# Pathfinder OGL/3.5 RPG system from Paizo



## 13garth13 (Mar 18, 2008)

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG

On behalf of those 3.X fans, W00T!     

Cheers,
Colin


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Mar 18, 2008)

In the immortal words of Keanu Reeves, "Whoa."


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Mar 18, 2008)

*who will kill whom and take whose stuff?*

Am I correct in understanding that Paizo is releasing their own 3.75 (not just a "reprint" of 3.5)?

Best case scenario: a year from now, I will have two excellent RPGs to play.

Worst case scenario: some of the 0.25 added to 3.5 will be regarded as Paizo attempting to kill 4E and take its (non-OGL) stuff.  Paizo could be a big enough target for WotC's lawyers.  Paizo will either have to stick close to 3.5 (and all its flaws) or tread carefully.


----------



## carborundum (Mar 18, 2008)

Downloading now...

Making a choice on what to buy just got a whole lot harder.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Mar 18, 2008)

Philomath said:
			
		

> Am I correct in understanding that Paizo is releasing their own 3.75 (not just a "reprint" of 3.5)?
> 
> Best case scenario: a year from now, I will have two excellent RPGs to play.
> 
> Worst case scenario: some of the 0.25 added to 3.5 will be regarded as Paizo attempting to kill 4E and take its (non-OGL) stuff.  Paizo could be a big enough target for WotC's lawyers.  Paizo will either have to stick close to 3.5 (and all its flaws) or tread carefully.




The Pathfinder RPG will be their '3.75', but they won't start using it until August '09.  In the interim, Pathfinder stuff will be standard 3.5, with the alpha and beta versions of Pathfinder available in PDF (and later print).


----------



## Festivus (Mar 18, 2008)

Just quickly scanning, this does indeed look like 3.75 to me.  I'll wait to read the thing fully before making my mind up, but the 4E simplification of the game is very appealing to me.  

What I found most interesting was the whole Pathfinder organized play thing.  Very interesting development there.  For it to work however, the adventures can't have a cost component to them... at least for me to want to run them.


----------



## carborundum (Mar 18, 2008)

Wow - the boards are going to explode with debate on all these new rules - wizard school at will/ daily powers, combat feats, skill amalgamation, (ducks) grapple...

Lets's see how much ink I have in my printer....


----------



## JoshuaFrost (Mar 18, 2008)

Festivus said:
			
		

> Just quickly scanning, this does indeed look like 3.75 to me.  I'll wait to read the thing fully before making my mind up, but the 4E simplification of the game is very appealing to me.
> 
> What I found most interesting was the whole Pathfinder organized play thing.  Very interesting development there.  For it to work however, the adventures can't have a cost component to them... at least for me to want to run them.




We haven't set a price for the Pathfinder Society Scenarios, but I anticipate them being incredibly low since they'll (a) only be available in PDF and (b) will be much smaller than a normal Pathfinder Module, for example. I'm thinking it'll be a small fee to cover our cost of hiring someone to write them.

The other option available to you is that we're going to offer participating retail stores (details coming soon) the opportunity to run these events out of their stores for FREE. So everyone will have at least one option to participate in the Pathfinder Society.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Mar 18, 2008)

*Cross Posted From Other Thread*

Hell Yeah!!!!  
Fight that 800 pound gorilla! You Can Do IT!

As a long time suscriber to Dragon magazine. You already have my loyalty Piazo, and since I'm not switching to 4e and likely not buying from WoTC in the future looks like you can count on the about $400 a year I spent with them being thrown at your quality products instead.


----------



## Treebore (Mar 18, 2008)

Awesome! Awesome news! I applaud you guys for having the guts to be the flagship for continued 3E support. I wish Paizo great continued success! The only "bummer" news to me is that Necromancer will be your 4E support. I wish they would stay 3E too, but thats a whole different story...

Anyways, at least I won't have any problem making use of great ideas from my favorite companies in the business, Paizo, Necromancer, Green Ronin, and Goodman Games. Now to find out what Joe Browning is going to do. I am assuming Fiery Dragon and Fat Dragon will keep doing their thing, making their PDF's scalable to 3E and 4E miniatures rules, if needed.


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 18, 2008)

*BOOYEAH!!!*    

As a 3.5E-lover, I'm incredibly jazzed by this news! I'm already downloading the _Pathfinder RPG Alpha_ file, and I plan to give this a lot of attention in the months and years to come. Kudos to you, Paizo!

To borrow the company slogan of Sinister Adventures: Three-Pointe-Five Never Dies!


----------



## Treebore (Mar 18, 2008)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> The Pathfinder RPG will be their '3.75', but they won't start using it until August '09.  In the interim, Pathfinder stuff will be standard 3.5, with the alpha and beta versions of Pathfinder available in PDF (and later print).





The CEO out right says their version will have their rules ideas in it, so yes, its a bit of a "3.75", but they also say it leaves it open to "backwards compatibility", so presumably it will be useful by those sticking with 3.5, and those who stuck with 3.0, with ease.

They should work out a license with Troll Lords for the SIEGE engine, and be able to support players of every (OD&D up to 3.5E) edition of D&D with the SIEGE engine being the gateway.

Who knows? Maybe Paizo has developed their own "engine" which accomplishes the same thing.


----------



## morgul97 (Mar 18, 2008)

Isn't one of the big criticisms of WOTC that they basically made a few cosmetic changes to 3.5, stuck a new name on it, and forced everyone to pay again for a game system they already owned.  In other words, there is something of an underlying resentment out there in certain circles against 4.0 because people feel that WOTC cheated them with releasing 3.5, rather than doing real revisions and making it 4.0 at that point.

My question is, are people really going to pay a third time for the same materials, that still will likely have basically the same structural flaws that in large part prompted WOTC to create 4.0 at this point anyway?


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 18, 2008)

Great news!!!


----------



## trancejeremy (Mar 18, 2008)

I was really really really hoping that someone was going to do this.  I would have preferred Goodman, but Paizo is just as good (while I've had problems with their store, their products are top notch).


----------



## EricNoah (Mar 18, 2008)

This is a very exciting development.  I think having the option to play a well-supported 3.5 or 3.75 option is great.


----------



## Treebore (Mar 18, 2008)

morgul97 said:
			
		

> Isn't one of the big criticisms of WOTC that they basically made a few cosmetic changes to 3.5, stuck a new name on it, and forced everyone to pay again for a game system they already owned.  In other words, there is something of an underlying resentment out there in certain circles against 4.0 because people feel that WOTC cheated them with releasing 3.5, rather than doing real revisions and making it 4.0 at that point.
> 
> My question is, are people really going to pay a third time for the same materials, that still will likely have basically the same structural flaws that in large part prompted WOTC to create 4.0 at this point anyway?




Thats not what I got out of their announcement. They are putting together a rules package to support continued growth of the 3E market. If you aren't interested in their rules you don't need to buy them to keep finding the Pathfinder product line useful.

They do state that as of the release of 4E, 3E GOES OUT OF PRINT. Which means no rule book for new players once eBay dries up. So it is only smart of them to put out their own version to support any new players that come into the 3E fold. Plus I am always in to looking at new rules ideas, which is the only reason I am even looking at 4E.


----------



## Erik Mona (Mar 18, 2008)

Thanks, Eric! Your support means a lot!

--Erik


----------



## mara (Mar 18, 2008)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> This is a very exciting development.  I think having the option to play a well-supported 3.5 or 3.75 option is great.




I like it.  I've become increasingly ambivalent towards 4e and the alpha version looks like it works some of the things that were bugging me about 3.5.  I'd rather buy adventure paths than more splatbooks at this point.


----------



## JLandan (Mar 18, 2008)

*GO Paizo!*

GO Paizo!

I am so glad I got RotRL AP. It turned me on to a publisher that I hadn't really paid too much heed to before. Now I find they have a backbone and intend to stick with 3.5 (sort of), as I have myself. They now have a very loyal customer with money to spend on this hobby.

Repairman Jack


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 18, 2008)

Philomath said:
			
		

> Worst case scenario: some of the 0.25 added to 3.5 will be regarded as Paizo attempting to kill 4E and take its (non-OGL) stuff.  Paizo could be a big enough target for WotC's lawyers.  Paizo will either have to stick close to 3.5 (and all its flaws) or tread carefully.




I'm pretty certain that WotC's lawyers wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they did try to do something about this. All Paizo would have to do is point to the plethora of other alternate Player's Handbooks that were released between 2000 and 2008 and point to the terms in the OGL. Case dismissed. End of story. One of the things WotC is required to do if they ever would have wanted to protect their 3rd edition D20 game was (A) Not release an OGL that granted permission to add and modify rules, and (B) had they done A, go after anyone who had published such content. Since its gone for eight years unchallenged, they would have an uphill battle. The OGL is out there under the terms that you can use any version of it you wish, and there is no embedded end-date, so there's absolutely no legal reason people can't continue to use it.

That said, congrats to Paizo! I think this is a bold move from a bold company, and I like the way this is being handled. I like the fact that the new rules are being released for free in an open beta test, out in the open where people can use them, comment on them, and ultimately, help them make it better. I like the fact that they aren't going to some new proprietary system. 

I'm going to be watching this with great interest.


----------



## EricNoah (Mar 18, 2008)

As with 4E, my ability to fully jump on board with a Pazio edition of the game will depend on software availability -- or my ability to tweak eTools to do the job.  Even a fan-created program or spreadsheet would probably do.  If not -- I can take comfort in the fact that adventures and supplements for their edition will be pretty compatible with 3.5.


----------



## Vascant (Mar 18, 2008)

This was like my dream of, in a perfect world this would happen.  Thanks guys.


----------



## The_Gneech (Mar 18, 2008)

This ... could be huge.  

I admit, I didn't think Paizo would do it. I've never been happier to be proven wrong! 

I hereby make a motion that we dump the 4E forum and create a "Pathfinder RPG" forum instead!

Three cheers for Paizo!

*Hip, hip, hooray!
Hip, hip, hooray!
Hip, hip, hooray!*

I love you guys. 

-The Gneech


----------



## EricNoah (Mar 18, 2008)

I love the cleric and wizard so far.  Nice.  

I'm not a fan of spell resistance as a subsystem and am sorry to see it still in place.  But I've already house ruled it out of my 3.5 game and am sure I can do the same with Pathfinder.


----------



## Psion (Mar 18, 2008)

Out. Standing.


----------



## DItheringFool (Mar 18, 2008)

This is the greatest day since GenCon '07.

Congratulations Paizo!!!


----------



## EricNoah (Mar 18, 2008)

Yay, double post!


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Mar 18, 2008)

Downloaded the Alpha rules, and after a quick browse, I like the way it is going. I wonder if there's going to be a big migration of playtesters from ENW to the Paizo boards, or if there's going to be a Paizo "Eye in the Sky" hanging around here to catch any comments made on the developing rules in the coming year.


----------



## jdrakeh (Mar 18, 2008)

Wahoo! It's nice to see somebody going this route. It's a brave gamble to be certain, though I can say with confidence that I've just been sold 100% on Pathfinder products (I had put off buying a load of them, for fear that I wouldn't have anybody to play them with when 4e came out due to lack of any real competition for D&D 4e).


----------



## trancejeremy (Mar 18, 2008)

Hmmmm. After looking over the alpha rules, I like some of it, but other parts I don't, like them combining some of the skills.  There's a pretty big difference between being able to pick someone's pockets and opening a lock.  And Forgery being part of "Linguistics"? That's just weird.  Forging a document has nothign to do with knowing languages. If you want to get rid of it, make it "Craft-Forgery"

Also, is it just me, or are other PDFs missing "A"s in the headings? (Well, whenever a large font is used, like "T ble of Contents"  " LPH RELE SE 1"


----------



## Mr Baron (Mar 18, 2008)

*Great News!*

Quite the bold move for Paizo!  I am very excited about the news.  It feels like paizo has really positioned themselves well.  Pathfinder will basically be using a 3.75 rule set and Necro will be their 4th ed brand.  Sign me up!


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 18, 2008)

This is how playtesting should be.

Awesome stuff!


----------



## Richards (Mar 19, 2008)

This is EXCELLENT news!  I hope Paizo does extremely well with their Pathfinder RPG.

Johnathan


----------



## Nlogue (Mar 19, 2008)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Hmmmm. After looking over the alpha rules, I like some of it, but other parts I don't, like them combining some of the skills.  There's a pretty big difference between being able to pick someone's pockets and opening a lock.  And Forgery being part of "Linguistics"? That's just weird.  Forging a document has nothign to do with knowing languages. If you want to get rid of it, make it "Craft-Forgery"
> 
> Also, is it just me, or are other PDFs missing "A"s in the headings? (Well, whenever a large font is used, like "T ble of Contents"  " LPH RELE SE 1"




Cool!  Shoot your feedback over to the Paizo site.  That's the awesome thing about an open beta playtest.  Your opinions matter!  Rock!


----------



## Jason Bulmahn (Mar 19, 2008)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> I love the cleric and wizard so far.  Nice.
> 
> I'm not a fan of spell resistance as a subsystem and am sorry to see it still in place.  But I've already house ruled it out of my 3.5 game and am sure I can do the same with Pathfinder.




Thanks Eric.

Just because a rule currently is in there, does not mean that we will not change it if a better idea comes along. I would love to hear what you have done with SR.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer


----------



## Lord Zack (Mar 19, 2008)

I will be buying and playing 4e, however it seems like Pathfinder could get some of my time and money.


----------



## Henry (Mar 19, 2008)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; you simply cannot head off forking of the OGL with another license, because that's the way that the OGL was designed. This will either end up taking some of 4e's design elements (not all, surely), or this game will be the Castles and Crusades to someone else's OSRIC -- in other words, the guide post that shows the way to a 4e-mimicking OGL game.

But for what it is right now, it's an awesome milestone; I hope it goes far and gives Paizo some strong economic legs for many years.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Mar 19, 2008)

I've made my decision. I will be buying the 4E core rulebooks and the first two Forgotten Realms books for 4E, but the buck will stop there. After that I'll be sticking with 3.X.

 THANKS PAIZO!!


----------



## Bacris (Mar 19, 2008)

Wow.

I'm impressed.

I already have the alpha version and have been going through it...  It's sort of a best of both worlds from my perspective.  It has some of the things I liked about 4E, without some of the stuff I did not like.


----------



## Ripzerai (Mar 19, 2008)

morgul97 said:
			
		

> Isn't one of the big criticisms of WOTC that they basically made a few cosmetic changes to 3.5, stuck a new name on it, and forced everyone to pay again for a game system they already owned.  In other words, there is something of an underlying resentment out there in certain circles against 4.0 because people feel that WOTC cheated them with releasing 3.5, rather than doing real revisions and making it 4.0 at that point.
> 
> My question is, are people really going to pay a third time for the same materials, that still will likely have basically the same structural flaws that in large part prompted WOTC to create 4.0 at this point anyway?




They're not "forcing" you to buy their new rules - they're going to be available as free PDFs (at least, they are presently), and it sounds like you can continue to play Pathfinder modules using your 3e Player's Handbook.  But the new rules will exist if you want them, and they'll be the form in which "3e" remains in print for future generations of gamers.


----------



## Zaukrie (Mar 19, 2008)

I guess I'll be first to say I'm disappointed. I love Paizo's work, but I'm moving onto 4E unless there is some huge bugaboo that I'm not seeing yet. This cuts off one of the best avenues of adventures and fluff still in existence. Oh well, it will save me money I guess.


----------



## Bacris (Mar 19, 2008)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> I guess I'll be first to say I'm disappointed. I love Paizo's work, but I'm moving onto 4E unless there is some huge bugaboo that I'm not seeing yet. This cuts off one of the best avenues of adventures and fluff still in existence. Oh well, it will save me money I guess.




Can you blame them, though?

WotC taking so long to get 3rd Parties into the 4E ruleset has sort of forced this.


----------



## mhensley (Mar 19, 2008)

Wow, I don't know who's dumber in this situation- WotC for delaying the license for so long and pushing Paizo in this direction or Paizo for actually doing their own game.  If I said Paizo to anyone in my group they would say "bless you".  Outside of the hardcore D&D crowd who haunt messageboards, they have little name recognition.  Plus how many people said they don't want to upgrade from 3.5 or 3.0?  Why would they want to buy yet more rulebooks for what is essentially a minor rules update?  I have all the 3.5 stuff I need to last me for several years if I wanted to continue playing 3.5.  I certainly don't want to buy another set of core rulebooks for it.  Maybe when my rulebooks wear out... in another 5-10 years.  Plus they have to compete against all the other D&D clones out there, not just 4e.  Good luck to them, they're going to need it.


----------



## trancejeremy (Mar 19, 2008)

Nlogue said:
			
		

> Cool!  Shoot your feedback over to the Paizo site.  That's the awesome thing about an open beta playtest.  Your opinions matter!  Rock!




I've been trying to, actually, but their boards are sloooooow. Even slower than here. Guess everyone's downloading the PDF...


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 19, 2008)

I'll bet that somewhere, Ryan Dancey is smiling.


----------



## Kryndal Levik (Mar 19, 2008)

I'm unbelievably thrilled by this news- more so than I would have thought.  I'm looking forward to playing in Paizo's sandbox for a long time to come.


----------



## CaptainChaos (Mar 19, 2008)

Bacris said:
			
		

> Can you blame them, though?
> 
> WotC taking so long to get 3rd Parties into the 4E ruleset has sort of forced this.




Yeah, the whole OGL situation has become a train wreck.


----------



## stonegod (Mar 19, 2008)

Bacris said:
			
		

> WotC taking so long to get 3rd Parties into the 4E ruleset has sort of forced this.



It forced them to commit AP 3 to 3.5. It did not force them to do this. This seems to be a calculated business decision where they attempt to play both sides: Pro 3.5 (Paizo) and Pro 4E (Necro).

Its a gutsy move, and it will be an interesting experiment to see develop. I will be curious to see how things develop in 2-3 yrs time from here.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 19, 2008)

I love this idea.  I'm a big fan of the OGL; I'm not wholly dissatisfied with 3.5; and 4e hasn't been thrilling me.  I think WotC dropped the ball big time by sitting on the GSL, and I'll expect to see Paizo eventually develop their own version of the d20 license to let other companies that are 4e-reluctant support the Pathfinder line instead.

And with a projected release date of late 2009, Paizo has time to switch gears if 4e takes off; heck they might even save the $5000!


----------



## Zaukrie (Mar 19, 2008)

WotC's inability to get the GSL out is disturbing, no doubt. Frankly, I think they are delaying to force Paizo to do just this. Paizo was/is their biggest threat to the D&D dollar, now they've put themselves in a corner that will never get bigger, 3.5 fans.


----------



## Jack of Shadows (Mar 19, 2008)

Oh... My... God... (and I'm an atheist),

Just like to say to the folks at Paizo, you all have balls the size of small moons. I don't think gaming has ever had a coup this big. I know I, and any many of the other folks on ENWorld, will be watching this with intense interest. I've already DL'd the Alpha edition and am quickly reading through it. Really like what I see so far.

JoS


----------



## Bacris (Mar 19, 2008)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> now they've put themselves in a corner that will never get bigger, 3.5 fans.




I'll disagree with this.  

Nothing says they can't do 4E products later.

They had to make a decision, WotC left them no choice to either NOT make their products or use the 3.x ruleset.  They chose to use a modified 3.x ruleset, because no new products equals a cash flow problem.

2009 when 4E is generally available, it's still anybody's game.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Mar 19, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> If I said Paizo to anyone in my group they would say "bless you".  Outside of the hardcore D&D crowd who haunt messageboards, they have little name recognition.



Wow. That surprises me. The creators of so many Dungeon and Dragon magazines*, along with those Adventure Paths?



