Would Paizo Make a Better Steward for Our Hobby?

[Zardnaar]

Umm, 4ed? Like it or hate it, it is an innovation. DDI? Again, first of its kind for the hobby. Next? Lots and lots of innovation there.

What more do you want?

A D&D that doesn't suck.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Umm, 4ed? Like it or hate it, it is an innovation.

I disagree. What I see in 4e is a mix of all the fringe elements I disliked from earlier versions of D&D, with most of the stuff I do like stripped out, along with a bunch of other things appropriated from other games.

Also, to refer to [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] above, innovation has a positive connotation, and it's more important that something be good than simply different.

DDI? Again, first of its kind for the hobby.

The only really innovative thing I see about it is a paywall. Similar resources and compendiums and tools are available for other games, often for free.

Next? Lots and lots of innovation there.

I'm not seeing it.

What more do you want?

Quite a bit.

As I've said elsewhere, I want the same experience I had as a 2e player looking at 3e for the first time. The sense of "why weren't things always this way?". The quantum leap forward of mechanics. The open-ended aspiration to make a game that can do anything. The spirit of open gaming. The company doing actual research and the results being manifestly in the game. The marketing being classy. The books looking decent.

Mostly that first one, though. If I don't crack open the rules and immediately ask myself "why am I not doing things this way already?", it's not good enough.

 

[Hussar]

A D&D that doesn't suck.

But, that's not the question is it? It's not, "Do you like WOTC or 4e"? It's "What innovations has WOTC done in recent years". Whether or not you happen to like those innovations is irrelevant.

However, thank you for the drive by edition warring. That's so useful. The scales have fallen from my eyes now.

 

[Zardnaar]

I disagree. What I see in 4e is a mix of all the fringe elements I disliked from earlier versions of D&D, with most of the stuff I do like stripped out, along with a bunch of other things appropriated from other games.

Also, to refer to @Morrus above, innovation has a positive connotation, and it's more important that something be good than simply different.

The only really innovative thing I see about it is a paywall. Similar resources and compendiums and tools are available for other games, often for free.

I'm not seeing it.

Quite a bit.

As I've said elsewhere, I want the same experience I had as a 2e player looking at 3e for the first time. The sense of "why weren't things always this way?". The quantum leap forward of mechanics. The open-ended aspiration to make a game that can do anything. The spirit of open gaming. The company doing actual research and the results being manifestly in the game. The marketing being classy. The books looking decent.

Mostly that first one, though. If I don't crack open the rules and immediately ask myself "why am I not doing things this way already?", it's not good enough.

They did bring back the PDFs I suppose of previous editions. Not really innovative though.

 

[Hussar]

I disagree. What I see in 4e is a mix of all the fringe elements I disliked from earlier versions of D&D, with most of the stuff I do like stripped out, along with a bunch of other things appropriated from other games.

Also, to refer to @Morrus above, innovation has a positive connotation, and it's more important that something be good than simply different.

So, you are the sole judge of quality? "I don't like it, therefore it's bad" is pretty much what you've just said here.

Now, how do all these criticisms not equally apply to Paizo, if someone doesn't like Pathfinder? Does that mean that Paizo is not innovative?

The only really innovative thing I see about it is a paywall. Similar resources and compendiums and tools are available for other games, often for free.

Really? Every single 4e book, plus about 2-3000 pages of additional material (between Dungeon and Dragon magazines) in a single compendium, cross linked to a character builder. You see that in other games? For free? About the only thing that comes close is the 3e program whose name I've completely forgotten PCGEN is about as user friendly as a brick. The one that has lots and lots of the books, but, no character builder and no encounter builder.

I'm not seeing it.

Quite a bit.

As I've said elsewhere, I want the same experience I had as a 2e player looking at 3e for the first time. The sense of "why weren't things always this way?". The quantum leap forward of mechanics. The open-ended aspiration to make a game that can do anything. The spirit of open gaming. The company doing actual research and the results being manifestly in the game. The marketing being classy. The books looking decent.

Mostly that first one, though. If I don't crack open the rules and immediately ask myself "why am I not doing things this way already?", it's not good enough.

So, anyone looking at 3e and not liking it can say that 3e wasn't innovative? See, when I looked at 4e, that's exactly the reaction I had for most of the mechanics. "What am I not doing things this way already".

That's the problem with mistaking personal preference for actual criticism of something. Just because you like or don't like something has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it's good.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I agree with everything in your post except this one point. I suspect that the marketing value of the "D&D" name is still considerable despite Hasbro's many missteps. I hope that in the event that 5e does as well as 4e, Paizo will be in a position to buy it. Lets keep our fingers crossed.

When I refer to stigma, I don't mean 4E or the market split. I mean the wider perception of Dungeons and Dragons as a thing pimple-faced nerds play in their parents basement, or its demonic associations. D&D is a known, but disliked brand by society at large.

