Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charles Dunwoody" data-source="post: 5533928" data-attributes="member: 17927">Wizards has published two versions of D&D built on the work of a previous company and previous designers. In both cases, a revision was made to the original rules after a two or three year period (3.5 and Essentials). Older material (3.0 and 4E PHB) were updated with free online articles (just now starting for 4E). I bought 3.5 but didn't buy Essentials. It really just came down to not wanting to spend money again for similar material (the new builds for the classes in the 4E PHB, the magic item system overhaul, etc.). I also believed that Essentials would create some stress when paired with the earlier design paradigms. 4E is a closed system. By which I mean only a few hard-core designers at Wizards and some selected freelancers work on it. I believe this decision can lead to some dead-ends in design (not enough playtesting) and can alienate the customer base (who rightly or wrongly feel they aren't being heard).PF is an open system. It doesn't draw just on 3.5 but also other OGL work and a large pool of skilled designers including former TSR and Wizards employees. One employee at Paizo worked on 4E as a former employee of Wizards for example and still freelances for Wizards.A few years ago, Paizo brought novels of Gary Gygax back into print and brought him as a guest of honor to Gen Con. They've had Ed Greenwood, Jeff Grubb, and Keith Baker help design their campaign world book. China Mieville and Dianne Cunningham have even done a touch of world building for the RPG. Paizo does open playtests (for free) and incorporates customer feedback gathered online at at cons into rulebooks.Wizards capitalized on the name and existing rules of D&D created by others in the same way Paizo has. Pathfinder is not the zombie stepchild of D&D anymore than Wizards two versions of D&D are the zombie love child of TSR. Both companies took an existing game and created their own game from it.Paizo generates goodwill by being an open system. The designers don't just communicate with customers, some of the customers themselves become freelance designers. And previous great designers from previous editions also add to the game and/or are honored by Paizo.Did Wizards "jump the shark" by not staying with the more open model of game design they created and championed back in 2000? If sales are good and profit is how success is defined, then no they did not.If success is measured by staying more closely in touch with the traditions of D&D and the fan base, then opinions are more likely to vary. But some customers would say Wizards has failed IF putting value on tradition and existing customers is a sign of success.As Monte Cook put it in a recent blog. James Patterson made $70 million last year writing novels. Michael Chabon has won a Pullitzer and other prizes but didn't make $70 million last year. Who is a more successful writer? Depends on the values applied and how you want to measure success!</blockquote>

Verification