* which were found in small stores in small towns, among other places.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 19, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> If I said Paizo to anyone in my group they would say "bless you".  Outside of the hardcore D&D crowd who haunt messageboards, they have little name recognition.




I disagree. WotC putting Dragon and Dungeon magazines into their hands set them on the map very well. The move was initially unpopular and there was a noticeable difference in terms of art and layout. Both magazines appear to have not only succeeded but excelled under their stewardship and there was a great deal of people who were disappointed when the magazine left the newsstands to go online, once more under WotC. People who knew Dragon and Dungeon know Paizo. This is DMs and this is players. Paizo is not small and of all the D20 publishers, they are the one that sits best to challenge WotC in this manner.



> Plus how many people said they don't want to upgrade from 3.5 or 3.0?  Why would they want to buy yet more rulebooks for what is essentially a minor rules update?




They said themselves that upcoming Pathfinder products will be backward compatible. This means that you won't have to invest in a new set of rules to continue playing new Pathfinder adventures. When and if people want to buy new books, they'll be available and apparently in a format that will make the game even easier to play.

Its a good move, provided that enough people decide not to switch to 4E, or that the people who do switch are unhappy with it. Personally, I intend to play both sides of the fence.


----------



## trancejeremy (Mar 19, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Wow, I don't know who's dumber in this situation- WotC for delaying the license for so long and pushing Paizo in this direction or Paizo for actually doing their own game.  If I said Paizo to anyone in my group they would say "bless you".  Outside of the hardcore D&D crowd who haunt messageboards, they have little name recognition.  Plus how many people said they don't want to upgrade from 3.5 or 3.0?  Why would they want to buy yet more rulebooks for what is essentially a minor rules update?  I have all the 3.5 stuff I need to last me for several years if I wanted to continue playing 3.5.  I certainly don't want to buy another set of core rulebooks for it.  Maybe when my rulebooks wear out... in another 5-10 years.  Plus they have to compete against all the other D&D clones out there, not just 4e.  Good luck to them, they're going to need it.




I think you are missing the point of putting out a rulebook - it's essentially keeping 3.x D&D in print. Sure, once 4e comes out, 3.x rulebooks won't vanish, but they won't be sold anymore in stores, most likely (other than in the used section)

And believe it or not, there are some people who still actually like d20/3.x D&D. Those are who Paizo are catering to. That and people who already know Paizo and buy their products. I don't see how converting to 4e would make their name better known. WOTC is doing everything they can to push 3rd parties out of the picture for 4e.


----------



## rom90125 (Mar 19, 2008)

I am really geeked about this.  With the Pathfinder RPG and C&C, I'm set for the future.  Now, if Monte would get back into the business....


----------



## kenobi65 (Mar 19, 2008)

JoshuaFrost said:
			
		

> We haven't set a price for the Pathfinder Society Scenarios, but I anticipate them being incredibly low since they'll (a) only be available in PDF and (b) will be much smaller than a normal Pathfinder Module, for example. I'm thinking it'll be a small fee to cover our cost of hiring someone to write them.




As a longtime RPGAer, the Pathfinder Society interests me, as well.

Can you (or Nicolas) say how many scenarios you plan on releasing per year?  IME, not getting enough scenarios out, on a regular basis, is one of the biggest problems that some of the OP campaigns (RPGA and otherwise) have faced.


----------



## Gryffyn (Mar 19, 2008)

Now these guys know what makes gamers tick.  Open playtest based on OGL rules than we can all play around with?  Awesome.  A first skimming of the Pathfinder playtest rules already has two of my main group very excited.

Their new grapple rules are so much easier and more like actual wrestling, it's almost stupid.  I love it.  Can't wait to read the whole thing.


----------



## crazy_cat (Mar 19, 2008)

Very exciting news - good luck to Paizo.


----------



## an_idol_mind (Mar 19, 2008)

I think this is great news.

Fans of D&D have yet another option now in terms of supported games. If 4th edition is awesome, that's great. If it's not your cup of tea, you can still play 3.(7)5 with Pathfinder, and it will have support from the guys who do some of the best modules in the business.

For Paizo, they'll still be able to go back to 4th edition if this doesn't pan out. But if Pathfinder is doing as well as they say, there's a good chance that it can support an RPG of its own.

I don't understand those who think that Paizo is automatically going to go broke because they aren't jumping onto the 4th edition train, either. Hackmaster has done well enough, despite catering to old fans, as has Castles & Crusades. The game won't match D&D's numbers, but I don't see why it shouldn't be able to carve out a niche for its own, especially if Paizo continues providing top notch support for the rules and setting. Quality will sell, as long as Paizo markets it well.


----------



## JoshuaFrost (Mar 19, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> If I said Paizo to anyone in my group they would say "bless you". Outside of the hardcore D&D crowd who haunt messageboards, they have little name recognition.




I'm glad our sales numbers refute your opinion or else we'd be in trouble. 



			
				kenobi65 said:
			
		

> As a longtime RPGAer, the Pathfinder Society interests me, as well.
> 
> Can you (or Nicolas) say how many scenarios you plan on releasing per year?  IME, not getting enough scenarios out, on a regular basis, is one of the biggest problems that some of the OP campaigns (RPGA and otherwise) have faced.




A minimum of two per month with 4+ for Origins and Gen Con. Frankly, the appetite of our Pathfinder Society members will determine our volume, but these are our targets for Season 0.


----------



## Treebore (Mar 19, 2008)

Bacris said:
			
		

> I'll disagree with this.
> 
> Nothing says they can't do 4E products later.
> 
> ...




I agree. Thinking that PAIZO has chained themselves to 3E for all eternity is exactly why they will continue to surprise people.

This is an extremely smart business decision. How long the 3E thing lasts is entirely up to the 3E consumer. When the 3E market dies out (if it does) PAIZO will then jump onto the 4E bandwagon.


Besides, this is the only thing they could do and stay in business with WOTC being too incompetent to get out the rules, etc... in a timely fashion. The realities of business often force hard and somewhat painful decisions.


----------



## Zaukrie (Mar 19, 2008)

I didn't mean to say they had chained themselves to 3.5, merely that they were going after what I assume is a market segment that is not likely to grow over time. They are, of course, perfectly free to move to 4E if they want, but that isn't what they've just announced they are hooking their future to, so I'm not sure why I'd comment on that rather than the decision they just announced. Sorry, but of the three game stores around here, only 1 (admittedly the largest) carries much Paizo at all. I can't imagine the smaller game stores taking the chance of having more stuff sitting on their shelves.

People that disagree with you (not Paizo, some posters) aren't necessarily stupid, btw. Some of us even have masters degress in marketing and are compensated very well for our business acumen.


----------



## Kishin (Mar 19, 2008)

I was wondering if I'd still play some 3.5E once 4E came out. I guess this answers the question.

Paizo has put out top quality product in the past, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let a change in editions deny me that.

I know what I'll be picking up at GenCon this year.


----------



## Bacris (Mar 19, 2008)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> People that disagree with you (not Paizo, some posters) aren't necessarily stupid, btw.




I wasn't attempting to insinuate you were and my apologies if it came across that way.    A disagreement is just that - a disagreement.  It doesn't mean I think you're unintelligent or ignorant.

As for their market segment... OSRIC has managed to draw people back to OD&D, even if not en masse.  Gamers can be weird like that.  At least, I think so, since I'm a gamer and I'm weird like that.


----------



## GVDammerung (Mar 19, 2008)

Oh, YES!  Oh, YES!  Oh, YES!  I disliked 3x to the point I wanted a 4e and was then turned off by Wotc's radical vision.  An upgraded 3.75 fully backwards compatible and married to Paizo's outstanding design on Pathfinder and the Gamemastery line sounds OUTSTANDING!  Way to go Paizo!  You've got my money.


----------



## Dagredhel (Mar 19, 2008)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> I hereby make a motion that we dump the 4E forum and create a "Pathfinder RPG" forum instead!




Agreed.  And each post will be required to use the word "cool" at least twice.


----------



## +5 Keyboard! (Mar 19, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> Wow, I don't know who's dumber in this situation- WotC for delaying the license for so long and pushing Paizo in this direction or Paizo for actually doing their own game.




I do hope someone keeps this part of your post to bring back a few years from now as Paizo is flourishing with their products. And FWIW, as has been said before, a current print form of a PHB is necessary for the ongoing existence of a 3.whatever to continue to bring in new players. WOTC will not be continuing to print 3E PHBs, obviously, so Paizo has taken up that necessary step and have made an attempt to fix a lot of the problems that people have been complaining about for years and put their own personal stamp on it. 

Time will tell whether they are geniuses for seizing this golden opportunity or short sighted fools. My $$$$ is on the first.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 19, 2008)

Kishin said:
			
		

> I know what I'll be picking up at GenCon this year.




The Beta?  The final (Omega?) won't be until August 2009.  Also, note that the beta pdf will be free.


----------



## Zaukrie (Mar 19, 2008)

(((not sure who's comment annoyed me, but there is a general tone here sometimes that people that disagree with people are stupid, not sure why people get that way, but we do)))

Oh, we gamers are an odd lot (collectors many of us, we just keep buying more and more adventures and books, among other oddities). I think there is clearly space for this move, and I think they'll make money for some time, I'm just not sure how much or for how long. New editions come out for a reason.

That said, I really like most of Paizo's work, and for that reason alone I hope they are successful. I'm personally bummed, as I'm moving onto 4E, and I won't benefit from their work now, probably, at least for some time.


----------



## Treebore (Mar 19, 2008)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> I didn't mean to say they had chained themselves to 3.5, merely that they were going after what I assume is a market segment that is not likely to grow over time. They are, of course, perfectly free to move to 4E if they want, but that isn't what they've just announced they are hooking their future to, so I'm not sure why I'd comment on that rather than the decision they just announced. Sorry, but of the three game stores around here, only 1 (admittedly the largest) carries much Paizo at all. I can't imagine the smaller game stores taking the chance of having more stuff sitting on their shelves.
> 
> People that disagree with you (not Paizo, some posters) aren't necessarily stupid, btw. Some of us even have masters degress in marketing and are compensated very well for our business acumen.





I didn't say you were stupid, I only said "they" would be stupid if they think PAIZO was stupiid enough to irrevocably chain themselves to the 3E market.

So my use of "you" was in no way meant as a "personal you", but as a generalization.

But if you and your Masters degree has a better idea for PAIZO then by all means shoot them a proposal. Their goal is to stay in business and supply us with top quality gaming goodies.


----------



## GVDammerung (Mar 19, 2008)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> . . . they were going after what I assume is a market segment that is not likely to grow over time.




You know what they say about what happens when you "assume."      With the open playtest, the organized play and Paizo's superior quality product - and established and very loyal fan base - there is no reason to imagine that Paizo can't grow the segment.

This is the thing I think people have been missing in all the 4e hubbub - the 3x rules set is OPEN and can then be MODIFIED and IMPROVED to produce what will be a NEW version of THE WORLD'S MOST POPULAR ROLELAYING GAME.  The OGL is a sword and has been waiting for someone to pick it up and figure out how to swing it now that Wotc has moved on and left the very popular 3x field open.  Paizo has pulled the sword from the stone.


----------



## Michael Dean (Mar 19, 2008)

Well, as someone who has thousands of dollars worth of 3.0 and 3.5 material on his bookshelves, and has been getting steadily more lukewarm about 4.0 as more information comes out about it, this is very good news.  One of the things I love about the OGL is the sheer volume of creativity that many different designers have put into it, so I have no qualms about a "3.75" from Paizo.  I'll still buy 4.0 when it comes out to see what they've done, but I cannot see myself spending the kind of money I have over the last 10 years on WOTC products.  It will have to be a real standout product for me to do so as I've been (somewhat) underwhelmed by Wizards' releases the last three or four years.  But Paizo I can trust; their Adventure Paths have been great and the Gamemastery Modules as well.

So good luck to Paizo!


----------



## timespike (Mar 19, 2008)

morgul97 said:
			
		

> Isn't one of the big criticisms of WOTC that they basically made a few cosmetic changes to 3.5, stuck a new name on it, and forced everyone to pay again for a game system they already owned.  In other words, there is something of an underlying resentment out there in certain circles against 4.0 because people feel that WOTC cheated them with releasing 3.5, rather than doing real revisions and making it 4.0 at that point.
> 
> My question is, are people really going to pay a third time for the same materials, that still will likely have basically the same structural flaws that in large part prompted WOTC to create 4.0 at this point anyway?




Download & read the alpha material. Besides, it's all going to be in ONE massive $50 book rather than 3 $30 ones. A saving of $40 cover price ALONE. And we all know almost nobody buys RPG books at cover price.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 19, 2008)

IuztheEvil said:
			
		

> Thanks Eric.
> 
> Just because a rule currently is in there, does not mean that we will not change it if a better idea comes along. I would love to hear what you have done with SR.
> 
> ...



 Jason,

First of all, congrats! Pathfinder RPG is shaping up nicely. I specially like the wizard school powers (including Universal) and the "energy burst" feel of Turning (although I must say, I'd remove the "fleeing" part of Turning, and in fact change the name to reflect the Healing/Damaging aspects).

I am eager to see what you did to the Paladin, since it was the first class I messed up with when I was starting my own 3.75 notes (I'd like to share those with you if you don't mind).

My one criticism? The racial line-up image. Specifically, that Herculean elf! That doesn't look frail to me!

At any rate. kudos!


----------



## kenobi65 (Mar 19, 2008)

JoshuaFrost said:
			
		

> A minimum of two per month with 4+ for Origins and Gen Con. Frankly, the appetite of our Pathfinder Society members will determine our volume, but these are our targets for Season 0.




Cool.  I think that one a month is the bare minimum that a campaign can get away with and keep players interested, so, if you can meet that, you should be in good shape.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Mar 19, 2008)

carborundum said:
			
		

> Wow - the boards are going to explode with debate on all these new rules - wizard school at will/ daily powers, combat feats, skill amalgamation, (ducks) grapple...




... ranged cover... 

-Hyp.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Mar 19, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> My one criticism? The racial line-up image. Specifically, that Herculean elf! That doesn't look frail to me!




Ditto. Aside from this nitpick-congratulations Paizo!


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Mar 19, 2008)

This is just to cool .the sher awesomeness is to much. I have downloaded alpha and use alot of the same changes in my houserules  gods I love this great work looking forward to more .


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 19, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> My one criticism? The racial line-up image. Specifically, that Herculean elf! That doesn't look frail to me!




True, they do look like they're carved from stone, and not in a good way. I'd like to see the elf going back to shorter than humans rather than taller, and please please please shrink those ears back down.

Other than that one illustration, this is looking pretty sweet.


----------



## Thurbane (Mar 19, 2008)

My luv of Paizo knows no bounds!


----------



## Sunderstone (Mar 19, 2008)

One problem with the alpha.... now I cant wait to see the next 2 installments of it. 

Great stuff so far. Youve got my money.


----------



## trancejeremy (Mar 19, 2008)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> This is the thing I think people have been missing in all the 4e hubbub - the 3x rules set is OPEN and can then be MODIFIED and IMPROVED to produce what will be a NEW version of THE WORLD'S MOST POPULAR ROLELAYING GAME.  The OGL is a sword and has been waiting for someone to pick it up and figure out how to swing it now that Wotc has moved on and left the very popular 3x field open.  Paizo has pulled the sword from the stone.




Really, Paizo is just the latest company to do this.  Troll Lord has its C&C. Green Ronin has True 20. Mongoose has Conan d20, among other d20 variants, and other game systems like Runequest and Traveller.

I think since they are going after the market that is relatively happy with 3.x (wheras earlier variants went after people who didn't like 3.x), they need to keep it as compatible to 3.5 as possible. Fix some of the major problems (Polymorph, grappling) but leave the core alone.

Anyway, I think this move had to be made eventually. if Paizo hitched their wagon to WOTC and 4e completely, they'd basically be entirely at their mercy in the future.  4e isn't nearly as open as 3.x was. What's to say what 5e will be like when it comes out 6-7 years from now? It might be completely closed. Paizo would be in real trouble then.  This is probably the best time for them to diversify.


----------



## coyote6 (Mar 19, 2008)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Forging a document has nothign to do with knowing languages. If you want to get rid of it, make it "Craft-Forgery"




That doesn't get rid of it as a separate skill, it just hides it (they haven't changed Craft, so you still have to take each specialty as an entirely separate skill).

My split-second look $0.02: Sense Motive being rolled up with Bluff doesn't make much sense to me; IME, the liars (who've been at least somewhat skilled) I've known haven't been spectacular judges of character; they get conned, too. I kind of like the Saga (IIRC) solution, where Sense Motive is part of Perception. That does leave Bluff kind of by itself, though.


----------



## Zaukrie (Mar 19, 2008)

There are actually many reasons to imagine that they won't be able to grow the market. That said, I think the Paizo people are quite smart, and they've spent more time analyzing this (with more data) than I have. I'm not sure why I even posted here, I knew any dissenting voice would get roasted.

Seriously, good luck Paizo. I've enjoyed most of your products immensely.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Mar 19, 2008)

This is great. I'm downloading right now to take a look see, but I'm really excited.

Only thing that would get me more excited?

Paizo monthly "Dragon/Dungeon" magazines.


----------



## trancejeremy (Mar 19, 2008)

coyote6 said:
			
		

> That doesn't get rid of it as a separate skill, it just hides it (they haven't changed Craft, so you still have to take each specialty as an entirely separate skill).




Well, I thought their motive was to "hide" it, so to speak, because it was such a rarely used skill and cluttered up the skill chart.  I mean, how many people play Forgers? But it could be useful for some archetypes, like a con-man, or a mission impossible sort of game.  So it's worth keeping, just tucked away.


----------



## Starman (Mar 19, 2008)

I think this is fantastic news. I'm thrilled with a slightly tweaked 3.5 now and it makes me very happy to see that there will still be some support for it. I do plan to get 4E when it hits the shelves, but more because I know that a lot of people will be switching and not necessarily because I'm really excited about it. It doesn't look bad, but like I said, 3.5 and some house rules have given me a lot of gaming pleasure.


----------



## trancejeremy (Mar 19, 2008)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> There are actually many reasons to imagine that they won't be able to grow the market. That said, I think the Paizo people are quite smart, and they've spent more time analyzing this (with more data) than I have. I'm not sure why I even posted here, I knew any dissenting voice would get roasted.




Well, the thread for dissenting viewpoints seems to be the one in the 4e forum.


----------



## blargney the second (Mar 19, 2008)

Nifty!  I love what you did with the fighter.

Next things I'd love to see on the chopping block: 2 skill points per level and cross-class skills.  Honestly, they're just fiddly and don't increase the fun.
-blarg


----------



## jdrakeh (Mar 19, 2008)

Right now, I'm merely impressed that Paizo seems to have done in 66 pages what many other publishers have taken 120 pages or more to do _and_ remain compatible with D&D 3x. Even C&C is well over 100 pages in length, while dumping nearly all of the crunchy bits that endear people to 3x in the first place. It looks like Pathfinder has managed to retain that crunch while simultaneously streamlining several areas frequently criticized by 3x fans. IMHO, that's quite a feat.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 19, 2008)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> There are actually many reasons to imagine that they won't be able to grow the market. That said, I think the Paizo people are quite smart, and they've spent more time analyzing this (with more data) than I have. I'm not sure why I even posted here, I knew any dissenting voice would get roasted.
> 
> Seriously, good luck Paizo. I've enjoyed most of your products immensely.



I'm not trying to pile on here, but I think the problem is that you haven't got enough information, not that you're a dissenting voice.  Before today, the Pathfinder RPG market was 0, because there was no Pathfinder RPG.  Now they've got a potential market of thousands.  If the Pathfinder RPG core book gets 10% of the 3.5-playing crowd, it'll probably be the best selling 3rd-party OGL book ever.

