Would Paizo Make a Better Steward for Our Hobby?

[Dungeoneer]

Once again, what games Paizo has published and what rulesets you prefer have almost no bearing on whether or not they'd be good stewards of D&D. Games are made by designers, and guess what! You can hire designers. Supposing Paizo did acquire D&D, they could easily hire any of D&D's storied designers to make the next version of the game. Problem solved.

The way Paizo markets Pathfinder products and makes money off Pathfinder and how they treat Pathfinder gamers can tell us a lot about how they'd handle being the owners of D&D. The Pathfinder ruleset tells us almost nothing.

 

[Wicht]

Paizo has based much of its appeal on a deliberate rejection of other parts of the hobby.

Huh?

What does that even mean?

So far as I know they haven't rejected board games, miniatures, card games, adventures, maps, computer games, or even cosplay...

Is there some other part of the hobby I don't know about yet. Come-on, I've earned my DM stripes. I'm a high enough level! What secrets are you guys keeping from me?

 

[Umbran]

Why should Paizo or any RPG publisher be required to make their own game?

In a general sense, they don't. But, in the context of how a company would do as the steward of the hobby, you are about to answer your own question...

Pathfinder is all I need (right now.)

The thing is... the world changes. Players change. Our understanding of good game design changes. If Paizo were to be the "steward", they'd eventually need to embrace change. What's good for right now is fine, but right now eventually becomes the past.

So, then there's two choices - continue as the steward by cribbing from others who use the OGL or a similar license, or create their own. They cannot depend on someone else creating a game good enough to crib from again in the future, so they would only guarantee their future as stewards by being able to create their own.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Some days the internet just makes me want to drink...

(not to pick on you NeonChameleon.. you are entitled to your opinions)

No matter what you do, there will always be someone who's against you. I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[billd91]

In a general sense, they don't. But, in the context of how a company would do as the steward of the hobby, you are about to answer your own question...

Don't think of them as the steward of our hobby. No single game company can be that. They are already a steward of our hobby. But would they be a good company to be the steward of D&D? And the answer to that is, yes. I think they'd do better than Hasbro-owned WotC. Hell, I think an independent WotC looked like it was going to be a better steward of D&D than Hasbro-owned WotC has proven to be, though of course that might never have played out the same had we a chance to rewind history and play through with WotC retaining its independence.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In a general sense, they don't. But, in the context of how a company would do as the steward of the hobby, you are about to answer your own question...



The thing is... the world changes. Players change. Our understanding of good game design changes. If Paizo were to be the "steward", they'd eventually need to embrace change. What's good for right now is fine, but right now eventually becomes the past.

So, then there's two choices - continue as the steward by cribbing from others who use the OGL or a similar license, or create their own. They cannot depend on someone else creating a game good enough to crib from again in the future, so they would only guarantee their future as stewards by being able to create their own.

This. Paizo do what they do very well. Produce a long series of pretty good adventure paths with superb production values that are very enjoyable to read and fun to play. I do not in any way intend to denigrate what they do here - and they probably do it better than anyone else in the history of the hobby. They are deservedly the most successful new RPG company since White Wolf by doing what they do very well. On the other hand they produce only one game. That there is an ongoing edition war is a pretty clear indication that different people want different things out of RPGs.

And when I point out that this isn't the only skill needed I get accused of sour grapes when my take is the more playstyles supported the better. Paizo only supports one game and have shown neither inclination nor ability to do more than that so far as I am aware (and there is absolutely no reason they should have to). And "The steward of our hobby" needs to be trying to help as many as possible - a completely different approach to Paizo's 3.5 Thrives.

(And I'm not replying to Jason Bulmahn unless he actually says he wants a critique; I'm pretty sure he doesn't here).

 

[Wicht]

On the other hand they produce only one game. That there is an ongoing edition war is a pretty clear indication that different people want different things out of RPGs.

They produce only one RPG game. I think that's what you meant anyway, though its not what you said.

Though I'm not sure of the relevance of the point. There are RPG companies which produce multiple games (Green Ronin and Evil Hat both come to mind). And there are publishing companies that publish multiple games (Cubicle 7 for instance). And then there are some tried and true companies that produce only one game (Chaosium). In many cases the support for individual lines is pretty slim when a company diverges into multiple offerings. Likewise, the work put into these other games is no more intense than the work Paizo puts into their products. Doing one primary line, doing it better than anybody else, and growing into the largest or 2nd largest RPG company in the country is a pretty good record to run on, if you ask me.

As for skill's needed... Is there any other industry leader, excepting perhaps Steve Jackson, that has the breadth of experience to match Lisa Stevens'? If so, the list has to be pretty small.

 

[Wicht]

And I still would like an answer to the question I posed a little earlier...

 

[GreyLord]

Huh?

What does that even mean?

So far as I know they haven't rejected board games, miniatures, card games, adventures, maps, computer games, or even cosplay...

Is there some other part of the hobby I don't know about yet. Come-on, I've earned my DM stripes. I'm a high enough level! What secrets are you guys keeping from me?

I'd imagine it's because Paizo has NOT created anything for D&D outside of the Pathfinder and 3.5 lines. This is my supposition on what the author was thinking of, and in that light, Paizo hasn't really come out in support for what some consider the REAL D&D/AD&D as opposed to D20.

Now, this is what I think he may have been referring to, NOT THAT I AGREE completely with his conclusions. Taking the devil's advocate here however, he is correct in that Paizo has not really supported anything but the Pathfinder line, and with that, it is questionable whether they would be any better of a steward over D&D. Remember, WotC at least has the PDF's and REPRINTED the older edition core books.