It may be easier to make Pathfinder into a household brand than it is to remove the D&D stigma.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So, you are the sole judge of quality? "I don't like it, therefore it's bad" is pretty much what you've just said here.

Not really. As I noted above, what I see around me in real life are a group of twenty-something, creative, intelligent people. Most of them know nothing of rpgs, which is a shame. Most that do are strictly 3e players, some play 2e or CoC or some other non-D&D rpg. None of them have played the "current" game for a while, and most of them have never heard of any of the specific controversies associated with 4e or 5e. As far as I know, the typical D&D player (not the typical online message board avatar) isn't even aware of the 5e playtest. These are people who used to call the WotC store daily when a book came out to see if the new release was in, but now they've just decided there's nothing worthwhile there. I think that's a referendum on WotC, and I think it's a shame.

In my social environment, I'm the only one who cares at all about these things. I can only speak to what I know.

Now, how do all these criticisms not equally apply to Paizo, if someone doesn't like Pathfinder? Does that mean that Paizo is not innovative?

Sure. I never said Paizo was innovative (in fact, I kind of said they weren't).

Really? Every single 4e book, plus about 2-3000 pages of additional material (between Dungeon and Dragon magazines) in a single compendium, cross linked to a character builder. You see that in other games? For free? About the only thing that comes close is the 3e program whose name I've completely forgotten that is about as user friendly as a brick. The one that has lots and lots of the books, but, no character builder and no encounter builder.

What I see when I look at the pfsrd is roughly 1000% of the functionality I could ever need. It's a very thorough rules compendium with a lot else tacked on. I don't know anything about character or encounter builders; I'm sure there are some but I don't know what someone would use that type of stuff for anyway.

So, anyone looking at 3e and not liking it can say that 3e wasn't innovative?

Sure. I'm sure plenty of games had numbers that scaled upwards and standardized skill systems. It was innovative specifically from the POV of a vested 2e player. I certainly wouldn't begrudge someone who saw it differently from a different perspective.

To be fair though, any critique in this area must acknowledge that there's nothing new under the sun. Ideas can be put together in new ways and presented differently, but there's very rarely going to be anything completely new hitting the gaming scene.

See, when I looked at 4e, that's exactly the reaction I had for most of the mechanics. "What am I not doing things this way already".

Truly mind-boggling.

That's the problem with mistaking personal preference for actual criticism of something. Just because you like or don't like something has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it's good.

How can we objectively judge the merits of any form of entertainment? As far as I'm concerned, this is an internet message board for roleplaying games, and we can either post personal opinions here, or nothing. The best we can do is compose persuasive arguments based on evidence, but they're still ultimately opinions.

 

[Sunseeker]

@shidaku
What would you call innovative? I haven't seen much in the past few years from WotC that I would call innovative either. Whatever innovation is happening, IMO is with smaller companies.

New approaches to old things. Being a "nice business" isn't a new approach, it's an old one people have forgotten.

I wouldn't particularly call WOTC successfully innovative, but I'd say the make a hearty attempt at trying than Paizo does.

It's clear that what you're looking for is a different kind of innovation. Something less iterative. Something surprising. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that.

Yes that's probably pretty accurate. Making a good car and continuing to make good cars is a fine strategy, it's obviously working quite well. But sometimes you need to break the mold and try something new, and I just don't get that sort of feeling from Paizo's approach. Where they are expanding, it's fairly obvious markets.

Innovative is not the same as creative. Paizo makes a lot of creative products, and those products encourage others to be creative as well.

 

[danbala]

When I refer to stigma, I don't mean 4E or the market split. I mean the wider perception of Dungeons and Dragons as a thing pimple-faced nerds play in their parents basement, or its demonic associations. D&D is a known, but disliked brand by society at large.

It may be easier to make Pathfinder into a household brand than it is to remove the D&D stigma.

In listening to podcasts with Lisa Stevens I was under the impression that the D&D brand still brings in a significant number of new players every month -- and that is with virtually no new products or promotion. Its a brand with significant cultural relevance so much so that it has become basically the generic name for role playing games. I understand from your comment that you feel that the brand also has some cultural baggage. But given how the brand continues to attract new players I would guess that attaching the brand to Pathfinder would be a net positive for both the brand and for pathfinder -- even if it also carried some stigma.

The question is whether Paizo could afford to pay what Hasbro is likely to require. I am fairly sure Paizo would not want to be roped into a new licencing arrangement given how that has turned out for them in the past. And all of this presupposes that 5e under performs.

Personally, would predict that: (1) 5e makes it to market, (2) it performs well by RPG standards but not well enough by Hasbro standards; (3) Hasbro decides not to sell it off so they can milk the ancillary licensing for video games and movies; and (4) after 3 years they mothball the RPG line. At that point Paizo buys a limited, irrevocable license for a fixed term to use the trademark of D&D in relation to Pathfinder. Several years later people have forgotten that Pathfinder (and its decedents) are not technically D&D.

 

[danbala]

sorry, double post