The fact is, there's a market for "nostalgic" game editions -and- D&D variant games - Hackmaster, OSRIC, C&C, Arcana Evolved, Spycraft, Thieves' World, Black Company, Conan - all have proven that.  Pathfinder could be both, AND a continuation of 3.5, an existing and popular ruleset. The 3rd-party market is already shrinking, and 4e is going to shrink it further.  That's an opportunity for Paizo.  Creating a "Pathfinder" license could also allow them to leverage the OGL into garnering support from other companies - Pathfinder Conan, for instance.


----------



## crow81 (Mar 19, 2008)

To Paizo 

Thank you very much

I hated the idea of Living Greyhawk ending. I had no plans to move to 4th ed (It just doesn't feel like D&D to me) Now I know which direction I am heading.

Rich


----------



## Retreater (Mar 19, 2008)

I do hope this works out for Paizo. I've always liked their work. And I commend them on sticking with 3.5 in spite of the 4e juggernaut.

However, I think Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might looks more revolutionary in its design. I would like to be able to play both before making a definite judgement.

Retreater


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Mar 19, 2008)

Retreater said:
			
		

> I do hope this works out for Paizo. I've always liked their work. And I commend them on sticking with 3.5 in spite of the 4e juggernaut.
> 
> However, I think Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might looks more revolutionary in its design. I would like to be able to play both before making a definite judgement.
> 
> Retreater




It's hardly an apples-to-apples comparison between  a one-shot, finished product on the one hand and an beta product that's intended as a complete platform and is also a year and a half away from completion.


----------



## SPoD (Mar 19, 2008)

So in the space of a year, WOTC's biggest ally becomes WOTC's biggest competitor, and they literally have only themselves to blame (since they put Paizo out of the magazine business AND failed to cut them in on 4E in a timely fashion). Paizo's golem logo is particularly apt today, because Wizards has created a monster that threatens to run amok over their business.

Why do I feel like someone in Renton is going to get fired over this? Probably someone we've never heard of, but SOMEONE.


----------



## freyar (Mar 19, 2008)

Retreater said:
			
		

> I do hope this works out for Paizo. I've always liked their work. And I commend them on sticking with 3.5 in spite of the 4e juggernaut.
> 
> However, I think Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might looks more revolutionary in its design. I would like to be able to play both before making a definite judgement.
> 
> Retreater



 Well, the beauty of the OGL is that Paizo can use what works out of BoXM (and other 3rd party rulesets) for their version of 3.X.  Judging from Pathfinder so far, I'd say Paizo understands that far better than WotC ever has.


----------



## lmpjr007 (Mar 19, 2008)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> I didn't mean to say they had chained themselves to 3.5, merely that they were going after what I assume is a market segment that is not likely to grow over time. They are, of course, perfectly free to move to 4E if they want, but that isn't what they've just announced they are hooking their future to, so I'm not sure why I'd comment on that rather than the decision they just announced.



But the point it think you might be missing it that the 3.5 market CAN now actually grow.  WOTC and Paizo are always looking to recruit NEW players to their systems and new people are being introduced to D&D and D20 all the time.  Instead of connecting Paizo to WOTC, this move now ties Paizo to a large fan base of people who already know they people putting out a new setting and best of all ALREADY know the rules to play.  With all this Paizo is starting their own Organized Play system to recruit new people to play 3.5.  I think they have done a great job thinking about how to get more fans and customers.


----------



## Khairn (Mar 19, 2008)

oh HELL YES !

And hiring Nick L on top of it?

You guys are my heroes!


----------



## nutluck (Mar 19, 2008)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to pile on here, but I think the problem is that you haven't got enough information, not that you're a dissenting voice.  Before today, the Pathfinder RPG market was 0, because there was no Pathfinder RPG.  Now they've got a potential market of thousands.  If the Pathfinder RPG core book gets 10% of the 3.5-playing crowd, it'll probably be the best selling 3rd-party OGL book ever.
> 
> The fact is, there's a market for "nostalgic" game editions -and- D&D variant games - Hackmaster, OSRIC, C&C, Arcana Evolved, Spycraft, Thieves' World, Black Company, Conan - all have proven that.  Pathfinder could be both, AND a continuation of 3.5, an existing and popular ruleset. The 3rd-party market is already shrinking, and 4e is going to shrink it further.  That's an opportunity for Paizo.  Creating a "Pathfinder" license could also allow them to leverage the OGL into garnering support from other companies - Pathfinder Conan, for instance.




I was going to comment on this as well. I am not sure if their sales will be better or not. But lets say their is 100K people that buy 3e stuff or did. Lets say Paizo sold to 10% of them or 10k. If when 4e comes out and keeps 80% of the players, the other 20% most of them will likely stick with 3.x like those that didn't move on from 1e and 2e found C&C and hackmaster ect to play. So if even most of that 20% jumps on with Paizo they will have a big increase. If even half does they break even.

I am not saying they will or won't make more money. Only that they use to have a small piece of a very big pie and now they will have a huge piece of a much smaller pie. With the OGL and them keeping Pathfinder RPG OGL. If they can get some other companies to join up. Like say TrueD20 adapts or Conan D20 does, or even just all those little 3e companies out their that make splat books. If the GSL is to restrictive it gives all the other current 3e companies big and small a choice.

Plus I think things are different and not like the switch from 2e to 3e was. 2e was dieing off, other companies like White Wolf was storming the gates. 3e came out and retook things back and became the big boy on the block again. This time while some people have left 3e I think the numbers are MUCH smaller than those that had left 2e and I think those unhappy with 3e is smaller. Most of them don't have major complaints about 3e but a lot of little ones which they new game might fix.

I just wanted to point all this out. In the end i don't know if I will play Pathfinder RPG, 4e or go back to Rolemaster or something. But I will try both and see and either way i will almost for sure keep buying Paizo stuff and adopting it to which ever system I play. As long as it is good products, this move makes me like them as a company even more than I did even if I don't end up playing Pathfinder RPG.


----------



## jmucchiello (Mar 19, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Paizo monthly "Dragon/Dungeon" magazines.



Well, they can't call them that. Maybe... Finder Magazine and Path Magazine.

It'd be really cool if they reached out to 3rd party pubs.


----------



## Treebore (Mar 19, 2008)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Well, they can't call them that. Maybe... Finder Magazine and Path Magazine.
> 
> It'd be really cool if they reached out to 3rd party pubs.




I would be all over that!! I HATE the digital initiative, I want my print!


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Mar 19, 2008)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Well, they can't call them that. Maybe... Finder Magazine and Path Magazine.




How about Dragonz and Dungeonz? 



> It'd be really cool if they reached out to 3rd party pubs.




I'm hoping there is other 3rd party support myself. That would be awesome.


----------



## JDragon (Mar 19, 2008)

GO PAIZO!!!!

I like many other here have been on the fence about 4E for most of the time its existence has been known.

I'm not sure yet as I have just barely scratched the Alpha Rules PDF, but this already has a much higher interest level for me that 4e has since it was announced.

I love the fact that they are going to be doing the open play test, this will really let the people that care about the game get themselves heard. (Sorry I just don't really think WotC has done that so far.)

I'll shortly be sending an email to most everyone I know that plays D&D with the news, just in case they have not seen it.

GO PAIZO!!!!

JD


----------



## Zinegata (Mar 19, 2008)

While I haven't decided whether or not I'd switch 4E or Pathfinder (or stick to 3.5 ), I must say this was a shrewd and gutsy move on Paizo's part.

I think you may have just cornered a good, strong niche for yourselves.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 19, 2008)

SPoD said:
			
		

> So in the space of a year, WOTC's biggest ally becomes WOTC's biggest competitor, and they literally have only themselves to blame (since they put Paizo out of the magazine business AND failed to cut them in on 4E in a timely fashion). Paizo's golem logo is particularly apt today, because Wizards has created a monster that threatens to run amok over their business.
> 
> Why do I feel like someone in Renton is going to get fired over this? Probably someone we've never heard of, but SOMEONE.




If you think that Paizo is a competitor to WotC, you're fooling yourself. The majority of Paizo's customers will come from the anti-4e minority who were never really going to 4e anyway, and the rest of their customers will come from cannibalizing customers from C&C, True20, Arcana Evolved, Conan d20, and other D&D clones.

Paizo will probably do quite alright for themselves. I expect them to dominate the d20 OGL market, although Crafty Games upcoming Fantasy Craft may have something to say about that.

But seriously impacting WotC's business? I don't think so. Thats like saying a high school football team can play in the NFL. WotC has the name, the marketing power, and the brand on their side. Plus I have played 4e and I know it rocks. The problem with Pathfinder is I have played 3.5 and I know it doesn't.


----------



## drjones (Mar 19, 2008)

I'm wondering about the open playtesting.  In particular I am wondering how thankless the job of being the guy who decides on the rules when a peek at many of the conversations on this and paizos boards shows that there is a very loud argumentative group of true fans who all seem to want different things from the game.

I guess the idea of a democracy of Comic Book Guys seems like it might come up with a better game than one guy working towards a deadline but would you really want to be the one moderating that discussion?  And then to have to take the hate when you go with Camp A instead of Camp B on gnome ear size or whatever.


----------



## Zelligars Apprentice (Mar 19, 2008)

I just want to add my voice to the loud cheering going on here for Paizo.  I think this is great news, and a shrewd business move.  I love the idea of an open playtest (and will post my ideas and comments in the appropriate Paizo boards soon enough), but the execution may be a headache (EDIT: As was eloquently pointed out by the above post).  We'll see. 

Thanks for giving us the choice, Paizo! You are my heroes!


----------



## jdrakeh (Mar 19, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> I'm wondering about the open playtesting.  In particular I am wondering how thankless the job of being the guy who decides on the rules when a peek at many of the conversations on this and paizos boards shows that there is a very loud argumentative group of true fans who all seem to want different things from the game.
> 
> I guess the idea of a democracy of Comic Book Guys seems like it might come up with a better game than one guy working towards a deadline but would you really want to be the one moderating that discussion?  And then to have to take the hate when you go with Camp A instead of Camp B on gnome ear size or whatever.




Playtesting isn't quite what many fans think it is. It's testing, not free reign to get What You Like slotted into a work already in progress. As open software tests are largely about reporting bugs in already existant processes, so are RPG tets more about identifying non-functional rules than rules that the tester doesn't personally like. 

As somebody who has screened playtest forms, I can confirm that many "Gut all of this and replace it with my personal houserules!" reports go right in the trash. Not _all_ such reports, mind you, but many. By the time a playtest is started, a system is off the drawing board -- the focus is on refining what already exists, not going back to square one.

Going back to square one _can_ happen, though there has to be an overwhelming amount of nearly identical feedback received in order to get anything back on the drawing board after it has moved past that stage of design. 

YMMV, of course.


----------



## Knightfall (Mar 19, 2008)

To the people at Paizo: you are my heroes!

This totally makes my day. I'm not eager to switch to 4th Edition, and I'm very disappointed with the direction the game is taking. The fluff makes me very unhappy, and the rules seem to cater to a style of gaming I'm not interested in.

The Pathfinder RPG sounds like my type of game, and who knows, I might even convert World of Kulan to be a Pathfinder world.

Cheers!

KF72


----------



## Aris Dragonborn (Mar 19, 2008)

blargney the second said:
			
		

> Next things I'd love to see on the chopping block: 2 skill points per level and cross-class skills.  Honestly, they're just fiddly and don't increase the fun.
> -blarg




I'm with you there.

From a quick look-see, it seems that they _have_ done away with skill points entirely; it's now closer to SAGA, with each class getting a set number of skills at 1st level. For example:



> Fighter: 2 + Intelligence Modifier = number of skills at first level.




At every even-numbered level after that, you gain 1 additional skill choice.

The mechanic for skill checks looks like this:



> Untrained Skill: 1d20 + ability modifier + racial modifier
> Trained Skill: 1d20 + character level + 3 + ability modifier + racial modifier
> Trained Cross-Class Skill: 1d20 + 1/2(character level +3) + ability modifier + racial modifier




So, cross-class skills are still in there, but I love this mechanic. If I feel the need to add skills to NPC's/henchmen/villains, this will make it easier for me to stat them up, rather than obsessing over skill points and ranks.


----------



## greywulf (Mar 19, 2008)

Wow. That's great news! Count me in, Paizo.

It looks like my Dungeonmaster's Creed is going to become reality. 

Me? Happy? Oh heck yes!


----------



## Pinotage (Mar 19, 2008)

Yes! Yes! And Yes! Fantastic news. Paizo rocks! I was hoping that somebody would do something like this, and hoping that Paizo would stick with 3.5e, and it looks like I'm getting the best of both worlds! Wooot!   

The Alpha release looks great, it uses the OGL, it has a playtest base of thousands - this is hands down going to be great!

Thanks Paizo!

Pinotage


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 19, 2008)

Aris Dragonborn said:
			
		

> I'm with you there.
> 
> From a quick look-see, it seems that they _have_ done away with skill points entirely; it's now closer to SAGA, with each class getting a set number of skills at 1st level. For example:
> 
> ...



How will it avoid Rogue-Dipping for anyone but Spellcasters?


----------



## Flynn (Mar 19, 2008)

The last two pages of the playtest document indicate that another Alpha release is coming, to cover more material, and a 3rd one will follow that:



> Upcoming Releases
> In the coming weeks, we will post Alpha release 2 of
> the Pathfinder RPG. Here’s a small taste of what you can
> expect to see:
> ...




I think this will be interesting, but truth be told, while I might pick Pathfinder up should I end up in a Pathfinder game, I won't be running it unless they make it easier for me to GM. Right now, creating higher level NPCs and monsters is simply painful. Also, it looks like combat is going to be just as long and nasty as it has always been (for backwards compatibility). Having run 400+ sessions of D20 over the last seven and a half years, I'm looking for something easier to run, for me as the GM. I'll keep looking at Pathfinder, but right now, I don't see me investing deeply into the system, aside from a core rulebook at some point.

Still, I think it's a brilliant and logical move on the part of Paizo, and I'm interested enough from a designer perspective to watch the evolution of Pathfinder over the duration of the playtest. I think the process and the result will be very telling, and indicative of how future playtesting may be handled by other companies. As Mongoose has been open playtesting Traveller OGL for the last five months or so, it seems that Paizo's recent announcement is establishing this process as a trend in the current gaming market. I hope that trend grows.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## DragonLancer (Mar 19, 2008)

Sounds interesting. I'll have a proper read through later, but this may well be something I could be interested in picking up.


----------



## Quartz (Mar 19, 2008)

I do like what I see, but I'll be investigating 4E first.


----------



## amethal (Mar 19, 2008)

Unbelievable.

I am incredibly excited about this. 

Once I get paid for this month I'll be taking out a Pathfinder Chronicles subscription to go with my Pathfinder one.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 19, 2008)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> Well, they can't call them that. Maybe... Finder Magazine and Path Magazine.
> 
> It'd be really cool if they reached out to 3rd party pubs.



 Well, seeing that a golem is the symbol of Paizo, I'd call the magazines "The Golem" and "The Delve", or something to that effect.


----------



## Betote (Mar 19, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> How about Dragonz and Dungeonz?




Nah, they should be Pragon and Pungeon. Or go Gygax style and call them Drajon and Dunjeon


----------



## Stormtower (Mar 19, 2008)

I was ready to support 4E (albeit in a less completist/obsessive buying pattern than 3.5), but this announcement has given me pause.  I applaud Paizo's guts for making this decision, which also seems to not overly restrict their future business options.

I have the urge to check out both 4E (as well as Necro's Iron Tower path) and the Pathfinder RPG this year.  Hmm, time to whip out the budget spreadsheet and see how much I actually support with my dollars...

In any case, it's great to see that my beloved 3.5E will be getting a bit of an OGL facelift and a fresh coat of paint.  The system has, for my group, many many years of untapped potential remaining and Pathfinder may be just the ticket to extend its life while I also support 4E as a DM.

I hope both 4th Edition and Pathfinder continue to expand the tabletop RPG market.  It's up to us to keep it alive and spread the "viral" culture of face-to-face social gaming to the next generation(s) of gamers.  We can't compete with WoW, but we can keep our hobby strong and diverse.


----------



## lmpjr007 (Mar 19, 2008)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Well, seeing that a golem is the symbol of Paizo, I'd call the magazines "The Golem" and "The Delve", or something to that effect.



or *KOBOLD QUARTERLY* or something like that...


----------



## EricNoah (Mar 19, 2008)

Ok, so I'm at home sick today -- can't sleep -- anyone want to work on making some characters from Alpha 1?  Should we start a thread in General or over in the Rogue's Gallery?


----------



## The Cardinal (Mar 19, 2008)

Yay! I may be playing D&D in 2009 after all!

...and I *really* like the stuff from the Alpha-test!


----------



## Sunderstone (Mar 19, 2008)

Well I did something today I normally dont do. I subscribed to a print publication. I normally like to just go out and buy something I want. Same with Dungeon and Dragon magazines, I never missed an issue.

But since Paizo reached out to me as a gamer, I decided to reach back and subscribe. Go Paizo! As soon as their site settles down some Ill place an order for some of their recent Game mastery/Pathfinder modules too. Site is too slow atm.


----------



## Vascant (Mar 19, 2008)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Ok, so I'm at home sick today -- can't sleep -- anyone want to work on making some characters from Alpha 1?  Should we start a thread in General or over in the Rogue's Gallery?




hehe, I am in the same boat and been taking a look at what it would take to make NPC Designer scripts


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Mar 19, 2008)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Ok, so I'm at home sick today -- can't sleep -- anyone want to work on making some characters from Alpha 1?  Should we start a thread in General or over in the Rogue's Gallery?



Got you covered Eric.


----------



## HiLiphNY (Mar 19, 2008)

Outstanding move, Paizo-Peeps!

I was not really going to upgrade to 4E, but would possibly have slid down into it eventually.  Now, i have me some salvation!

Many thanks.


----------



## buzz (Mar 19, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Thats not what I got out of their announcement. They are putting together a rules package to support continued growth of the 3E market. If you aren't interested in their rules you don't need to buy them to keep finding the Pathfinder product line useful.
> 
> They do state that as of the release of 4E, 3E GOES OUT OF PRINT. Which means no rule book for new players once eBay dries up. So it is only smart of them to put out their own version to support any new players that come into the 3E fold. Plus I am always in to looking at new rules ideas, which is the only reason I am even looking at 4E.



We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

 

I'll be interested to see the final product, but this pretty much just validates my decision to cancel my Pathfinder sub. I wish Paizo the best of luck with this ('cause, IMO, they'll need it), but it still bums me out.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 19, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> If you think that Paizo is a competitor to WotC, you're fooling yourself. The majority of Paizo's customers will come from the anti-4e minority who were never really going to 4e anyway, and the rest of their customers will come from cannibalizing customers from C&C, True20, Arcana Evolved, Conan d20, and other D&D clones.




To be fair, I think your 4e love is projecting a bit more anti-4e than is really there, as well as understating the numbers quite a bit.

Speaking for myself, it's as simple as this. I want good rules, I want the recognize the game, and I want a community where I can discuss the hobby I love.

Now, I'm prepared to go to 4e, but rather unenthusiastically so. I love the rule changes. I hate the setting changes. I hate the capricious changes. I hate the overall "flavor" of the game-- call it video-gamey, call it anime, call it WoW-ish, call it whatever you want as long as you realize that Tieflings and Dragonborn are _not_ part of my D&D reality.

But again, I was prepared to go to 4e and overlook these peccadilloes because I did not want to be left behind by my hobby community.

Basically, WotC was offering me 2 out of 3.

And now Paizo is also offering me 2 out of 3.

This announcement is _significant_.


----------



## Princesskeyblade (Mar 19, 2008)

Congrats Paizo! 

I think it is a great move and will be looking forward to what you have come up with.


