Pathfinder 1E WotC desperately needs to learn from Paizo and Privateer Press

[MerricB]

Sadly, I've been growing less and less happy with the APs from Paizo. To some extent, I think they did their best job wth Age of Worms, and it's been downhill from there. (I missed their first two non-Dungeon APs, though, coming back in with the disappointing Second Darkness AP).

I think that there is a disconnect between how I see the D&D universe and how they see it. In my world, cities may have corruption and dark elements, but people are generally nice. In the Paizo world, I wonder how anyone is good at all. Their cities tend to be corrupt with anyone who is important being a servant of evil or selfishness.

I know this isn't entirely accurate; I'm pretty sure there have been exceptions, but more and more I'm being disappointed by the world they're creating.

Meanwhile, the 4E world is increasingly intriguing me. It's quite true that the fluff in the core books is rather light, along with the first few power books, but the fluff from the adventures and other supplements is first rate IMO.

I think the 4e adventures need more variety and a slightly altered structure, but I really respond to the basic ideas behind them, and we've been having a ball with them. P2 - which I'm currently running - has been the best so far.

Cheers!

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I think that there is a disconnect between how I see the D&D universe and how they see it. In my world, cities may have corruption and dark elements, but people are generally nice.

All of them? The people are "generally nice" in all of the cities in your world?

In the Paizo world, I wonder how anyone is good at all. Their cities tend to be corrupt with anyone who is important being a servant of evil or selfishness.

Power corrupts. Their current adventure path is set in a nation that worships Hell. Is it surprising that the people in charge aren't nice? Is it surprising that, in such a place, people in general aren't nice?

I know this isn't entirely accurate; I'm pretty sure there have been exceptions, but more and more I'm being disappointed by the world they're creating.

I think you're conflating the "world" with the "adventure path," and even then you're right: it's not accurate. They've certainly got nobility (in the "principled" sense of the word) in the APs, it's just that the PCs don't tend to conflict with good guys as much.

Golarion has entire nations that tread the path of light, but if the PCs adventure there, you know who they're probably going to encounter? Not-very-nice folks.

Seriously, Merric, you got me scratching my head, here.

 

[Reigan]

I think early in the rules cycle they needed to get the stats out there so people could play the game. Also, many monsters are now race + role and have a dozen + examples covering multiple levels. To keep the price point reasonable adding extra fluff would have dramatically cut the headcount, which with 30 levels of gameplay would have left large gaps in the monster roster.

Now the rules have expanded to fill in the gaps I imagine more fluff heavy supplements will be published, look at at recent Primal Power, that has a lot more fluff than the other power supplements.

 

[Coldwyn]

Funny thing: Our Witchfire Triology went down in flames because none of the players could stand the terrible railroading more than three sessions.

Some time ago, I started converting a Paizo AP (Legacy of Fire) to 4E. While sitting on my PC, reworking the encounters, etc. I came to the sad conclussion that if one leaves out the short stories, tons on information, unused backgound information, NPC motivation and plot summarys, it boild down to boring, railroady hackfest which could easily have fit in a 90 page book.

So no, I don´t really agree with the OP that WotC needs to learn something from either company.

 

[Obryn]

^Including fluff doesn't prevent any of what you've said.
4e adventures are like a generic cracker Good with dip or other additions.
Unlike flavored crackers, in any published adventure the GM can remove/alter/improve unwanted flavor with a modicum of effort. So, why remove the fluff? It assists the GMs who want it, and doesn't impede the GMs that don't want it.

Every paragraph of fluff basically means one less stat block, without inflating the size of the book or seriously reducing the fonts. While I want some fluff, I also want a lot of stats.

When 4e came out, I was disappointed with the amount of fluff in the monster manual. It was different from 3e, and unexpected. I was used to several paragraphs of it per monster, and instead I had the lore section, a picture, and a brief description.

Having run 4e for quite a while now, I find that it's more than adequate. The only difference for me now is that I use it more as a reference book and less as a bedtime story.

