me a loyal customer with concerns that the new product not be exactly what I want..

 

[kennew142]

Sorry, I think trancejeremy is right on here. Sure they are different in telling ways. But its the ways they are similar that is conspicuous. 3-18 scale, the attributes that are the same (adding one or two attributes to D&D and making your own game was a pretty common spin in those days.)

That's not an indictment in any way. It's just influence the way it were.

I know that this is off topic (not being 4e related), but I still don't see it.

OD&D had Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution and Charisma.

BRP has Strength, Constitution, Size, Dexterity, Intelligence, Power, Appearance and Education (in Call of Cthulhu).

While 3-18 was the baseline curve of the system, different RQ races used completely different dice to generate ability scores. Even humans rolled 2d+6 for Size.

Other differences:

1) BRP uses opposed rolls instead of saving throws (Power vs. Power most of the time).

2) BRP uses a skill based system instead of character levels. Skills increased through use and there were no experience points.

3) Anyone in BRP could use any weapon or learn to use magic.

4) Ability scores in BRP could be increased (especially Power).

5) Armor points subtracted from damage done in BRP instead of making you harder to hit.

6) All attacks were opposed rolls in BRP.

7) BRP differentiated the effects between impaling, slashing and crushing damage.

8) BRP had detailed rules for the degree of success in skills and attack rolls.

There are many more. Other than the fact that some of the ability scores had the same names as OD&D, and that a 3-18 bell curve was the assumed norm, I don't see that much similarity.

All RPGs are inspired by OD&D, but I cannot see OD&D being the backbone of the BRP system. The differences between the two systems were much too extreme for that to be true.

I switched to BRP from D&D around the time of 2e (although I had dabbled before that). I continued to run RQ until it went out of print when TSR acquired it (through Avalon Hill, who had purchased it from Chaosium). I tried to run it at conventions for years after it went out of print, but saw less interest every year. This is one of the main reasons why I decided to switch to 4e almost sight unseen. I've spent my time trying to find new blood for an out of print game.

 

[RigaMortus2]

We had a market that was 3.5 and a new market of 4E. Now we have a market of 3.5 (some folks may not want to go to the Paizo route and also not buy 4E), we now have the 3.75 of Paizo, and 4E.

And we still have those that play 1E and 2E. Not to mention other systems like GURPS, Palladium, White Wolf, E6, Shadowrun, etc. Why exclude them?