----------



## buzz (Mar 19, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> This announcement is _significant_.



Is it? I mean, other than for Paizo's bottom line, that is.

I mean, timing aside, what is this other than yet another d20 fantasy RPG? Looking at the alpha doc, it's about as 3.5 as Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, or Spycraft/FantasyCraft. (Or even Book of Experimental Might) I.e., you're not going to be using your 3.5 books without at least little massaging.

So, Paizo is targeting D&D players who a) aren't interested in 4e, b) are interested in buying a new D&D-like RPG (as long as it isn't from WotC, apparently), and c) are aware that Paizo exists. I have to assume that Paizo is aware that this is a significant narrowing of their market, but has done the math to know that it's still profitable for them.

I dunno. Paizo are savvy businessmen, so I figure they would not do this unless they felt there was a chance of success. But calling the release of yet another almost-D&D "significant"? I'm skeptical.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Mar 19, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> To be fair, I think your 4e love is projecting a bit more anti-4e than is really there, as well as understating the numbers quite a bit.
> 
> Speaking for myself, it's as simple as this. I want good rules, I want the recognize the game, and I want a community where I can discuss the hobby I love.
> 
> ...




Wulf nails it pretty well, as usual.  But let me add #4 -- I want a game that isn't the sole playground of a single company.   I like being able to cherry pick rules and variants that suit my style, and I'm not so arrogant to think that I'm clever enough to come up with the best ones.  Having others working from the same base gives me great products.

Paizo is offering that, inplicitly, and hopefully, explicitly.  WotC, I don't know.  I know the GSL will be less open than the OGL.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Mar 19, 2008)

Bold and interseting move.  Just skimmed the alpha release 1 pdf,  and got myself a paizo account for the first time to do so, and it looks good so far.


----------



## Psion (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Is it? I mean, other than for Paizo's bottom line, that is.
> 
> I mean, timing aside, what is this other than yet another d20 fantasy RPG? Looking at the alpha doc, it's about as 3.5 as Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, or Spycraft/FantasyCraft. (Or even Book of Experimental Might) I.e., you're not going to be using your 3.5 books without at least little massaging.
> 
> ...




I notice you have inserted "almost D&D" between your first paragraph and your last.

Nope. Paizo is not as big as Wizards. Likely never will be.

We know that.

But is Wizards the only player worth noting to you. As a fine upstanding member of the story games community, I would think you would feel otherwise.

D&D players are conscious of Paizo because of Dungeon and Dragon. They are only a tier 2 publisher, but they are a tier two publisher. A tier two publisher whose business plans affects a non-insignificant portion of the hobby. I'd call that significant.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Is it? I mean, other than for Paizo's bottom line, that is.




Yes, it is. They've struck a chord. It may turn out to be a lot of empty buzz (no relation), but you don't really have to look very far to see that the announcement is _significant_ as the word is normally understood.



> So, Paizo is targeting D&D players who a) aren't interested in 4e, b) are interested in buying a new D&D-like RPG (as long as it isn't from WotC, apparently), and c) are aware that Paizo exists.




You've made an error there.

Paizo's not selling me a new RPG. Paizo is selling adventures (and ongoing support). 

They're giving the RPG away for free, though I am sure I will not be the only person buying the hardcover version (a) to show my support and (b) because glossy hardcover books kick ass, and glossy kick-ass hardcovers from Paizo kick bigger asses harder and longer.

And not to be snarky, but if there was one thing that had me digging in my heels about 4e, it was that _it didn't feel like D&D anymore._ Quite frankly I'd turn the tables on you, there. If 4e didn't have Dungeons and Dragons written across the top, I wouldn't give _it_ the time of day. 

WotC _are_ rebranding Dungeons and Dragons. It's a conscious decision. It's not a wrong decision. But that's the truth. I don't like what the new brand offers _as much_ as I like what the old brand stood for. I'm not complaining. I'm not alone. It is what it is.



> I have to assume that Paizo is aware that this is a significant narrowing of their market, but has done the math to know that it's still profitable for them.




Let's all assume they've done the math and move on.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Is it? I mean, other than for Paizo's bottom line, that is.
> 
> I mean, timing aside, what is this other than yet another d20 fantasy RPG? Looking at the alpha doc, it's about as 3.5 as Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, or Spycraft/FantasyCraft. (Or even Book of Experimental Might) I.e., you're not going to be using your 3.5 books without at least little massaging.
> 
> ...



I have to agree with you, Buzz. As much as I love Paizo, this pretty much ends my buying their products until they do them in 4E.

I am highly skeptical of the Pathfinder rules, from looking at them they seem like a houserules document for 3X, which I'm really not interested in.

I expect we'll see a great amount of success for this project initially, but in the long run support for D&D will only be increasing as new gamers come into the hobby and 4E gets its own house in order. Non 4E compatible D20 games are going to decline sharply come June and keep heading in that direction.

To quote Larry the Liquidator: "do you know the surest way to go broke? Keep getting an increasing share of a shrinking market. Down the tubes, slow but sure. "

Makes me said for Paizo and the hobby in general, but then again it's just my opinion...



--Steve


----------



## buzz (Mar 19, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> I notice you have inserted "almost D&D" between your first paragraph and your last.



Pathfinder is almost-D&D. It's 3.5 with tweaks.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> But is Wizards the only player worth noting to you.



Oh, absolutely not.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> D&D players are conscious of Paizo because of Dungeon and Dragon. They are only a tier 2 publisher, but they are a tier two publisher. A tier two publisher whose business plans affects a non-insignificant portion of the hobby. I'd call that significant.



I'm not denying that, among those companies who are neither WotC nor WW, Paizo is a significant entity. I'm just saying that this is ultimately another variant d20 RPG. Sure, it'll possibly find its niche, just like AE and IH.


----------



## jdrakeh (Mar 19, 2008)

It's also worth noting that Iron Heroes, Arcana Evolved, and Spycraft don't appear to fill the same niche as Pathfinder RPG. For starters, I'm not certain why Buzz mentioned Spycraft -- it's a game of modern Espionage, not fantasy (if it was mentioned for the as yet unreleased Fantasycraft plug-in, well. . . it's as yet unreleased and, thus, irrelevant). Iron Heroes and Arcana Evolved aren't standalone RPGs but, rather, alternate PHBs for D&D 3.5 (you still need the DMG and MM to gather all of the rules for play). 

The Pathfinder RPG (at least according to blurbs about Alpha 2 and the already available rules in Alpha 1) appears to be planned as a complete in one volume RPG that is dedicated to being easily compatible with existing D&D 3.5 products. In that respect, it has a leg up on the alternate PHB 'games' because it already contains rules for XP and encounter balancing in one book. It has a leg up on non-fantasy games like Spycraft in that it's much, much, more compatible with standard D&D 3.5 document. And, of course, the obvious edge over as yet unreleased products is. . . 

I'm certain that everybody can figure it out


----------



## Mark Hope (Mar 19, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> I expect we'll see a great amount of success for this project initially, but in the long run support for D&D will only be increasing as new gamers come into the hobby and 4E gets its own house in order. Non 4E compatible D20 games are going to decline sharply come June and keep heading in that direction.



I'm concerned about this as well (although I am supporter of Pathfinder and am utterly thrilled about the announcement.)  In the end, though, we don't know for sure that non-4e D&D games are going to die off.  Pathfinder have a share of the market and there's no inescapable reason that they can't grow that market share.  It's a challenge for them, to be sure, but they have made a good name for themselves and we may well see them able to capitalise on that.  Look at it this way: they have grown a thriving company with no rules system of their own at all.  I'd say that there is a damn good chance that things will get better for them in the long term, not worse.  Only time will tell.


----------



## buzz (Mar 19, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> You've made an error there.
> 
> Paizo's not selling me a new RPG. Paizo is selling adventures (and ongoing support).



If the alpha doc is any indication, they are indeed selling you a new RPG.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Quite frankly I'd turn the tables on you, there. If 4e didn't have Dungeons and Dragons written across the top, I wouldn't give _it_ the time of day.



Sure, but let me turn the tables again, and posit that, had 3.75 come from WotC instead of Paizo, a lot of the same people who are lauding Paizo now would probably be griping non-stop about WotC's evil empire.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> WotC _are_ rebranding Dungeons and Dragons. It's a conscious decision. It's not a wrong decision. But that's the truth. I don't like what the new brand offers _as much_ as I like what the old brand stood for. I'm not complaining. I'm not alone. It is what it is.



Understood.

That said, I still find this issue of "support" kind of bizarre. Were I interested in playing 3.5, there's enough product in existence right now to keep me entertained for probably the next 20 years. That someone suggested the idea of eBay "drying up" is pretty laughable considering you can still buy '80s-era 1e and basic products in mass quantities.

Nonetheless, the alpha doc looks pretty interesting. I'll keep my eyes peeled, despite the odds being nil that my group will ever play it.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> But calling the release of yet another almost-D&D "significant"? I'm skeptical.



This statement is about the rules set itself.  That misses the point.
The significance is in the big boost in support for non-4E D&D gaming that just happened. 

Paizo making their own version of D&D is a smart move.  It further makes 3X "their" game moving forward.  But that is beside the point to the people who are happy right now.


----------



## hazel monday (Mar 19, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Paizo's not selling me a new RPG. Paizo is selling adventures (and ongoing support).
> 
> They're giving the RPG away for free, though I am sure I will not be the only person buying the hardcover version (a) to show my support and (b) because glossy hardcover books kick ass, and glossy kick-ass hardcovers from Paizo kick bigger asses harder and longer.
> 
> And not to be snarky, but if there was one thing that had me digging in my heels about 4e, it was that _it didn't feel like D&D anymore._ Quite frankly I'd turn the tables on you, there. If 4e didn't have Dungeons and Dragons written across the top, I wouldn't give _it_ the time of day.




Too true.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Pathfinder is almost-D&D. It's 3.5 with tweaks.



I think there are two major groups you have missed here.

The first is the group of people who don't give a flip about the brand name.  They just want the rules set they find best.  So whether or not it is "amost" D&D, exactly D&D or something completely new is meaningless to them.  It is about a good ruleset being maintained.  And, as Wulf so well stated, "support" is about a lot more than more books, it is about a sustained community.


The second group you have missed are the people who feel that D&D and the game assumptions implicit to that name are important and that 4E has made changes that take away that continuity.  The rules tweaks are trivial.  It is the understanding of the what D&D assumes that Paizo will be holding to moreso than WotC.


----------



## buzz (Mar 19, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> It's also worth noting that Iron Heroes, Arcana Evolved, and Spycraft don't appear to fill the same niche as Pathfinder RPG.
> ...
> The Pathfinder RPG (at least according to blurbs about Alpha 2 and the already available rules in Alpha 1) appears to be planned as a complete in one volume RPG that is dedicated to being easily compatible with existing D&D 3.5 products.



While Spycraft may have been a stretch, AE and IH are exactly the product you describe in the second paragraph. Assuming that the final release isn't going to be a 600-page book, I'm guessing that you'll still need your old Monster Manuals and such.


----------



## buzz (Mar 19, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I think there are two major groups you have missed here.



I was only talking about mechanics, not people.

As for game assumptions, I'm not sure I see how Paizo is going to really involve many of them, as most of the beloved D&D IP isn't available to them under the OGL.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 19, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> You've made an error there.
> 
> Paizo's not selling me a new RPG. Paizo is selling adventures (and ongoing support).



But that's the thing: they are selling an RPG, even if they're effectively giving it away as well. I  suppose the more apt term for what they're doing is marketing it, as a vehicle for their other products.

From what I've seen in the Alpha, Pathfinder is not 4E compatible, and it's also not entirely 3X compatible, insofar as you would need to make modifications to myriad of existing 3X materials to use them. For my group, that would be the killer: they rely heavily on the Compete splats, and having to mod them to keep using them would be a non-starter.

So we have another case of "D&D done right," just in this case it's going to have extremely high production values and good distribution. Will that sell? Initially, I'd say yes, after June, I'm doubtful. A year from now, a "3X compatible" product is likely to have an extremely small audience. But time will tell if I'm right, of course.

--Steve


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 19, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> To be fair, I think your 4e love is projecting a bit more anti-4e than is really there, as well as understating the numbers quite a bit.
> 
> Speaking for myself, it's as simple as this. I want good rules, I want the recognize the game, and I want a community where I can discuss the hobby I love.
> 
> ...




Right now, there is a lot of buzz around it. But there is no difference between this announcement and say the publication of Arcana Evolved. And it will effect WotC about the same way, which is not at all.

Not to get political, but thinking that Paizo's announcement is siginificant is like saying that Ralph Nader running for president is significant.

Bear in mind that Pathfinder is NOT D&D. Or rather its D&D in the same way that Castles and Crusades is, or Arcana Evolved is, or any number of D&D fantasy clones.

Also bear in mind that 4e comes out in less than 3 months now, and Pathfinder doesn't come out for a WHOLE year! By that time, 4e will be firmly entrenched in the market as D&D and Pathfinder will be another 3.5 OGL d20 clone fighting for shelf space with True20 and Exalted. The gamer masses will have long since moved to D&D.

So, who will Paizo attract? They will attract the alternative gamer. The same people that bought AE, True20, McWOD, IH, Conan d20. This will be Paizo's customer base.

And that is not a bad place to be. Thats a good customer base that can support a company like Paizo. Right now Paizo has a lot of buzz, because its a known element. D&D 4 is still a few months off and still an unknown.

But come this time next year, the atmosphere will be markedly different. There will still be excited Paizo fans on the boards. And some 4e fans will likely pick up Pathfinder. I might even, if its cool enough. But ultimately it will have ZERO impact on WotC and 4e.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Pathfinder is almost-D&D. It's 3.5 with tweaks.
> 
> 
> Oh, absolutely not.
> ...



With hopefully one major advantage: It's not just a set of OGL variant rules, it comes with adventures - and that's a key advantage over AE or IH, whose adventure support isn't that great (in my experience).


----------



## buzz (Mar 19, 2008)

FWIW, I give Paizo a lot of credit for giving the playtest a whole year. It honestly would be easier and more profitable in the short term to rush a 3.75 book out just before, or right around, 4e. Holding off on the final product until 2009 is a risk, but one worth taking if what they really want is a solid product.


----------



## CleverName (Mar 19, 2008)

I think this is a mistake on Paizo's part, but I wish them the best. I completely understand why they did not want to throw down 5k for the *still mythical 4e SRD* and that they were going to continue 3.x support until '09. (Personally, I thought WotC should have given them a break on the $ for yanking Dungeon and Dragon from them -- I'm far more skeptical of DDI than the actual 4e ruleset...)

As far as this sending any kind of "message" to WotC, _you are dreaming._ I guarantee you that 4e will make a ton of money for the next 2-3 quarters. They aren't really looking for much  sales support from other companies until 09 or 2010. In fact, they actively discouraged it with their buy-in tactic. 

I plan to buy 4e *and play it *before I make up my mind for good. If I don't like it I will most likely go on to another system entirely or go back to 3.x, unlike some D&D players, I've always played a lot of RPGS. This 3.75, or whatever just seems like a divergent path off of a divergent (withering?) path. I hope the niche market of a niche market works out for them. I have my doubts.

Again, I wish them my best, but they definitely rode off waaaay too soon and definitely without me...


----------



## Ourph (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> I mean, timing aside, what is this other than yet another d20 fantasy RPG? Looking at the alpha doc, it's about as 3.5 as Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, or Spycraft/FantasyCraft. (Or even Book of Experimental Might) I.e., you're not going to be using your 3.5 books without at least little massaging.



I have to agree with buzz here.  I would laud Paizo's move if they had simply decided to continue to create 3.5 compatible Pathfinder adventures.  Going into the rulebook business seems 1) unnecessary and 2) disadvantageous.  If they continued to just support 3.5, they'd keep all the people who intend to play 3.5 and would likely also garner a lot of support from people who intend to continue using the alternate PHB games like Conan, Arcana Evolved, Iron Heroes, etc.  Those people are likely already accustomed to converting straight 3.5 stuff to their game of choice, so 3.5 products would be more useful than 3.75 or 4e products by far.  By creating another alternate 3.5 ruleset and then switching Pathfinder over to it, they're just further limiting their pool of supporters.  I suppose they think the open playtest will create some kind of customer buy-in effect (it seemed to work OK for Castles & Crusades) but I hardly think that will compensate for losing the more widespread appeal of a straight, RAW, 3.5 product based on the SRD.  I don't understand this move.  :\


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> If the alpha doc is any indication, they are indeed selling you a new RPG.




Again, no they are not. They are giving it away for free.

They _would like_ to sell me either the softcover or hardcover version _eventually_-- and they probably will.



> Sure, but let me turn the tables again, and posit that, had 3.75 come from WotC instead of Paizo, a lot of the same people who are lauding Paizo now would probably be griping non-stop about WotC's evil empire.




You're not turning the tables on me at all, actually-- I've said much the same myself. WotC is in a tough position, because 4e had to be functionally different enough from 3.75 to justify itself. 

It's my opinion that the rules changes alone would have been sufficient _for the existing player base_. I mean, let's face it, nobody wants to DM (prep _or_ play) high-level 3.5 D&D. I avoid this problem myself by gaming exclusively in the sweet spot. But it's a huge design wart. Probably the biggest. Speed and ease of play. If they had simply stuck to the mechanical changes, there would be the usual small subset of, "I ain't spendin' another dollar!" complainers, but I think most people would have been eager adopters.

I'm not in that camp of whinging scrooges. I have money to spend. I don't mind buying new books. I _love_ buying new RPG books, _provided they cater to my tastes._ Not exactly revelatory, I know. But the _redesign of the D&D brand_ is not to my tastes. It turned a new purchase I was looking forward to, into an annoyance at best. I would have to strike all the goofy  they added (tieflings, dragonborn, warlords, White Raven Assault, Golden Wyvern) and then add back all the stuff I would miss (gnomes, bards, druids, classic schools of magic-- the entire cosmology).



> Nonetheless, the alpha doc looks pretty interesting. I'll keep my eyes peeled, despite the odds being nil that my group will ever play it.




I actually don't think the alpha doc goes far enough-- yet. But I realize it's just alpha. I won't be basing my purchasing decisions on the alpha but I can certainly base my level of overall interest (some of it in a train-wreck kind of way) on the _chutzpah_ of the announcement itself.

EDIT: Ehh, who am I kidding.  the gnome.


----------



## elijah snow (Mar 19, 2008)

I disagree with this assessment. First, this annoucement does affect 4e because Paizo is one of the most (if not the most) significant independent publishers supporting the Dungeons and Dragons marketplace. So, not only are they taking a stand to support 3.5, they're also going to be less active in supporting the 4e market than they otherwise would have been.

Second, and more importantly, I disagree with your assessment of who will support the Pathfinder RPG. The answer is: 

1) the multitude of gamers who think that 3.5 isn't broken and didn't need an upgrade, but might appreciate a little fine-tuning
2) the multitude of gamers who have an emotional, game-related, and/or financial investment in 3.5 and aren't willing to throw that away
3) the gamers who love the Pathfinder setting and adventures
4) the gamers who may be ambivalent about 3.5 but are underwhelmed by 4e's rules and changes to canon
5) the DMs who are happy with Eberron and the Forgotten Realms the way they are



			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Right now, there is a lot of buzz around it. But there is no difference between this announcement and say the publication of Arcana Evolved. And it will effect WotC about the same way, which is not at all.
> 
> Not to get political, but thinking that Paizo's announcement is siginificant is like saying that Ralph Nader running for president is significant.
> 
> ...


----------



## Psion (Mar 19, 2008)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I have to agree with buzz here.  I would laud Paizo's move if they had simply decided to continue to create 3.5 compatible Pathfinder adventures.  Going into the rulebook business seems 1) unnecessary and 2) disadvantageous.