-O

 

[Snoweel]

Power corrupts.

A dangerous and unfounded truism.

See Nietszche's 'slave morality'.

 

[Chrono22]

Every paragraph of fluff basically means one less stat block, without inflating the size of the book or seriously reducing the fonts. While I want some fluff, I also want a lot of stats.

When 4e came out, I was disappointed with the amount of fluff in the monster manual. It was different from 3e, and unexpected. I was used to several paragraphs of it per monster, and instead I had the lore section, a picture, and a brief description.

Having run 4e for quite a while now, I find that it's more than adequate. The only difference for me now is that I use it more as a reference book and less as a bedtime story.

-O

Bedtime stories make for excellent adventures.

My experience with 4e modules is that many of the fights are redundant or pointless. They don't contribute to/emphasize the overall feel of the adventure, it's more like they are used to punctuate parts of the adventure. Pointless, forgettable combats if you will.

It's a sliding scale- for every unnecessary combat that is included, space is taken up that could be used to make the adventures more engaging, interesting, and memorable. Combat by itself is not enough to make an adventure good.

And please don't misunderstand me. I don't dislike 4e's fluff on the grounds that it is different. I dislike it because it's shallow, uninteresting, and dry trash that lacks imagination.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Funny thing: Our Witchfire Triology went down in flames because none of the players could stand the terrible railroading more than three sessions.

Some time ago, I started converting a Paizo AP (Legacy of Fire) to 4E. While sitting on my PC, reworking the encounters, etc. I came to the sad conclussion that if one leaves out the short stories, tons on information, unused backgound information, NPC motivation and plot summarys, it boild down to boring, railroady hackfest which could easily have fit in a 90 page book.

So no, I don´t really agree with the OP that WotC needs to learn something from either company.

I have been reading the WotBS series for 4e and I feel it has just the right amount of railroding*, and nearly all background story is information that the players can or should get their hands on. I haven't run any of the modules yet, but I think it will be a blast.

*Your player's won't be pondering what the hell they are supposed to do, but pondering how to do it. - They way it should be.

 

[Tallifer]

I love the new monster manuals. Easy to use, easy to skim, many interesting tidbits about the monsters. I for one hated the monster ecology articles in the Dragon magazine in the good old days. (Neither do I enjoy an entire chapter on dragon biology which is what the latest Draconomicon gave us.)

I subscribe to the Insider, but I still like pages to leaf through. However, when I print out the Dragon magazines, I only print the pages with new rules and items. I do read or skim the introductory paragraphs to each article on the computer, but I know I will never want to read it again.

 

[Obryn]

My experience with 4e modules is that many of the fights are redundant or pointless. They don't contribute to/emphasize the overall feel of the adventure, it's more like they are used to punctuate parts of the adventure. Pointless, forgettable combats if you will.

Honestly, given a choice between a plot-heavy and railroady adventure path and one of WotC's barebones collections of encounters, I tend to go for the latter. Run as-is, they're often disappointing. With a little work, they turn into great adventures.

It's a sliding scale- for every unnecessary combat that is included, space is taken up that could be used to make the adventures more engaging, interesting, and memorable. Combat by itself is not enough to make an adventure good.

Engaging for whom, though? I mean, maybe, for the DM. But for the players? Would 10 extra pages of campaign background they never read really enhance the game for them? I'm reading through P2 right now, and I don't think extra plot development would help. (There's actually quite a bit in the first book.) There's a line to walk between too much and too little plotting, and I'm fine with WotC erring on the side of too little.

I mean, my favorite adventures in 1e barely had intros. I'm still okay with that!

And please don't misunderstand me. I don't dislike 4e's fluff on the grounds that it is different. I dislike it because it's shallow, uninteresting, and dry trash that lacks imagination.

OK? I disagree. I don't think it's the best fluff ever written, but it fills its purposes for my games.

-O