Now, my thoughts on the matter.

First, Paizo is under no obligation at this point to support anything but their own products. In fact, they may get in legal problems if they try to support something that they do not have permission to support. They DO already have OSRIC and some OSR on their site for sale...that's somewhat promising. Therefore, I think it's VERY easy to see why they may not indicate great support for the other editions, as that's an easy way for some legal problems with WotC...and that's NOT what they want or need.

Also,aAs I already remarked, I think Paizo would make great stewards over the D20 versions (I think they may even do well with supporting a character builder and such for 4e maybe, and perhaps with better programming than what WotC had).

HOWEVER, with older versions, it's a REALLY iffy proposition. Many of them were with the WotC that had the aim to KILL OFF our beloved AD&D. At least, that's how MANY see it, and how many STILL see it, even to this day. Many of those gamers hadn't bought a book in years (if not decades though) as once you have the core books, why buy new ones or anything more with AD&D? In fact, even with the new premium releases, I STILL saw that sentiment from many of the older players that WotC lost in it's transition. Is it really worth trying to get the dollars of a million or two (or more) players that have no interest in the current hobby scheme, hobby shops, or anything that modern RPG's are offering, and typically don't spend money on anything new?

So, though there may be many of them, what they'll buy is another question. On the otherhand, I think we see the same thing happening with the older (yes, they are older now) 3e/3.5 players. Many of them bought the core books, and never really bought all the supplements and such that WotC released.

I think 4e's idea that everything was core was to try to get past this thing which players do, which is buy the core book and never get anything beyond that.

Pathfinder took a different slant, which is to provide adventures (I mean, that's not new rules, that's just additional adventure and stuff you can buy that adds nothing to the complexity or anything else of the game). I like this model, it's a grand model.

If they did that for older editions, if they were the stewards, it may work, I don't know. It's that type of support that I'd hope they would have...but I don't know...I have no idea if they would do that or not.



ON A DIFFERENT point...as far as PF creating it's own game...I view Pathfinder as a totally and completely different game than Dungeons and Dragons. It has it's roots (DEEP and STRONG roots even, basically even the same trunk and branch even) in the 3.5 edition, but there are vast changes in it that I feel make it a better game. The very way skills are determined at character creation, the way feats have been modified, the way the spells have been modified, how certain classes differ (in regards to hitdice, and other basic factors) in my mind, makes it a very DIFFERENT game than the Dungeons and Dragons that gave it birth.

We consider Palladium a different game than D&D, we consider most of the D20 games different games than D&D, and yet many of them are more similar than PF is to 3.5 to D&D (of course D20 was far more different from AD&D and 4e was far more different from 3e than most of those other systems as an opposition to my opinion, just to present both viewpoints), hence, why don't some consider PF it's OWN system able to stand on it's own.

Sure, it has compatibility, but at the same time, it is different enough, or perhaps we should call it evolved enough, that it truly stands on it's own as it's own game system.

In my opinion of course.

 

[Gundark]

This. Paizo do what they do very well. Produce a long series of pretty good adventure paths with superb production values that are very enjoyable to read and fun to play. I do not in any way intend to denigrate what they do here - and they probably do it better than anyone else in the history of the hobby. They are deservedly the most successful new RPG company since White Wolf by doing what they do very well. On the other hand they produce only one game. That there is an ongoing edition war is a pretty clear indication that different people want different things out of RPGs.

And when I point out that this isn't the only skill needed I get accused of sour grapes when my take is the more playstyles supported the better. Paizo only supports one game and have shown neither inclination nor ability to do more than that so far as I am aware (and there is absolutely no reason they should have to). And "The steward of our hobby" needs to be trying to help as many as possible - a completely different approach to Paizo's 3.5 Thrives.

(And I'm not replying to Jason Bulmahn unless he actually says he wants a critique; I'm pretty sure he doesn't here).

In fairness this response is better than your first one.

Paizo does market their brand of 3.5 well to their intended audience. Thus people who are in that audience are more inclined to say "yes" to the answer posed by the OP because currently Paizo speaks to what they like.

Could Paizo market well to those who are not in their intended audience? This is the real question the OP is asking. I'm skeptical on this. Admittedly I’m currently not in Paizo’s target audience so I may be more inclined to be skeptical than a fan of their product. Again they do what they do very well, and I have been constantly amazed at what they have accomplished with that one thing.
I suspect fiancés play into this. I’m sure that if they had the resources to do so they would have supported both PF and 4e. They had to choose and they chose the more logical option. They also may have tried to support a “PF lite” but most likely were only able to produce the beginner box with the hopes of hooking more people in. Despite being what I hear was a superb product they seem unwilling (for whatever reason) to support this with further products.
However to be the “steward” of D&D they would have to broaden their range and provide products to other play styles. I’m not a Paizo customer because I really despise 3e, and there is a good chunk of people like me (fans of other editions including 4e). How well could they walk this line between reeling people like me in and keeping the fans they have is unknown. It is a real risk to miss-step too far one side or the other, to cut unprofitable lines in favour for another, to be innovative with their products and to attempt to market D&D beyond their current fan base and to bring new customers in. Mistakes will be made, and they could end up shooting themselves in the foot like WotC has at times. People change positions, new Brand managers come and go, and somewhere along the line someone markets something foolishly. Paizo isn’t immune to this.
The interesting time for Paizo will be the years to come when sales of books begin to lag and bloat steps in more, when their Adventure paths begin to feel “samey”. I’ll be curious to see how well they navigate this and what they do.
Long story short, yes they do what they do well with what they have. Could they do it across the D&D fanbase? Colour me Skeptical.