I suggest to you Paizo understands the market better than you do, then. How viable is publishing adventures and supplements for a game you can't buy? How can groups form with a game you have to tell them they have to go to ebay to get? This is less about viability of existing games and continued support of evolving and new groups.

I do, however, expect that many groups WILL continue to play 3.5 and buy Paizo adventures.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 19, 2008)

I'd just like to point out that IBM no longer manufactures IBM PCs. Nevertheless, the IBM PC is the market leader. It is possible that when WotC let the genie out of the bottle by releasing 3.0 under the OGL, they too ensured that they will eventually no longer be in the D&D business. Sure it will take years to happen, but given their parent company's tendency to cancel games that are making a profit and the innovation occurring in 3rd party publishing, it is a distinct possibility that the future of D&D may rest in the hands of companies like Paizo and Green Ronin. 

Of course it is not my desire to see WotC get out of the D&D business, but based on what I'm reading online and the people I know in real life, there is a significant number of people who are bitter about the edition change this time around since it follows so close on the heels of 3.5 and have no intention to switch. It is possible that despite what WotC thinks and what the retailers are preparing for, 4th edition players might just be in the minority. If that's the case, existing 3.5 players will want continued support, and with Pathfinder, they will get it.


----------



## jgbrowning (Mar 19, 2008)

I think this will be very successful.

joe b.


----------



## dm4hire (Mar 19, 2008)

I think one of the advantages the way Paizo is presenting Pathfinder is that you will be able to use it as either a resource for your current 3.x products or as a stand alone OGL game and that is where it will shine the most.  One thing I have often expressed disinterest in my entire 20+ years of playing D&D is that they continue to stick with 3 core books.  There is no reason for it; two at most with additional MMs understandable over the years.  If Paizo fully includes everything you need to play a basic Pathfinder game in just the one book that will make it worth buying just in itself.  Being able to carry just one book while on the go and play a quick game with friends will be a high point to it if that's the case.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Mar 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> With hopefully one major advantage: It's not just a set of OGL variant rules, it comes with adventures - and that's a key advantage over AE or IH, whose adventure support isn't that great (in my experience).




And a campagin setting.  And maps, and tiles, and minis, and cards, and the whole plethora of add-on stuff that no other (to my knowledge) alt-3e producer has attempted.


----------



## jdrakeh (Mar 19, 2008)

dm4hire said:
			
		

> One thing I have often expressed disinterest in my entire 20+ years of playing D&D is that they continue to stick with 3 core books.




Ditto. And as good as some of those alternate PHB approaches to OGL fantasy are, they're crippled by the fact that they're not complete, standalone, games in one book -- you pretty much have to own two of the three D&D core books to get much use out of them. I know that there was a time when I was really keen on IH but had _zero_ interest in D&D (and no longer owned the core books). It was purely frustrating knowing that I had to buy at least two other books from a different game line (that I had no interest in) to make IH complete. It looks like Paizo is side-stepping this conflict of interests (so to speak) nicely with the 'complete in one book' approach. Kudos to them for taking this route.


----------



## Sunderstone (Mar 19, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Bear in mind that Pathfinder is NOT D&D. Or rather its D&D in the same way that Castles and Crusades is, or Arcana Evolved is, or any number of D&D fantasy clones.
> 
> .




yeah thats true but 4E "is NOT D&D" either. Its Warlocks and Warlords under the D&D label because they can get away with it.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 19, 2008)

elijah snow said:
			
		

> I disagree with this assessment. First, this annoucement does affect 4e because Paizo is one of the most (if not the most) significant independent publishers supporting the Dungeons and Dragons marketplace. So, not only are they taking a stand to support 3.5, they're also going to be less active in supporting the 4e market than they otherwise would have been.




Paizo is significant only when it comes to the 3rd party OGL marketplace. But the vast majority of D&D players don't buy 3rd party OGL products. They buy only WotC product. Don't make the mistake of confusing gaming opinion on EN World with the majority of D&D players.

Most of my game group doesn't know or care about Paizo. Of them, I'm really the only one truly plugged into the wider d20 gamer community. They only care about D&D and WotC. They are aware of the OGL and such. Most of them also play M&M and like Spycraft. But when it comes to d20 fantasy, there is ONLY D&D, as far as they are concerned.

We have one grognard anti-4e holdout, who was happy when I said that Paizo would be supporting 3.5 (after I explained to him what Paizo was since he didn't even know), but when I asked if that means he will be an actively buying customer, he admitted probably not. He likes the *idea* of 3.5 support but when it came time to put his dollars where his mouth was, he wouldn't commit. He is already satisfied with his 3.5 book collection and runs a homebrew set mostly in Greyhawk.


----------



## Ourph (Mar 19, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> I suggest to you Paizo understands the market better than you do, then. How viable is publishing adventures and supplements for a game you can't buy? How can groups form with a game you have to tell them they have to go to ebay to get? This is less about viability of existing games and continued support of evolving and new groups.
> 
> I do, however, expect that many groups WILL continue to play 3.5 and buy Paizo adventures.



If the purpose is simply to keep the rulebooks in-print after they disappear from the store shelves, the best answer, IMO, would be to keep Pathfinder as close to the 3.5 RAW as possible, rather than do a 3.75 that's not directly compatible with anything anyone is currently playing.  I still don't see any advantage to doing another 3.5 alternative game.

OTOH, I can see quite a few advantages to doing a slightly trimmed-down D&D 3.5 all in one book after the WotC books switch over.  The major modifications to the core system are what is confusing me.  Changing too much just makes Pathfinder another fantasy heartbreaker.


----------



## occam (Mar 19, 2008)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> mhensley said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My experience matches that of mhensley. Much as I've enjoyed Paizo's products, I'm probably the only one in my group who even knows their name, much less anything about what they're doing now. And I still haven't seen any post-_Dragon/Dungeon_ Paizo products in mainstream bookstores, which I thought was part of the plan with selling the _Pathfinder_ products as books instead of magazines. Paizo is big in the third-party D&D world... not so big otherwise, even to many people who play D&D regularly.



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> They said themselves that upcoming Pathfinder products will be backward compatible. This means that you won't have to invest in a new set of rules to continue playing new Pathfinder adventures.




That's what WotC said about 3.5. Then they came out with lots of little changes to classes, skills, feats, spells, combat rules, etc. that retained an initial surface appearance of compatibility, but eventually required conversion of, or at least a good look at, all previously published adventures, classes, PrCs, and monsters that you wanted to use. When _Pathfinder_ adventures start coming out in 2009 with different sets of skills, different class abilities, and more, it'll be the same thing all over again. 3.5 materials and 3.5+ PRPG materials won't mix seamlessly.

I just wonder, what's the point? I can understand people wanting to stay with 3.5; I haven't decided whether to switch myself, yet. But why reproduce what many considered a mistake by WotC when they tweaked 3.0 into an incompatible near-clone? Stick with 3.5, warts and all, or do something new and clearly different.


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 19, 2008)

Sunderstone said:
			
		

> yeah thats true but 4E "is NOT D&D" either. Its Warlocks and Warlords under the D&D label because they can get away with it.




But thats the real key, isn't it? They have the name and the power.

And although 4e may not be for you. It will be for the vast majority of tabletop D&D players.

MMO/Anime/Videogame feel? Perhaps...

But there is a reason that MMO's like WoW have a subscriber base in the millions. There is a reason the Manga/Anime section at my local B&N has gone from a couple of shelves in the graphic novel section 6 years ago to two ENTIRE aisles that makes it bigger than the cookbook section. And there is a reason why the video game industry makes BILLIONS and has surpassed Hollywood in profits.

The gamer elite at EN World or RPG.net may sniff their nose in disdain. But they are a distinct minority. Enough of a minority to support Paizo, but not enough to be more than a gnat buzzing around WotC.


----------



## Erik Mona (Mar 19, 2008)

That's why it's an open playtest. If the Alpha pushes the rules too far away from what the audience wants, we'll change it.

--Erik


----------



## Psion (Mar 19, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> But thats the real key, isn't it? They have the name and the power.
> 
> And although 4e may not be for you. It will be for the vast majority of tabletop D&D players.
> 
> ...




And you have figures on "vast"-ness and "distinct"-ness of these "orities"?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> And although 4e may not be for you. It will be for the vast majority of tabletop D&D players.



I've seen zero evidence to support this.  



> The gamer elite at EN World or RPG.net may sniff their nose in disdain.



Funny, I've got to come to EN World to find people who LIKE 4e.



> But they are a distinct minority. Enough of a minority to support Paizo, but not enough to be more than a gnat buzzing around WotC.



I'm not as optimistic as Whisperfoot.  But I think it will easily be enough to support Paizo.  The real question is, will chopped up fan base leave enough to support WotC?


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 19, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> And you have figures on "vast"-ness and "distinct"-ness of these "orities"?




I'm not saying Paizo won't be successful. I think they will do fine. I may even pick up their book myself.

But do you honestly believe that they will eat into D&D market share when they are releasing a 3.5 d20 knock-off that doesn't even come out until a year after the release of 4e?


----------



## BadMojo (Mar 19, 2008)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> My luv of Paizo knows no bounds!




Yeah, I'm really impressed by this.

Not for lack of trying, I'm really not digging what I'm seeing from 4E.  It's nice to have an alternative that fixes some of the wacky stuff from 3.5E but keeps, IMO, a lot of the good stuff.

I may try to run Red Hand of Doom using this.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 19, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> But do you honestly believe that they will eat into D&D market share when they are releasing a 3.5 d20 knock-off that doesn't even come out until a year after the release of 4e?




I'm not sure why it's important to you, Paizo, or anybody else whether Pathfinder eats into the market share of D&D or not. 

If I thought it was relevant I might argue with you, but I'm happy to concede the point if you'll move on. Consider the point made.



			
				BadMojo said:
			
		

> Not for lack of trying, I'm really not digging what I'm seeing from 4E. It's nice to have an alternative that fixes some of the wacky stuff from 3.5E but keeps, IMO, a lot of the good stuff.




There is a non-zero number of folks with exactly that attitude. WotC doesn't want them, and doesn't need them. Paizo thinks there's enough of them to make it worthwhile to cater to them, and Paizo can still make products for 4e.

So... I guess we're done here?


----------



## Ourph (Mar 19, 2008)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> That's why it's an open playtest. If the Alpha pushes the rules too far away from what the audience wants, we'll change it.
> 
> --Erik



That's a nice idea in theory, but won't the people who like 3.5 the way it is, who want the APs to stay 3.5 compatible, still be playing their 3.5 game with their 3.5 rulebooks (or Arcana Evolved with their AE rulebooks or Iron Heroes with their IH rulebooks, etc.) during the playtest period - and thus, not contributing to the playtest?  Why would I put in the time and effort to playtest the game and struggle to keep Pathfinder as close to D&D 3.5 as possible when I've already got D&D 3.5, or Arcana Evolved or Iron Heroes or True20, etc. and am perfectly happy with it and just want more APs that I can use with my game?

It just seems to me like you'll be self-selecting for people who WANT Pathfinder to diverge from the D&D 3.5 rules with the open playtest and that the results won't necessarily tell you anything about the people who just want the APs to stay as they are.


----------



## joela (Mar 19, 2008)

*Fantasy Craft?*



			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Paizo will probably do quite alright for themselves. I expect them to dominate the d20 OGL market, although Crafty Games upcoming Fantasy Craft may have something to say about that.




Fantasy Craft? Linky...?


----------



## BadMojo (Mar 19, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> There is a non-zero number of folks with exactly that attitude. WotC doesn't want them, and doesn't need them. Paizo thinks there's enough of them to make it worthwhile to cater to them, and Paizo can still make products for 4e.
> 
> So... I guess we're done here?




Yeah, I suppose we are.  I don't have much to say other than, "I like it."

I don't have any groundless speculation as to Paizo's success or lack thereof with this, so I'm just posting about my own pleasure at seeing this out there as an option.

As a community (EnWorld), I'm sure we'll continue baseless speculation on this bit of news for many days to come.


----------



## Treebore (Mar 19, 2008)

Ourph said:
			
		

> That's a nice idea in theory, but won't the people who like 3.5 the way it is, who want the APs to stay 3.5 compatible, still be playing their 3.5 game with their 3.5 rulebooks (or Arcana Evolved with their AE rulebooks or Iron Heroes with their IH rulebooks, etc.) during the playtest period - and thus, not contributing to the playtest?  Why would I put in the time and effort to playtest the game and struggle to keep Pathfinder as close to D&D 3.5 as possible when I've already got D&D 3.5, or Arcana Evolved or Iron Heroes or True20, etc. and am perfectly happy with it and just want more APs that I can use with my game?
> 
> It just seems to me like you'll be self-selecting for people who WANT Pathfinder to diverge from the D&D 3.5 rules with the open playtest and that the results won't necessarily tell you anything about the people who just want the APs to stay as they are.





Very good point.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 19, 2008)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> Yeah, I suppose we are.  I don't have much to say other than, "I like it."




Sorry Mojo: in retrospect my post looked hostile to you. I was quoting you by way of rebuttal to Dragonblade.


----------



## Wicht (Mar 19, 2008)

Ourph said:
			
		

> That's a nice idea in theory, but won't the people who like 3.5 the way it is, who want the APs to stay 3.5 compatible, still be playing their 3.5 game with their 3.5 rulebooks (or Arcana Evolved with their AE rulebooks or Iron Heroes with their IH rulebooks, etc.) during the playtest period - and thus, not contributing to the playtest?  Why would I put in the time and effort to playtest the game and struggle to keep Pathfinder as close to D&D 3.5 as possible when I've already got D&D 3.5, or Arcana Evolved or Iron Heroes or True20, etc. and am perfectly happy with it and just want more APs that I can use with my game?
> 
> It just seems to me like you'll be self-selecting for people who WANT Pathfinder to diverge from the D&D 3.5 rules with the open playtest and that the results won't necessarily tell you anything about the people who just want the APs to stay as they are.




Here's one who likes 3.0-3.5 well enough who will be playtesting the new rules.  Some of them look pretty promising.  There are very few people who don't think 3.5 can't be improved.  But thinking 3.5 can be improved is not the same as thinking 4.0 holds the answers.


----------



## BadMojo (Mar 19, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Sorry Mojo: in retrospect my post looked hostile to you. I was quoting you by way of rebuttal to Dragonblade.




No problem.  I wasn't offended or anything like that.  I definitely agree with your point.

I'm sure this thread will go on forever.  I only wish there was less talk about WotC Vs. Paizo Deathmatch and more talk about ya know, the product itself...


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Mar 19, 2008)

Betote said:
			
		

> Nah, they should be Pragon and Pungeon. Or go Gygax style and call them Drajon and Dunjeon




Not sure about Pungeon. It stinks. (Ha! Punny!)

How about Paizon?


----------



## Psion (Mar 19, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I'm not saying Paizo won't be successful. I think they will do fine. I may even pick up their book myself.
> 
> But do you honestly believe that they will eat into D&D market share when they are releasing a 3.5 d20 knock-off that doesn't even come out until a year after the release of 4e?




I made no such assertion and am sure the 4e's bottom line won't be affected much by this.

But when you say "vast minority", that does suggest to me you are saying that Paizo's market is too small to be viable.


----------



## Psion (Mar 19, 2008)

joela said:
			
		

> Fantasy Craft? Linky...?




http://www.crafty-games.com/product_catalog/development


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Mar 19, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Not to get political, but thinking that Paizo's announcement is siginificant is like saying that Ralph Nader running for president is significant.




Or like saying that Linux vs. Microsoft is significant?

Yet, there are many, many Linux users out there.


----------



## Mark (Mar 19, 2008)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> (. . .) and more talk about ya know, the product itself...





Here is some -

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=221948

And here - 

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/feedback/alpha1


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Sure, but let me turn the tables again, and posit that, had 3.75 come from WotC instead of Paizo, a lot of the same people who are lauding Paizo now would probably be griping non-stop about WotC's evil empire.




I don't disagree with this statement at all.

At the same time, though, as one of those who was absolutely disheartened by WotC's (inevitable?) announcement of a new edition of the game, I wouldn't be nearly so anti-4E if 4E didn't seem to be such a completely different game from previous editions as it does to me, and if it were at least similar enough to be somewhat backwards compatible. 

So it is more a matter of degree, I think, and the fact that Paizo's announcement comes as a compromise between people who a) don't like/want 4E, and b) don't really want to have to pick up a completely different/new system from what they're currently playing (like C&C or True20, to the degree I am familiar with those rules).


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Mar 19, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> But there is a reason that MMO's like WoW have a subscriber base in the millions. There is a reason the Manga/Anime section at my local B&N has gone from a couple of shelves in the graphic novel section 6 years ago to two ENTIRE aisles that makes it bigger than the cookbook section. And there is a reason why the video game industry makes BILLIONS and has surpassed Hollywood in profits.




There is a also a reason why tabletop RPGs* have seen their numbers dwindle over the years as the video game market has grown exponentially during the same time period. I don't claim to be knowledgeable in the demographics to say definitively why that is, but I'm willing to bet it doesn't really have anything to do with the rules so much as it does the widely different natures of the games themselves- video games are easy to play, generally solo (even with the addition of MMOs to the market, they are still played by individuals at home), and have a graphical and auditory element that RPGs lack. I'd say that- as much as anything- have to do with things. And a rules change to make an RPG more MMO/Videogamey probably won't impact that much at all.

*Boardgames, too, for that matter.


----------



## buzz (Mar 19, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Again, no they are not. They are giving it away for free.
> 
> They _would like_ to sell me either the softcover or hardcover version _eventually_-- and they probably will.



Oh, c'mon, Wulf.  The end product is a new RPG, for which you will pay money. The initial free playtest PDFs are part of the marketing.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Mar 19, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> There is a also a reason why tabletop RPGs* have seen their numbers dwindle over the years as the video game market has grown exponentially during the same time period. I don't claim to be knowledgeable in the demographics to say definitively why that is, but I'm willing to bet it doesn't really have anything to do with the rules so much as it does the widely different natures of the games themselves- video games are easy to play, generally solo (even with the addition of MMOs to the market, they are still played by individuals at home), and have a graphical and auditory element that RPGs lack. I'd say that- as much as anything- have to do with things. And a rules change to make an RPG more MMO/Videogamey probably won't impact that much at all.
> 
> *Boardgames, too, for that matter.




Very insightful.  Video games offer immediate, visceral feedback that isn't possible with PnP games.  And trying to match that is a fool's quest.


----------



## lmpjr007 (Mar 19, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> But do you honestly believe that they will eat into D&D market share when they are releasing a 3.5 d20 knock-off that doesn't even come out until a year after the release of 4e?



But you have to wonder, How many people will not purchase 4E?  What if 10-20% of the people WOTC projected do purchased 4E?  We are talking about 1 or 2 people out of every 10, but that would be a HUGE hit to WOTC.  People get fired in large corporations over those kinds of losses.  Personally, I think WOTC will actually miss their projected numbers because of the changes and the current RPG market.  But time will be the real judge in all of this.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Oh, c'mon, Wulf.  The end product is a new RPG, for which you will pay money. The initial free playtest PDFs are part of the marketing.




Don't c'mon me-- you're wrong. There's no "hustle" here.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 19, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I'm not sure why it's important to you, Paizo, or anybody else whether Pathfinder eats into the market share of D&D or not.
> 
> If I thought it was relevant I might argue with you, but I'm happy to concede the point if you'll move on. Consider the point made.
> 
> ...



I just wanted to take a moment to address this, since a number of folks are seemingly quite surprised at people not liking the Paizo decision, and even seeming angry at it, I mean, what gives???

For me, I like Paizo products, and the people who are behind them are good people, so it has nothing to do with that.

It does frustrate me that I am not going to have adventure paths to purchase from them any more. It also frustrates me that after eight years of building a community of D&D, D20 and OGL gamers, this is the first major example of how that community is breaking apart.

