Pathfinder 1E You're the CEO of PAIZO. Now What?

[Azgulor]

Because I don't want to see another OGL.

Pardon my French, but WTF?!?!

You do realize, don't you, that the successes of the Pathfinder APs, Pathfinder Modules, Golarion in general, and the PFRPG exist in part due to the existence of the OGL?!?

Clearly, Paizo took it, ran with it, made it their own, and reaped the benefits b/c of the quality of their product. But their business plan was possible because of the OGL. Consequently, without the OGL, you wouldn't have seen the multiple showpieces of RPG excellence of the past year -- and your desire for Paizo 4e content would likely be lessened.

Adding further to the confusion, if you don't want an OGL, why do you need anything that isn't WotC-generated? The GSL is collectively viewed as a joke, a lip-service nod to the OGL to say it isn't a closed system. If you don't like the OGL, then I sincerely hope that all your gaming needs are satsified with WotC.

Perhaps the thread title should be changed to "You're the CEO of Paizo. Now what do you do to increase the success of the company?" 'Cause what you're suggesting sure as hell isn't going to do that. Alternatively, may I suggest a forked thread: "You're the CEO of Paizo. How do you derail the company's success?"

I can appreciate the wishlist nature of many of the initial posts in this thread but this dog-on-a-bone digging-in-of-heels position of arguing the merits of 4e adoption when actual Paizo employees (including the CEO) have posted why it doesn't make business sense is, in a word, ridiculous.

 

[renau1g]

Well I'll comment that long before Pathfinder I thought Paizo was one of the best companies in the biz, I loved the quality of their adventures in the old Dungeon days.

 

[Betote]

Well I'll comment that long before Pathfinder I thought Paizo was one of the best companies in the biz, I loved the quality of their adventures in the old Dungeon days.

Same for me: when the first Pathfinder AP came out, to me it was something made by the guys who made Age of Worms.

Right now I'm happy that they write for a game I really like, but if they published their adventures for Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock RPG, I'd buy them anyway.

 

[JoeGKushner]

1. At least one Adventure Path that starts off at 10th level and takes the characters to 20th. For a redesigned 3.5 that 'fixed' problems, high level printed supported seems lacking.

2. Anthology of short adventurers like GOodman Games the Adventure Begins or old TSR products Book of Lairs/etc.... Make these non-core to the setting and just good adventurers.

3. Adventure Paths that are not six books long. A three parter. A longer printed adventurer, etc...

4. Larger map packs. The current ones are nice but limited in size. Some larger ones, perhaps even designed specficially to go with the erasable flip mat line.

5. Keep the fiction and the game line seperate. If the fiction line does awesome, detail the lands and places of the book before the book. If the fiction line continues to do well, put out a Hall of Heroes style adventure book.

6. Reduce the size/cost of the Pathfdiner adventure paths. Similiar to #3 but there should be no continous reason that an adventure path costs $120 to run, especially if some of the material is what some would consider 'extra' and can be removed and the page/price count lowered.

7. Interconnected Adventurers that are loosely connected. Things like WotC old A Heroe's Tale or Temple, Tower, Tomb where there are connections but the GM gets to customize a bit of it for his own group.

 

[Alzrius]

Because I don't want to see another OGL.

You know what? I don't want to see another OGL either...because the one we've got now rocks on toast.

 

[Dannager]

Pardon my French, but WTF?!?!

You do realize, don't you, that the successes of the Pathfinder APs, Pathfinder Modules, Golarion in general, and the PFRPG exist in part due to the existence of the OGL?!?

Yes, and I'm glad the OGL happened. It has its place in the gaming annals and continues to produce worthwhile material. I don't want to see one for 4th Edition, though. I like how the current edition is structured, I'm very pleased with the amount of supplementary material being put forward by WotC, and I do not believe that an OGL 2.0 is necessary to see solid, non-rules-supplement (read: adventures and campaign setting material) products come out of 3pp.

I mean, if what we keep hearing about the demand for 3pp 4e products is true (and I do question that as a blanket assumption), then it really doesn't matter whether there exists an OGL or GSL for the game.

I can appreciate the wishlist nature of many of the initial posts in this thread but this dog-on-a-bone digging-in-of-heels position of arguing the merits of 4e adoption when actual Paizo employees (including the CEO) have posted why it doesn't make business sense is, in a word, ridiculous.

I was simply responding to questions posed by Raven Crowking.

 

[PaizoCEO]

Has anyone at Paizo picked up the phone and tried?

No, we haven't. And the main reason is because licenses can be cancelled by the licensor. And I don't want to put manpower and money into a license ever again. Do you realize that we spent almost a million dollars on artwork for Dragon and Dungeon and we have absolutely nothing to show for it other than the money we made on the magazines? Now, I get to spend that money on building up a collection of artwork that we can leverage forever. I don't ever want to sink money into building up somebody else's IP. Especially when my own products are doing so well!

Lisa Stevens
CEO
Paizo Publishing

 

[PaizoCEO]

Thanks to everyone for the kind words. Especially those of you who said that you would give the CEO job back to me! Running a company is a pretty hard gig, but if you love what you do like I and my staff do, you put up with the hardships because the end result is getting to go to work each day and figure out how to make the game we all love to play that much better. I'll keep doing what we're doing and keep looking back here and on the Paizo boards for cool ideas from my bosses...you guys!

Lisa Stevens
CEO
Paizo Publishing

 

[Kafen]

*blinks at number of dollars spent on art* The number alone would be a serious reason to avoid mucking with a non Paizo project.

 

[BryonD]

I mean, if what we keep hearing about the demand for 3pp 4e products is true (and I do question that as a blanket assumption), then it really doesn't matter whether there exists an OGL or GSL for the game.

But it is not a blanket assumption regarding all things "4e 3PP". It is a statement of overwhelming pattern established by 3PP in existence so far, as constrained by the GSL.

Releasing 4E under the OGL would be a whole new ball game.
It would allow 3PPs to publish a wider range of ideas that would appeal to a wider range of players.
It would provide 3PPs with vastly more assurance that their fate was in their own hands. This would make the risk far more tolerable, which would result in more creative energy being invested.

There is really no question that the gaming community would benefit greatly from 4E being released under the OGL. (and there would be no need for an OGL 2.0, I think you may not understand how that works)

Now, that isn't to say that you need to believe that you would personally be better off.

And, far more importantly, it is not to say that WotC would greatly benefit. They might. But they most certainly might not. But it is their call and I fully respect that. They don't owe the gaming community anything. My endorsement of their authority on the matter is both 100% irrelevant and 100% in place.

But you are trying to disassociate the existing demand for 4e 3PP from the OGL/GSL issue. And those two issues are deeply connected.