I think that a fracturing of the gaming base doesn't serve anyone, and it makes it harder for the hobby to grow.

It also frustrates me tremendously that we seem to be going back to the "D&D done right" style of Fantasy Heartbreakers that the D20 License and OGL mostly put an end to.

I don't blame Paizo for this situation: they're doing what they think is best to keep their company viable and profitable. I do, however put the blame squarely on WotC for allowing this situation to develop, and for not realizing how the D20 License and the OGL in general helped them and helped gaming.

I'm going forward with 4E, and I was hoping to continue to buy products from a lot of the smaller RPG companies, especially PDF publishers. If more publishers go this way, I'll buy a lot less from these smaller companies, and I won't be alone. That also frustrates me because most of them are made up of good, talented people who can use all the support they can get.

It just looks like some dark times are ahead for the gaming industry.

--Steve


----------



## Dragonblade (Mar 19, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Or like saying that Linux vs. Microsoft is significant?
> 
> Yet, there are many, many Linux users out there.




Indeed there are. And a fine OS it is.


----------



## buzz (Mar 19, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Don't c'mon me-- you're wrong. There's no "hustle" here.



Who said anything about a hustle? I'm just saying, you will exchange cash for their goods when the final product is released. That final product will be not-identical to D&D 3.5. It's a new RPG, plain and simple. No different whatsoever from buying a copy of AE.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Mar 19, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> It does frustrate me that I am not going to have adventure paths to purchase from them any more. It also frustrates me that after eight years of building a community of D&D, D20 and OGL gamers, this is the first major example of how that community is breaking apart.




I don't know that I'd say this is the first major example- IMO, the announcement of 4E was the first major example. There have been other demonstrations of it along the road to Paizo's announcement as well.



> I don't blame Paizo for this situation: they're doing what they think is best to keep their company viable and profitable. I do, however put the blame squarely on WotC for allowing this situation to develop, and for not realizing how the D20 License and the OGL in general helped them and helped gaming.




And I think that's right on the mark. I understand why WotC decided it was more financially viable to release a new edition- they're a business after all. A lot of the changes that came about, though, seem to me to be fairly transparently an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle and regain control of IP (or, in many/most cases, create new IP to have control of). 

I think that the OGL was put in place by people who (in the wake of the near demise of D&D under the waning days of TSR) saw a need to keep the potential for keeping the system alive, and created it in as much of a sense of altruism as is possible in business, but that same system- under different hands and eyes- was seen as possibly hindering profits, and a new version of it was needed/desired. That's where the fractioning came in, IMO.

I can't say I'm surprised by the negative reaction to Paizo's announcement by some, any more than I'm surprised by the negative reaction to 4E by some. I do think that Paizo- like WotC- is doing what they perceive as in their best interests, and wish them the best of luck. (and, in the interest of full disclosure, as someone who is not interested in what I've seen of 4E- at least most of it- I'm very excited that Paizo is taking the OGL ball and running with it, just as other publishers have done in their own various ways.)


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Mar 19, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> It also frustrates me tremendously that we seem to be going back to the "D&D done right" style of Fantasy Heartbreakers that the D20 License and OGL mostly put an end to.




True 20, Arcana Unearthed, Iron Heroes, Conan, C&C....

Even with those examples, I think that is something of a false comparison. Before if you had nifty new houserules that was your "D&D Done right" You published a game - under the OGL/D20 you published a supplement with alternate rules. A lot of games were alien to each other depending on what 3rd party books were allowed/disallowed/used. There were many "D&D done right" games being played, just not published. 

I personally foresaw this happening about 5 years ago, ponding if any company (or consortium of companies) would keep 3.x alive when WotC went to the next edition. 

I think keeping a variant/offshoot of the 3.x rules alive for those players that want to play that game system, and want continued support is a good thing.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 19, 2008)

I was excited when I first saw the news. I rushed off to see the Alpha product...

but is it just me or is it 3.5++, souped up more powerful races, more powerful classes, more powerful PCs overall? I read it over, and it seemed like it completely obsoleted the entire 3.5 line. 3.5 compatible? Hardly... Those classes are better. Those races are better. I'd have to increase the power level of everything in order to use them. That doesn't just go for WotC products, it goes for well designed 3rd party products too.

Slow, Medium, and Fast leveling progressions? Never mind how that will negatively affect wealth by level and force me to recalculate everything. How will this affect APs, Paizo's main thing??? So, I go through the first adventure in Pathfinder with the Slow XP progression, how is the AP written to take into account the different levels that exist between different groups doing different progressions? That's the whole point, right? The AP?

I'm quite disheartened. I _love_ Paizo adventures. But, I already own several OGL games. I don't want another non-3.5-compatible product. And, if Paizo's adventures use this Pathfinder RPG rules, well, then they aren't 3.5 compatible anymore, because I can't use any of my 3.5 stuff (without changing it to suit Pathfinder RPG!) to play the adventure!

What is going on here?


----------



## buzz (Mar 19, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> For me, I like Paizo products, and the people who are behind them are good people, so it has nothing to do with that.
> 
> It does frustrate me that I am not going to have adventure paths to purchase from them any more. It also frustrates me that after eight years of building a community of D&D, D20 and OGL gamers, this is the first major example of how that community is breaking apart.
> 
> ...



I pretty much agree with all of this.



			
				SteveC said:
			
		

> I do, however put the blame squarely on WotC for allowing this situation to develop, and for not realizing how the D20 License and the OGL in general helped them and helped gaming.



Hmm... I do agree that Paizo should have been one of the first groups WotC went to when 4e playtesting started. Keeping them in the loop from early on seems like it should have been a no-brainer.

As for "dark times"... I dunno. I don't think Paizo's efforts can really "fracture" the fanbase in a significant way; not any more than any competing RPG does. Some people are going to like playing WotC products, some people aren't.

I'm just bummed because I love Paizo's products, but now they're effectively not going to make as many products that I can use anymore.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Mar 19, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> I do, however put the blame squarely on WotC for allowing this situation to develop, and for not realizing how the D20 License and the OGL in general helped them and helped gaming.
> 
> I'm going forward with 4E, and I was hoping to continue to buy products from a lot of the smaller RPG companies, especially PDF publishers. If more publishers go this way, I'll buy a lot less from these smaller companies, and I won't be alone. That also frustrates me because most of them are made up of good, talented people who can use all the support they can get.




So why reward them for fragmenting the community and turning their back on what made the OGL movement so wonderful?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Oh, c'mon, Wulf.  The end product is a new RPG, for which you will pay money. The initial free playtest PDFs are part of the marketing.



They said somewhere that the product would be available (as PDF) for free.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 19, 2008)

Lord Mhoram said:
			
		

> True 20, Arcana Unearthed, Iron Heroes, Conan, C&C....
> 
> Even with those examples, I think that is something of a false comparison. Before if you had nifty new houserules that was your "D&D Done right" You published a game - under the OGL/D20 you published a supplement with alternate rules. A lot of games were alien to each other depending on what 3rd party books were allowed/disallowed/used. There were many "D&D done right" games being played, just not published.



The thing is, with the games you quoted: they all have the same baseline: the 3X SRD. I view the OGL as a sort of salad bar: you take what you want to make your meal. To that end, I have used classes, feats and rule mechanics from most of those games in D&D campaigns that I have run, and the rules fit in quite well. The result for me was better gaming out of a pool of resources.

Once we go to 4E, it becomes much more difficult to take something from one of these sources and port it in, because we start with a different baseline. 

When I think of each of the games you mention, they all could have been done with their own system, but they weren't: the creators saw wisdom in drawing from the strengths that D20 brought to the table, both in rules familiarity and creating a player base. One of the things that a friend of mine did for a few years at Gen Con is ask new companies why their system couldn't run off of D20 when it was basically "D&D done right." We haven't seen very many of these companies in the last few years, because of the OGL.

Now, without the OGL, we're back to everyone for themselves again, which is too bad! 

--Steve


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> As for "dark times"... I dunno. I don't think Paizo's efforts can really "fracture" the fanbase in a significant way; not any more than any competing RPG does. Some people are going to like playing WotC products, some people aren't.



I agree that we won't see "dark times".  I certainly won't.  
I also agree that Paizo won't really fracture the fan base.
But WotC already has fractured the fan base and Paizo will make it easier for those fractures to stay apart.  
And I still think you are missing the point when you simply compare this to any other RPG.  In the past it has been D20 games competing for scraps of D&D's D20 market.  WotC has turned its back on that market and this is two markets now.


----------



## Psion (Mar 19, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But WotC already has fractured the fan base and Paizo will make it easier for those fractures to stay apart.




I think that's pretty accurate.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Who said anything about a hustle? I'm just saying, you will exchange cash for their goods when the final product is released.




But it's not a required purchase. If I wanted to subscribe to Pathfinder (the modules) and not buy the RPG, I can do that. 

(That's actually probably the opposite of my intentions, just saying.)



> That final product will be not-identical to D&D 3.5. It's a new RPG, plain and simple. No different whatsoever from buying a copy of AE.




If by "No different whatsoever from buying a copy of AE," you mean, "Am I likely to buy a copy for no other reason than to read it, put it on my shelf, and be satisfied that I supported Open design," you're correct.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 19, 2008)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> So why reward them for fragmenting the community and turning their back on what made the OGL movement so wonderful?



The only reason I'm rewarding them is because I like what I've seen from 4E: I really think it is a better system to play D&D with. If it turns out to not be the case I will move back to another system and take a break from D&D style gaming for a few years.

The Pathfinder Alpha document doesn't address any of the problems I have with the current rules, so it isn't any use to me, unfortunately. It also won't be compatible with my legion of splats for 3X, so I can't even use it for the games I run now.

--Steve


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> The only reason I'm rewarding them is because I like what I've seen from 4E: I really think it is a better system to play D&D with.



Then why are you frustrated with people who are doing the exact same thing as you?  The only difference is we prefer what we see in 3E.  How is one option "right" and the other "frustrating"?


----------



## Treebore (Mar 19, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> They said somewhere that the product would be available (as PDF) for free.





Yep, they said in at least two places that the PDF of the rules set will always be free, that only the print version would cost money. They made those posts to make that distinction. One of the posts I read is probably in this very thread.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 19, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> But it's not a required purchase. If I wanted to subscribe to Pathfinder (the modules) and not buy the RPG, I can do that.
> 
> (That's actually probably the opposite of my intentions, just saying.)




Just out of curiosity, have you read the pdf?

What are your thoughts?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 19, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Paizo's not selling me a new RPG. Paizo is selling adventures (and ongoing support).



I think I see what you're saying here. Paizo's main business is selling adventure paths. The Pathfinder RPG is a loss leader supporting their core business, somewhat like gaming consoles and cartridges.

D&D by contrast has a very different model. Its core business is selling PHBs.


----------



## buzz (Mar 19, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Yep, they said in at least two places that the PDF of the rules set will always be free, that only the print version would cost money. They made those posts to make that distinction. One of the posts I read is probably in this very thread.



The final product, too? The Paizo site only says that the alpha and beta rules will be free PDFs. If the final product is, too, that awesome, but I don't see that mentioned anywhere on their site.



			
				Wulf Rathbane said:
			
		

> If I wanted to subscribe to Pathfinder (the modules) and not buy the RPG, I can do that.



Right, but then the modules you buy after Aug '09 are not going to be using 3.5, they'll be using Pathfinder.


----------



## mmu1 (Mar 19, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> It does frustrate me that I am not going to have adventure paths to purchase from them any more. It also frustrates me that after eight years of building a community of D&D, D20 and OGL gamers, this is the first major example of how that community is breaking apart.




Yes, well, imagine how frustrating it would be to find you dislike 4E and find the whole _hobby_ (not just a handful of supplements) you've followed for years is leaving you behind.

Not that I'm trying to single you out (and I'm not really one of those unfortunate people either, my group seems happy enough to stick with 3.5) - your post just made me realize how amusing I find the reaction of all the 4E fans who feel they're being hurt by this, but were only too happy to say "too bad, deal with it" to people who felt like 4E kicked their dog.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> The final product, too? The Paizo site only says that the alpha and beta rules will be free PDFs. If the final product is, too, that awesome, but I don't see that mentioned anywhere on their site.



 yes.



> Right, but then the modules you buy after Aug '09 are not going to be using 3.5, they'll be using Pathfinder.



Which he can get for free.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Right, but then the modules you buy after Aug '09 are not going to be using 3.5, they'll be using Pathfinder.




I am both smarter than the average bear, and happen to have developed my own "alternate PHB" in Grim Tales. 

As it happens, neither of these qualifications will be necessary to run a Pathfinder adventure using existing 3.5 rules. I trust that Pathfinder will be so close to 3.5 as to require ZERO modification on my part. 

It will be a trivial matter to run Rappan Athuk 3.5 using Pathfinder.

It will be a trivial matter to run Pathfinder modules using 3.5.

In either case my existing 3.5 library gets a workout, instead of being thrown out.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, have you read the pdf?
> 
> What are your thoughts?




I was able to read it quickly last night, skimming it for the fixes that I was specifically looking for. While I think their design goals are all in exactly the right place, so far it falls short of where it needs to be.

Of course, it's an Alpha. It's not even a complete Alpha-- it's just the first 66 pages. I  figured that out by the end.


----------



## Pinotage (Mar 19, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> but is it just me or is it 3.5++, souped up more powerful races, more powerful classes, more powerful PCs overall? I read it over, and it seemed like it completely obsoleted the entire 3.5 line. 3.5 compatible? Hardly... Those classes are better. Those races are better. I'd have to increase the power level of everything in order to use them. That doesn't just go for WotC products, it goes for well designed 3rd party products too.
> 
> I'm quite disheartened. I _love_ Paizo adventures. But, I already own several OGL games. I don't want another non-3.5-compatible product. And, if Paizo's adventures use this Pathfinder RPG rules, well, then they aren't 3.5 compatible anymore, because I can't use any of my 3.5 stuff (without changing it to suit Pathfinder RPG!) to play the adventure!
> 
> What is going on here?




It's very tempting to be overly critical on a Alpha 1 product. If you scour through the comments on the boards at Paizo, though, lots of people are making good suggestions and Paizo are taking note. In a few weeks the next Alpha will be out, and it'll likely improve on what we've seen and include new material.

You're right, the classes do look more powerful, and will likely have more hp. Ala 4e, really. But that's not the whole picture. They could reduce CRs, for example, to compensate without changing the monsters. Or increase monster hp a little to compensate without breaking compatibility. The 3.5e system is very flexible, and this is early days. I'm heartened by some of the good changes I see, and I know the open playtest will improve those that don't look great on the surface.


----------



## buzz (Mar 19, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> yes.
> 
> Which he can get for free.



Well, cool. Can you point me to where this was stated? I searched this thread and Paizo's Pathfinder page and did not see this.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Mar 19, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I think I see what you're saying here. Paizo's main business is selling adventure paths. The Pathfinder RPG is a loss leader supporting their core business, somewhat like gaming consoles and cartridges.




I think it's also a bit more than just a loss leader- at some point when the PHB/DMG/MM are out of print and unavailable, the Pathfinder RPG will be an in for new players to become indoctrinated to the system as well.

That is, if I understand your term "loss leader" correctly (which I may not).

So it helps to not only bolster their existing community support, but potentially has the ability to aid them in expanding it as well.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 19, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Then why are you frustrated with people who are doing the exact same thing as you?  The only difference is we prefer what we see in 3E.  How is one option "right" and the other "frustrating"?



I'm not concerned that you happen to prefer 3E at all, that's entirely up to you. I'm not even sure why you'd think that. It's perfectly okay for you to be frustrated over 4E if you don't like it: right and wrong don't enter into opinions. I trust your judgment enough to know which edition you prefer.   

From my perspective: I'm frustrated that I will no longer have Paizo products to purchase, and I'm also frustrated that this first real example of the fracturing of the D&D market has occurred. I'm not blaming Paizo for this, it's squarely WotC's fault, but that doesn't mean that I'm not frustrated by the situation. 

I know that Paizo understands their customers and their market, but I believe that staying with 3X is a mistake, and that they are severely over-estimating how many people will be staying with 3X, especially a year from now.

I wish them well as a company, but every instinct says this is a bad move. Launching a new line of products based on 3X isn't a bad idea now, but a year from now? I would expect their market to be 10-15% of what it is now, and to be shrinking. 

Time will tell, and I will be entirely happy to be proven wrong in this matter, believe me.

--Steve


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 19, 2008)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> They could reduce CRs, for example, to compensate without changing the monsters. Or increase monster hp a little to compensate without breaking compatibility. The 3.5e system is very flexible, and this is early days. I'm heartened by some of the good changes I see, and I know the open playtest will improve those that don't look great on the surface.




I don't think changing monsters is an option. It would invalidate way too many monster books. You also can't get a formula to change CRs. What I think they need to do is to add more options without increasing power, so by my thinking decrease overall power of everything, then add in more options to the rules. I don't know...

They won't be addressing my biggest problem with 3e, though, so I'm kind of disappointed. I've seen some good stuff in there, though. I like what they did with wizard specialization. I like the half-orc far better than the default 3.5 one. Their combat maneuver rules are elegant and extensible. Overall, I see a lot of cool fun intriguing stuff. I just worry because it doesn't look backwards compatible to me.

I would love to play in a Paizo adventure. Love it. I never have, I've always DMed. Even though I'm pro-4e, I've never claimed that I wouldn't play 3.5 again. I'm just a bit stand offish to 3.5-but-not-really. It just seems like I'd have to move away from 3.5 no matter what if I go with Paizo.


----------



## JoshuaFrost (Mar 19, 2008)

Howdy folks,

I'm keeping an eye on this thread (as are others here at Paizo) and I've read every single post. This is a great, lively discussion and I'm enjoying reading everyone's feedback (good or bad!). I want to mention a few quick items and then I'll duck back out of the discussion:

1) The document available for download on our website, PRPG Alpha release 1, is a _playtest document_. It is not the end-all, be-all of PRPG and we certainly want everyone even tangentially interested in PRPG to give us feedback on our direction over on our Alpha boards. There seems to be some confusion about the nomenclature between Alpha, Beta, and final. This is not the final RPG. Those of you interested in playtesting through the Alpha and Beta open playtest will help us create the final.

2) Every stage of the Alpha and Beta playtest will have FREE downloadable PDFs to continue FREE participation in our open playtest.

3) We'll release a Beta soft-cover book at Gen Con and into hobby distribution as just another approach to getting as many playtesters as possible. At $24.99 for a 300+ page, full-color, soft-cover book we think a large number of interested players who want a physical copy will  jump on this opportunity. If paying for a Beta isn't for you, then awesome! It'll be a free PDF download.

4) The finished Pathfinder RPG product in August 2009 will be a 420 (or so) page hardcover designed to replace the PHB and DMG for 3.5 that we expect will go out of print. Hopefully, with everyone's participation in the Alpha and Beta playtest, we'll have enough awesome feedback to make this the game that folks sticking with 3.5 (or even just interested in the rules) will want to play. We know it won't be for everyone, unfortunately, but our primary design goal is create an updated rules set that is largely backward-compatible with 3.5 and will require a _minimum_ of adjustment for pre-PRPG products to be run via PRPG.

5) This is not a Paizo vs WotC announcement. We know 4th Edition will be successful and we wish our friends (seriously, we have a lot of friends there) at WotC the best of luck launching 4E this summer. We know a portion of the existing audience will want to stay with 3.5 and we intend to provide the support to keep 3.5 alive for many years to come. We certainly have not closed the door on 4E, either! We're eager to see the GSL (still!) and eager to see the full rules and may be able to support 4E in the future--certainly through our partnership with Necromancer and possibly in other ways too. Just not with Pathfinder.

Thanks everyone!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 19, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I don't think changing monsters is an option. It would invalidate way too many monster books. You also can't get a formula to change CRs.




You're right on the money, there. 

What they can (and should) do is change what CR means-- or rather, what CR means to encounters.

For example, if CR1 stops meaning "Throw 1 of these at a 1st level party..." and instead means "Throw 1 of these at each PC..." then we're cooking.   

Or whatever. It's not really used "in the math" in any way except to express a certain power level. CR1 _doesn't mean_ "half the power of CR2" for example. It's just a tag, used for shorthand.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Mar 19, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> D&D by contrast has a very different model. Its core business is selling PHBs.




I never believed that for 3.x (at least, after the first year).  I categorically deny that for 4e.  The core business of D&D is now DDI.  Everything else is to drive that.


----------



## Pinotage (Mar 19, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I don't think changing monsters is an option. It would invalidate way too many monster books. You also can't get a formula to change CRs. What I think they need to do is to add more options without increasing power, so by my thinking decrease overall power of everything, then add in more options to the rules. I don't know...




Given that they can't touch any non-OGL material, and by extension all WotC material outside of PHB and UA, it is going to be difficult for them to balance everything with the hundres of prestige classes, magic items and spells out there. They can't rewrite those, or even offer advice on those. In that sense, yes, compatibility will be an issue. But, they can make it entirely compatible with the core, and keep the system overall same enough that it won't be as different as between 3e and 3.5e. I still think that a blanket reduction in CR by 1, for example, is a fair way of doing it. Let's face it, CR isn't terribly accurate in any case!   



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> They won't be addressing my biggest problem with 3e, though, so I'm kind of disappointed.




You mean backward compatibility?

Pinotage


----------



## buzz (Mar 19, 2008)

JoshuaFrost said:
			
		

> 2) Every stage of the Alpha and Beta playtest will have FREE downloadable PDFs to continue FREE participation in our open playtest.
> 
> 3) ... If paying for a Beta isn't for you, then awesome! It'll be a free PDF download.
> 
> 4) The finished Pathfinder RPG product in August 2009 will be a 420 (or so) page hardcover designed to replace the PHB and DMG for 3.5 that we expect will go out of print. Hopefully, with everyone's participation in the Alpha and Beta playtest, we'll have enough awesome feedback to make this the game that folks sticking with 3.5 (or even just interested in the rules) will want to play. We know it won't be for everyone, unfortunately, but our primary design goal is create an updated rules set that is largely backward-compatible with 3.5 and will require a _minimum_ of adjustment for pre-PRPG products to be run via PRPG.



So, the final product will not be available as a free PDF, correct?

Which is fine, as giving it away free as a PDF seems too good to be true.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> I'm also frustrated that this first real example of the fracturing of the D&D market has occurred.



  First you have noticed. 



> I know that Paizo understands their customers and their market, but I believe that staying with 3X is a mistake, and that they are severely over-estimating how many people will be staying with 3X, especially a year from now.



  I think you are wrong and I think WotC is severly over-estimating how many people will switch just because a new system comes out.



> I wish them well as a company, but every instinct says this is a bad move. Launching a new line of products based on 3X isn't a bad idea now, but a year from now? I would expect their market to be 10-15% of what it is now, and to be shrinking.



No way.  It may not work out.  There are plenty of ways that could happen.  But there just seems to be a "then a miracle happens" presumption that people who don't like 4e will go to 4e just because.  Assuming that people are sheep will only get you so far.  And I also think Paizo fans will be vastly more loyal than 4e fans.


----------



## buzz (Mar 19, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I think you are wrong and I think WotC is severly over-estimating how many people will switch just because a new system comes out.



Oh, jeez.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> Oh, jeez.



What?  The context of this statement is people who are interested in staying with 3X.  If SteveC is right then people will be changing "just because".


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Mar 19, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Or whatever. It's not really used "in the math" in any way except to express a certain power level. CR1 _doesn't mean_ "half the power of CR2" for example. It's just a tag, used for shorthand.




If I'm not mistaken, the CR and EL stuff isn't part of the SRD in any event, is it?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 19, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> If I'm not mistaken, the CR and EL stuff isn't part of the SRD in any event, is it?




CR is in the statblock of every SRD monster.

You're probably thinking of the XP awards and the XP advancement table-- but those have been adequately covered in other OGC at this point.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Mar 19, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> CR is in the statblock of every SRD monster.




D'OH!



> You're probably thinking of the XP awards and the XP advancement table-- but those have been adequately covered in other OGC at this point.




You're right- that's what I was thinking of. Still, there isn't the explanation of what CR and EL means in the SRD, though, right? Like there is in the DMG?

If not, then they could conceivably still do some work to define it on their own terms, and thus possibly achieve a better balance of CR like people are suggesting.


----------



## buzz (Mar 19, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> What?  The context of this statement is people who are interested in staying with 3X.  If SteveC is right then people will be changing "just because".



I just don't think WotC is over-estimating anything.


----------



## buzz (Mar 19, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> If not, then they could conceivably still do some work to define it on their own terms, and thus possibly achieve a better balance of CR like people are suggesting.



The alpha doc already has some of this, FYI.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 19, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> You're right- that's what I was thinking of. Still, there isn't the explanation of what CR and EL means in the SRD, though, right? Like there is in the DMG?




Not that I know of-- but remember, that's not an impediment to design. If you could only use things in the SRD there would _be_ no design other than the SRD.



> If not, then they could conceivably still do some work to define it on their own terms, and thus possibly achieve a better balance of CR like people are suggesting.




CR, with respect to EL and encounter building, is *deeply* flawed. Fixing Encounter Design is at the top of _my own_ design list-- and I hope it's on Paizo's.

It's a real bitch.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Mar 19, 2008)

JoshuaFrost said:
			
		

> I'm keeping an eye on this thread (as are others here at Paizo) and I've read every single post. This is a great, lively discussion and I'm enjoying reading everyone's feedback (good or bad!). I want to mention a few quick items and then I'll duck back out of the discussion:




Before you duck completely out, Joshua, a quick question for you (or any of your cohorts at Paizo):

Is Paizo limiting this playtest and feedback to the community, or are you all working with/talking to other 3rd party publishers who may have an interest in additional 3.X rules support for their own products, and taking feedback from them?

I'm curious as to the extent (if any) of the Open Source movement among the 3rd party publishers as it pertains to the existing D20/OGL, primarily. 

Won't have any real bearing on whether I decide to go 4E or not (I'm not), but I'm curious as to what kind of support Pathfinder RPG might be getting from other publishers.


----------



## nutluck (Mar 19, 2008)

Wanted to reply to a couple of the comments below.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> Sure, but let me turn the tables again, and posit that, had 3.75 come from WotC instead of Paizo, a lot of the same people who are lauding Paizo now would probably be griping non-stop about WotC's evil empire.




I am sure some people would, but most people I know that are against 4e right now. It is not cause of one change here or there even some of the stuff they hate they could live with. It is the sheer number of changes. If WotC had only made half the changes they did I think a lot more people would be pro-4e from what I have read by the anti-4e crowd. Myself included and my gaming group, we all do have similar tastes in game so no big shock there.





> That said, I still find this issue of "support" kind of bizarre. Were I interested in playing 3.5, there's enough product in existence right now to keep me entertained for probably the next 20 years. That someone suggested the idea of eBay "drying up" is pretty laughable considering you can still buy '80s-era 1e and basic products in mass quantities.




True but their is a difference from having to go search Ebay for a book and being able to find it or just happen to see it on the shelf of your LGS or bookstore. They might not get a lot of new people but having the book out in places where people actively look for games sure can't hurt.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> The alpha doc already has some of this, FYI.




Thought I saw something in there- haven't gotten that far in my reading yet (just a preliminary perusal, now I'm going in depth from page one down).


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> I just don't think WotC is over-estimating anything.



Right now, I think you both are just flapping your lips about something neither one has any actual facts about.  WotC clearly isn't omniscient; enough people have slammed their "marketing" of 4e for that to be obvious.  And Pathfinder isn't "just" another d20 spin-off; it's a d20 spin-off coming out at just the right time.  4e is going to do great.  Pathfinder isn't going to cut into WotC's sales - it's not even releasing until over a year later!  If Pathfinder affects WotC, it'll affect supplements and future "core" releases.

It's not an either/or proposition; most Pathfinder customers will probably also be WotC customers.  That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

And on a different topic; I also understood Alpha and Beta to be free on pdf, and Omega to be...not free.


----------



## nutluck (Mar 19, 2008)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I have to agree with buzz here.  I would laud Paizo's move if they had simply decided to continue to create 3.5 compatible Pathfinder adventures.  Going into the rulebook business seems 1) unnecessary and 2) disadvantageous.




Have to comment about this too. I disagree and here's why. I play old World of Darkness and help a friend run a online chat site for the game. The site is still going on playing with the old rules, we are getting fewer and fewer new people though. But the big reason we are? We require the people to own the old revised books and we have had more than a few people express a interest in playing and have trouble finding the books. 

I see 4e more along the ways I seen the WoD change. yeah WoD still sold a lot and WW did well but far more people stuck with the old WoD than was expected. Enough a whole host of online sites still run with those rules and out number the new WoD sites... least the last time last summer I hunted around for sites.

now I am not saying Paizo is going to take down WotC or ruin 4e, thats silly. But I do think there is enough people that will stick with it, espically if some other 3rd party publishers jump on the wagon. Such as Privateer Press with Iron Kingdoms, Conan by Mongoose(next time they revise it) ect. That they will stay in business and do well, but if they didn't make a new core book I believe it would eventually fail like old WoD is finally starting to do. With the new core book there will always be a set of rules to buy for new people.

Now it still might fail eventually only time will tell but I think a new core book will extend that time by a noticible degree.

of course in 10 or 15 years we all might be playing DnD in VR gadgets too for all i know.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Mar 19, 2008)

All I have to say is: I like options.  

The market has already fragmented.  It had even before 4e with C&C and True 20 and many other systems.  The only difference now is that there are larger and more numerous cracks.  

With several members of my old group vehemently denouncing 4e, if I ever try to get that group back together, this might be an option.  If not I'll probably stick with 3.5 and many old copies of Dungeon my friend never got to use and has loaned to me.

Good luck to Paizo.  I hope this turns out well for you and everyone who plays it.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 19, 2008)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> You mean backward compatibility?




The general way the game breaks down at high levels. My theory is that there is one major thing that breaks the game at high levels: the spell _heal_, but that is a long post (the end result of which being that the game is fundamentally broken beginning in the teens because of it), and I'd better not get into it here!

I don't know how they would fix it exactly. I don't demand miracles! But, the Pathfinder RPG (Alpha) seems to make the problem worse to me.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> I just don't think WotC is over-estimating anything.



Fair enough.  I have no knowledge of WotC's estimations and that wasn't the best possible choice of words.

I think 4E's popularity will be less than they hoped.  That isn't a crash and burn prediction.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 19, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> What?  The context of this statement is people who are interested in staying with 3X.  If SteveC is right then people will be changing "just because".



I just wanted to say that "just because" is certainly not the primary reason I believe people will change. Certainly new people who start playing D&D will be playing 4E, but that's because it's what's on the shelf. I am also sure that there will be many people who will try it out to see what's new and enjoy it enough to keep playing.

For me, and for a lot of ENWorlders, we'll be switching because 4E fixes problems that we had with 3X. I haven't played the full game yet, but from what I have seen, it will allow me to better tell the kind of stories that I want to tell.

I'm sure there are other reasons for changing over as well, and as to what percentage of people will switch for which reason, I have no idea. I will say, for the record, that most people will change, and that the number of people who keep playing 3X will steadily decrease. I'd happily make a gentleman's wager on this if I had any way to verify the numbers.

Will this be enough for Paizo to stay in business? I have no idea. I don't know what kind of print runs their products have, but if we're talking 3-5000 copies, I would say it's extremely unlikely that you'll see that many books moving for a single adventure any more.


--Steve


----------



## BryonD (Mar 19, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> I just wanted to say that "just because" is certainly not the primary reason I believe people will change.



Well, you predicted a 90% drop in Paizo sales.  That would require "just because".  I don't question any of the reasons you have offered as legitimate.  But a large chuck of Paizo's sales are not going to be covered by your list.


----------



## JoshuaFrost (Mar 19, 2008)

buzz said:
			
		

> So, the final product will not be available as a free PDF, correct?
> 
> Which is fine, as giving it away free as a PDF seems too good to be true.




The finished Pathfinder RPG will be released as both a hardcover and a PDF--neither of which will be free. 



			
				Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Is Paizo limiting this playtest and feedback to the community, or are you all working with/talking to other 3rd party publishers who may have an interest in additional 3.X rules support for their own products, and taking feedback from them?
> 
> I'm curious as to the extent (if any) of the Open Source movement among the 3rd party publishers as it pertains to the existing D20/OGL, primarily.




We are not in anyway limiting the feedback from the playtest. We want _everyone's_ feedback. I sent a version of the press release to our distributors and retailers yesterday even asking for their feedback. We've sent Alpha Release 1 to other third party publishers (I can't say who at this time ... or maybe ever, really) and I know of a few third party publishers who downloaded Alpha Release 1 yesterday and have commented on it. It'll be up to those manufacturers to decide if the finished PRPG is a system they want to support since we're releasing it as (largely) open content. (You can see what's open and not open on the title page of Alpha Release 1.)


----------



## ivocaliban (Mar 19, 2008)

I'm very pleased and intended to show my support for Paizo and their decision with my wallet. What WotC was to me from 2000-2007, Paizo will be from 2008 on. That is, they'll be receiving the bulk of my roleplaying budget and will serve as the springboard for most of my future purchases.


----------



## joela (Mar 19, 2008)

*Fc*



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> http://www.crafty-games.com/product_catalog/development




Thanks!


----------



## darjr (Mar 20, 2008)

A litmus test for the viability of a living 3.5 marketplace and community. Very interested in how it all plays out.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 20, 2008)

JoshuaFrost said:
			
		

> The finished Pathfinder RPG will be released as both a hardcover and a PDF--neither of which will be free.



My bad.  Obviously I got the wrong idea somewhere.
My apologies


----------



## SteveC (Mar 20, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Well, you predicted a 90% drop in Paizo sales.  That would require "just because".  I don't question any of the reasons you have offered as legitimate.  But a large chuck of Paizo's sales are not going to be covered by your list.



Well truth be told, I did say 85-90%, and remembering the last comment I made on this subject some time ago, I think the single biggest factor will be the "Look! SHINY!" of the new books. Is that tantamount to being "just because?" Maybe.

Still, that's what my instincts tell me, from living through all of the different editions so far. It certainly is a case of "your mileage may vary."


I also just wanted to make sure and say that I'm not trying to be snarky here: I have a lot of respect for the people on this board, and even though we disagree I think we all want the same things in the end: good gaming.

To perhaps turn this around a little bit, I have looked over the Pathfinder PDF and didn't find anything particularly inspiring, nor did I see it addressing the key problems most commonly expressed with 3X. If you like it, tell me what I'm missing. I have been known to be wrong on occasion, so how does the Alpha bring the awesome?

--Steve


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Mar 20, 2008)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> I'd just like to point out that IBM no longer manufactures IBM PCs. Nevertheless, the IBM PC is the market leader. It is possible that when WotC let the genie out of the bottle by releasing 3.0 under the OGL, they too ensured that they will eventually no longer be in the D&D business. Sure it will take years to happen, but given their parent company's tendency to cancel games that are making a profit and the innovation occurring in 3rd party publishing, it is a distinct possibility that the future of D&D may rest in the hands of companies like Paizo and Green Ronin.
> 
> Of course it is not my desire to see WotC get out of the D&D business, but based on what I'm reading online and the people I know in real life, there is a significant number of people who are bitter about the edition change this time around since it follows so close on the heels of 3.5 and have no intention to switch. It is possible that despite what WotC thinks and what the retailers are preparing for, 4th edition players might just be in the minority. If that's the case, existing 3.5 players will want continued support, and with Pathfinder, they will get it.




Don't muck up the thread with your reasoned argumentation. The sky is falling!


----------



## BryonD (Mar 20, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> Well truth be told, I did say 85-90%, and remembering the last comment I made on this subject some time ago, I think the single biggest factor will be the "Look! SHINY!" of the new books. Is that tantamount to being "just because?" Maybe.



OK, thats pretty much what I saw.  I think 85% -90% "and dropping" is fair to call 90%.    



> Still, that's what my instincts tell me, from living through all of the different editions so far. It certainly is a case of "your mileage may vary."



 And I think the YMMV is the important part.  



> I also just wanted to make sure and say that I'm not trying to be snarky here: I have a lot of respect for the people on this board, and even though we disagree I think we all want the same things in the end: good gaming.



Its all good with me.



> To perhaps turn this around a little bit, I have looked over the Pathfinder PDF and didn't find anything particularly inspiring, nor did I see it addressing the key problems most commonly expressed with 3X. If you like it, tell me what I'm missing. I have been known to be wrong on occasion, so how does the Alpha bring the awesome?



Again, there is a sizable portion of the current 3X audience who are very concerned with 4E for one or more of a variety of reasons.  It really doesn't matter if five different people have five completely different reasons.  They want to play 3E and they don't want to go to 4E.  

PF brings the awesome by establishing a continued community base for that gaming preference.  

For me personally, the alpha so far is just fine.  Nothing made me go Hell Yeah!!, but unlike 4E, nothing made me go Oh Hell!!!.  

But the simple fact that it is going to support MY game makes me go HELL YEAH!!!  I've been adapting all kinds of stuff for years now, so continuation of that doesn't even make me blink.  

And the PF stuff did all look fine, so I'm open to just diving in to these changes just for change sake.  (I'll say again that I was very excited when 4e was announced.  I'm not at all adverse to change.  It is simply the specific 4e changes that drove me away)

You said you were frustrated because Paizo won't be servicing you any more.  Well imagine how I've felt knowing that WotC's work will be gone as far as I am concerned and not much sign of anywhere else to turn.  Now I've got a base to turn to.  THAT is the AWESOME.

And again, on the merits of the alpha, for one, I think the idea of open community input development over a year sounds fun.  And also (and this isn't at you) I am amused at all the people saying we can't judge 4e yet because we don't know enough (even post DDXP) and yet they are already slamming a very incomplete partial draft that is intended to be a starting point for comment.  That is funny.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 20, 2008)

Brennin Magalus said:
			
		

> Don't muck up the thread with your reasoned argumentation. The sky is falling!



Yeah.  But the sky is made of candy.


----------



## Treebore (Mar 20, 2008)

JoshuaFrost said:
			
		

> The finished Pathfinder RPG will be released as both a hardcover and a PDF--neither of which will be free.





Too bad. Are you guys going to do anything equivelant to the SRD? Or is the SRD the best we will get for free?


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 20, 2008)

JoshuaFrost said:
			
		

> It'll be up to those manufacturers to decide if the finished PRPG is a system they want to support since we're releasing it as (largely) open content. (You can see what's open and not open on the title page of Alpha Release 1.)



And regarding that, kudos.  I love good, clear support of the OGL.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Mar 20, 2008)

Well, let's see how many people will be playing this in another year...


----------



## trancejeremy (Mar 20, 2008)

Jürgen Hubert said:
			
		

> Well, let's see how many people will be playing this in another year...




Well, probably more than there are people playing Conan d20, Tru 20, or C&C.  It doesn't have to dethrone 4e, it just has to be enough to support Paizo


----------



## evilash (Mar 20, 2008)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> It doesn't have to dethrone 4e, it just has to be enough to support Paizo




Exactly, and I think that is the whole point with this move. Pathfinder RPG is not intended to compete with 4e and it is not intended to become Paizo's core business. It is, however, intended to support Paizo's main business, which is the Pathfinder Adventure Paths and Modules.

Now, why would they need PRPG to support their core business with 4e on the horizon? Well, we already know that the 4e OGL will be more restrictive than the 3.5 OGL. We also don't know whether there will even be a 5e OGL. By making this move Paizo ensures that they are not dependent on what WotC makes of future OGLs.

So it is really a long term business move and not a short term one. I anticipate that the Pathfinder RPG will continue to exist, no matter whether Paizo eventually decide to embrace 4e or not, just because it is an escape hatch in case WotC decide to close the door on future OLGs.


----------



## hewligan (Mar 20, 2008)

Well I have skimmed the rules, and I love what they have done to the fighter (the only class I have read thoroughly), and the races. The focus seems to be to add some power at 1st level, avoid "dead" levels, and provide an incentive to stay with the 'vanilla' classes for a while longer.

I am a huge Paizo fan. I am GMing the Runelords adventure path at the moment, and have bought quite a few Paizo items. I will buy this RPG upon release, for sure, and will probably stick with it.

For me, there is an attraction in staying close to a set of rules I have learned: I just do not have time to learn another completely new set. I have a kid, a second on the way, a stressful job, and little free time. What I do have I like to use to play rather than relearning a new rule set.

3.5 is broke, a little. Hopefully this will fix those bits, but leave the core close to the original.

As for the commercial aspect - let us wait and see. I know I will support Paizo over WoTC, and I know I am not a hardcore gamer, but we shall see how things develop.

I think in 2010 I will be playing 2 games:
Pathfinder RPG
Dark Heresy

Although you never know!


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 20, 2008)

I don't think it gets anywhere near dethroning 4E, although this will be the first time that Dungeons and Dragons is in competition with....Dungeons and Dragons.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 20, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I don't think it gets anywhere near dethroning 4E, although this will be the first time that Dungeons and Dragons is in competition with....Dungeons and Dragons.



Didn't AD&D and OD&D compete for a while? Sorry, my Knowledge (History of D&D) isn't that good...


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 20, 2008)

Yes, they did.  But TSR got your money either way.

Ken


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 20, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> Yes, they did.  But TSR got your money either way.
> 
> Ken




Right - Basic D&D competed with AD&D through several versions, but this is the first time that the companies will be different.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 20, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Right - Basic D&D competed with AD&D through several versions, but this is the first time that the companies will be different.



Ah! Okay, that makes sense.


----------



## buzz (Mar 20, 2008)

FWIW, I was mulling this thread over last night, and spawned a new thread about some related thoughts.

As for this thread, my position is now this: Rock on, Paizo. I'll be back in '09 to see where Pathfinder ends up.


----------



## Ripzerai (Mar 20, 2008)

It's the range of d20 products as a whole - with all the innovation and diversity that all the various companies have built, and all that can yet be made, the sort of thing that ENWorld has always been built around - that's useful to keep and support and develop. It's good to know that someone's going to be supporting something that you can still use the Book of Eldritch Might with, for example. It's good to know there's going to be a campaign setting where we might expect to see monsters from all the open-content bestiaries that have been published in the last seven years. It's even better to know that some of the monsters, feats, classes, and so on from all these d20 books in all their richness and creativity will be modified freely, improved and expanded upon. The d20 system _can_ be a living, breathing, evolving entity. It's what it was intended to be, but Wizards never really took advantage of third-party innovations. It's exciting to know there's a company that can.

WotC's strategy makes sense for them. If they don't periodically make all their old stuff obsolete, they have a diminishing number of things they can sell people. Their best sellers are things like _Complete Warrior_, but _Complete Warrior II_ is inevitably not going to do so well. As people have the books they need, they have less reason to buy new things. So it's in WotC's best interest to, every five years or so, come up with a new system that's so awesome that it's worth it for you to throw your earlier stuff away, with the knowledge that in another five years they'll be talking about how horrible 4e was and aren't we glad that 5e's finally coming along to save us all. 

Paizo has a different business model. People always need new adventure paths, even if they're holding tightly to their copies of _Races of Stone_ or _The Book of Hallowed Might_ or _The Assassin's Handbook_ and don't need new versions of those things. At the same time, they can still take this opportunity to make backwards-compatible improvements to the rules. In theory, they could come out with a new rulebook every year, updated with all the latest d20 bells and whistles, and you could use it or not, and the adventure paths would still be perfectly usable in your game. That's the ideal, anyway.

In a fully open system, other d20 companies could embrace this standard and continue to improve on it. It'll likely be a smaller market share than D&D, but it's one with real advantages. It's like the difference between Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox, or Windows and Linux. It's what the OGL was made for, even if WotC never knew it.


----------



## Gallo22 (Mar 20, 2008)

I've said it in the recent past and I'll say it again, Paizo is what WotC use to be or should be.  

I'm very excited about this! 

THANKS PAIZO!!!


----------



## DM_Jeff (Mar 20, 2008)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> I've said it in the recent past and I'll say it again, Paizo is what WotC use to be or should be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JoshuaFrost (Mar 20, 2008)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Too bad. Are you guys going to do anything equivelant to the SRD? Or is the SRD the best we will get for free?




Tree, I don't want to ignore your question but I don't yet have an answer for you. This is something we've only vaguely discussed. I'll bring it up in our next meeting.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 20, 2008)

DM_Jeff said:
			
		

> Indeed, they already are in my house! At least if you count the fact that my gaming budget has completely switched companies, yes. Someone sticking with 3.5 was all I asked. Who thought wishes came true?
> 
> -DM Jeff




Odd, now that you mention it. I haven't been making a conscious effort to buy company X over company Y, I've just been buying what appeals to me as a gamer. My gaming budget has been getting spent on Pathfinder and some PDFs for the past year or so (and before some smart alec points it out, yes, I know Pathfinder hasn't been around for a year yet). My last few purchases have been Pathfinder#7, ENPub's War of the Burning Sky 1-9, Dawning Star Quick Launch and Helios Rising, and RDP's Alien Invasion.


----------



## Ripzerai (Mar 20, 2008)

It seems to me that there are two completely different problems this addresses:

1. The desire to still have new adventures you could use with _Relics & Rituals_ or _Tome of Magic_ or _Goodman Games Guide to Rakshasa_ or whatever with.

2. The desire to continue the Open Gaming movement, the idea that there's a commonly used ruleset that you can turn into _Arcana Unearthed_ or _Mutants & Masterminds_ as easily as _City of Brass_. There are other open systems, of course, but nothing that's been played with by so many people as the OGL. 4e won't be completely open, and that's a bigger deal to some people than the particulars of the rules. Just having the right to post the OGL in HTML format on a web page without subscribing to D&D Online is a huge added value, more important in my mind than the particulars of what a fighter's powers are or how many hit points a first level wizard has.

The idea of Open Gaming has been so important to ENWorld for so long that I'm surprised it's not a deal-breaker for more of the community here.


----------



## Psion (Mar 20, 2008)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> It seems to me that there are two completely different problems this addresses:
> 
> 1. The desire to still have new adventures you could use with _Relics & Rituals_ or _Tome of Magic_ or _Goodman Games Guide to Rakshasa_ or whatever with.
> 
> 2. The desire to continue the Open Gaming movement, the idea that there's a commonly used ruleset that you can turn into _Arcana Unearthed_ or _Mutants & Masterminds_ as easily as _City of Brass_. There are other open systems, of course, but nothing that's been played with by so many people as the OGL. 4e won't be completely open, and that's a bigger deal to some people than the particulars of the rules. Just having the right to post the OGL in HTML format on a web page without subscribing to D&D Online is a huge added value, more important in my mind than the particulars of what a fighter's powers are or how many hit points a first level wizard has.




Ayup.

There's a thread over on that forum trying to draw parallels between the 2e-3e transition an the 3e-4e transition. I think point #2 speaks to what I was overlooking in that thread as a major difference.

To wit: Rob Repp. Anyone remember this character? At the time, there was a budding body of AD&D fansites, but Mr. Repp as the TSR web rep went and started sending cease and desist letters to ISPs, and many sites came down, the only alternative being some ill maintained web community that had TSR's blessing.

When the OGL was announced, the idea of a license that implicitly allowed and validated fan sites (and third party producers) was a welcome shift in direction. The creative community flourished, and people could feel safe in sharing their worlds and settings.

Now, we are on the eve of an opposite trend. The GSL is here, and it's a more traditional license. No guarantees for fansites. Yes, most rational companies won't take that approach these day, but you never know. Just today, I heard that White Wolf made an exalted fansite take charm cards down.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Mar 20, 2008)

JoshuaFrost said:
			
		

> Tree, I don't want to ignore your question but I don't yet have an answer for you. This is something we've only vaguely discussed. I'll bring it up in our next meeting.




I apologize if this has been posted and I missed it, but will Paizo be allowing other companies to officially support for the system via some sort of licensed logo (like d20)?


----------



## Vigilance (Mar 20, 2008)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> It seems to me that there are two completely different problems this addresses:
> 
> 1. The desire to still have new adventures you could use with _Relics & Rituals_ or _Tome of Magic_ or _Goodman Games Guide to Rakshasa_ or whatever with.




Will it do that though?

The Pathfinder Alpha looks as different from 3.5 as 3.5 was from 3e.

Given the time and expense companies like Goodman went to updating adventures from 3e to 3.5, because of a need to do so for ease of use, it looks like 3.75 won't provide nearly as much continuity as folks would like.

This to me is the problem with a 3.75 type solution. 

Folks who are willing to update their game will likely go 4e. Folks who want continuity aren't looking for something that makes them do converions. 

And the class changes alone look pretty substantial.

I dunno.


----------



## Ripzerai (Mar 20, 2008)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Will it do that though?
> 
> I dunno.




I don't know either. All we've seen are the early playtest rules. It doesn't look nearly as difficult to convert 3.5 to 3p as 3.5 to 4e, anyway. And 3e vs. 3.5 wasn't a big deal either, in my mind - a 3.5 party can still fight all the monsters in the MMII right out of the book, and a 3.5 character can still use most 3.0 prestige classes. 

The example you give, of Goodman Games, is an issue of companies needing to update to fit the new standard, which is a different situation from "what can I still use in preparing for my home game," where there's much more room for variance. 

With 3p, a very simple statblock like "Sorcerer 10/Fighter 2/Eldritch Knight 5" still means essentially what it always meant, while in 4e you'd have to completely restructure the thing from the bottom up. A complex statblock (like Kyuss' in _Age of Worms_) would require changes if you wanted to make it 3p compliant, but the thing is, in a home game, it doesn't actually need to be compliant. If a NPC works slightly differently from the PCs, it's not a big deal. A 3p party could fight the 3.5 Kyuss and scarcely notice, while I don't think a 4e party could. 

That's the distinction I'm trying to make. Yes, if Goodman Games wanted to convert all its adventures to the Pathfinder system, there'd be problems, and that's not a problem Pathfinder offers a solution for. But I think it does solve the two problems I mentioned. And I'm more concerned about the second, anyway.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 20, 2008)

Kickin' it not-very-new-school, ah yeah.


----------



## Erik Mona (Mar 20, 2008)

FATDRAGONGAMES said:
			
		

> I apologize if this has been posted and I missed it, but will Paizo be allowing other companies to officially support for the system via some sort of licensed logo (like d20)?




We're looking into this possibility. Nothing to announce yet, but it seems like a good idea to me!

--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing, LLC


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 20, 2008)

FATDRAGONGAMES said:
			
		

> I apologize if this has been posted and I missed it, but will Paizo be allowing other companies to officially support for the system via some sort of licensed logo (like d20)?




I was just going to say, I emailed Erik to ask about this possibility. I'm glad (and not at all surprised) I am not alone.


----------



## DM_Jeff (Mar 20, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I was just going to say, I emailed Erik to ask about this possibility. I'm glad (and not at all surprised) I am not alone.




*taps fingers together ala Monte Burns*

"Excellent."

-DM Jeff


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 20, 2008)

Looked it over, nice stuff. I might be interested in doing some Pathfinder stuff if the conversions don't become too difficult. That's kind of an issue with being almost-not-quuite-3.5: the mind can play tricks.


----------



## trancejeremy (Mar 20, 2008)

Ripzerai said:
			
		

> I don't know either. All we've seen are the early playtest rules. It doesn't look nearly as difficult to convert 3.5 to 3p as 3.5 to 4e, anyway. And 3e vs. 3.5 wasn't a big deal either, in my mind - a 3.5 party can still fight all the monsters in the MMII right out of the book, and a 3.5 character can still use most 3.0 prestige classes.




As someone who  stayed with 3.0 but still used 3.5 stuff, it really wasn't that hard to convert from 3.5 on the fly.  Stat blocks would pretty much be used as is.

But the trouble with PF, at least the alpha, is it seems quite a bit different from 3.5 in some areas.  Not as big as leap as 4e, but the skill list is dramatically different, not just having a few skills renamed.

And more importantly, it looks like the power level of classes is ratcheted up.  Whereas 3.5 to 3.0, the classes were largely the same.


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Mar 21, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Yeah.  But the sky is made of candy.




And we didn't even have to beat it with a stick!


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Mar 21, 2008)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> We're looking into this possibility. Nothing to announce yet, but it seems like a good idea to me!
> 
> --Erik Mona
> Publisher
> Paizo Publishing, LLC




Great news Erik. With many of the current 3.5 publishers in production limbo until next January it seems to be an excellent opportunity to shore up support for Pathfinder RPG.


----------



## Treebore (Mar 21, 2008)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> Will it do that though?
> 
> The Pathfinder Alpha looks as different from 3.5 as 3.5 was from 3e.
> 
> ...





I agree that there are people out there that feel crippled by such a thing, but hopefully the ones who support Paizo are the ones who like tweaking with rules and such.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Mar 21, 2008)

I dont see that much diff from 3.0 to 3.5 . if i can use 3.5 stuff without issue in my 3.0 game i can use pathfinder with my 3.5 just as easy if its anything like alpha.


----------



## Starman (Mar 21, 2008)

Erik Mona said:
			
		

> We're looking into this possibility. Nothing to announce yet, but it seems like a good idea to me!
> 
> --Erik Mona
> Publisher
> Paizo Publishing, LLC




I think this would be an excellent move and would be the key to anyone making any sort of inroads into WotC's market share. If a group of well-known, talented publishers can keep 3.5 alive then I think 3.5 will have a fairly long and successful life.


----------



## dm4hire (Mar 21, 2008)

I was thinking on the way to work today that if a large number of OGL companies decided to get behind Pathfinder or even another OGL game they could become a serious force to be reckoned with whether intentionally or not.  I would love to see another D&D style game come fully out of the sandbox and make a valiant stand on the playground.  This would be a pipe dream though as it would take some serious determination to work as a team and I don't see a lot of the various companies doing it, but you never know.  Green Ronin already has a few who are doing MM Link stuff.  I really hope my fears about the GSL prohibiting the coproduction of 4e and OGL products doesn't come to light.  If WotC doesn't place a block or restriction then I could see a lot of companies doing products to support both.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 21, 2008)

JoshuaFrost said:
			
		

> I'm glad our sales numbers refute your opinion or else we'd be in trouble.




Heh - strange (perhaps) to say, my players would also not recognize the name Paizo.... but would instantly recognize Pathfinder.   

I might almost recommend changing the name of the company to match.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Voadam (Mar 21, 2008)

The power ups bug me a little.

Increased HD for rogues and wizards are fine, I've already done that in some of my games for years.

The +2 ability bonus for races over standard ones though just seems wierd. Why change the base power level of all core races? This makes other non core previously balanced races seem weaker. Minor, but a bug not a feature.

Rogue sneak attack working against almost everybody I could be fine with, but the sneak attack bleeding power they can get at low levels looks like a huge offensive increase that seems to exacerbate the need for cleric healing in combat.

Fighters are just better than core fighters with extra damage and armor abilities. Not sure how this fully stacks up to other 3.5 baselines, seems on the edge of too much.

For compatibility mix and match purposes I was hoping for options a little closer to the 3.5 baseline of power.


----------



## subbob (Mar 21, 2008)

mhensley said:
			
		

> If I said Paizo to anyone in my group they would say "bless you".  Outside of the hardcore D&D crowd who haunt messageboards, they have little name recognition.




So, none of the folks in your group subscribed to, or bought issues of, Dragon or Dungeon magazines in the last several years?  If so, it was very clear that Paizo was publishing them.

Some of the "big names" in the community - Lisa Stevens & Erik Mona, for example - are among corporations senior leadership.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 21, 2008)

Just a heads up for folks. As an OGL game, Pathfinder threads will end up living in our OGL forum. We'll move 'em over (from the jillion places they're currently proliferating) at some point next week. 

Incidentally, Erik, it's really exciting to see you forging Paizo's future. If you keep the same level of quality and creativity, I foresee great things.


----------



## EricNoah (Mar 21, 2008)

If I might add my thoughts on a Pathfinder SRD...  

Pathfinder will have declared open content.  There is nothing stopping a fan from putting together an online SRD from that material, other than their own good will.  I myself find great utility in an electronic, searchable ruleset -- both at the prep stage and especially at the play stage.  I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to offer a PDF version of the final rules -- maybe free to the hardcover purchasers, and at a reasonable price for those who want it stand alone.  Maybe that would reduce the need for a Pathfindr SRD.


----------



## EricNoah (Mar 21, 2008)

Ooh, and a question: the description of the final Pathfinder RPG says a lot about classes and rules.  I don't see any mention of monsters.  Will the book contain a basic collection of monsters?  Do you anticipate following up with an Pathfinder monster book?


----------



## hong (Mar 21, 2008)

subbob said:
			
		

> So, none of the folks in your group subscribed to, or bought issues of, Dragon or Dungeon magazines in the last several years?  If so, it was very clear that Paizo was publishing them.




Dragon/Dungeon name recognition != Paizo name recognition.


----------



## Belen (Mar 21, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Just a heads up for folks. As an OGL game, Pathfinder threads will end up living in our OGL forum. We'll move 'em over (from the jillion places they're currently proliferating) at some point next week.
> 
> Incidentally, Erik, it's really exciting to see you forging Paizo's future. If you keep the same level of quality and creativity, I foresee great things.




I think that you guys should reconsider.  A general forum should be general enough to handle a wide variety of topics and sending stuff to the OGL forum tends to kill discussion.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Mar 21, 2008)

Belen said:
			
		

> I think that you guys should reconsider.  A general forum should be general enough to handle a wide variety of topics and sending stuff to the OGL forum tends to kill discussion.




(probably belongs in Meta, but...)

Except that they shouldn't play favorites.  I agree that at least for now, when it's new and sparking lots of conversation, it was nice having it in General (and they've been good enough to let it slide).  But there is a forum for this, and if it's good enough for SWSE, etc., then it should be ok for Pathfinder.  I suspect the furor will die down shortly anyway, and the bulk of the conversation will move to the Paizo forums.

However, it would be nice to have a {Pathfinder} category tag if it does get moved.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 21, 2008)

It's an OGL game. It belongs in the OGL forum. That's what forums are for; they help you find things.

We'll certainly give it its own tag, though.


----------



## Mark Hope (Mar 21, 2008)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Ooh, and a question: the description of the final Pathfinder RPG says a lot about classes and rules.  I don't see any mention of monsters.  Will the book contain a basic collection of monsters?  Do you anticipate following up with an Pathfinder monster book?



I seem to recall reading something about the Pathfinder core book being a merger of the PHB and the DMG.  It may still have monsters, though - I'd also be interested to hear what the plans are in this regard.


----------



## subbob (Mar 21, 2008)

First, I'm very pleased to see that folks from Paizo - Erik Mona and Joshua Frost - are closely following the discussion and posting as well. I truly appreciate it when decision makers engage in such conversations and, as in Joshua's case, respond directly with definitive answers and do not talk in double speak.

Second, as others have stated, this need not be about "WoTC vs. Paizo" - I'll probably buy the 4E core books to "complete my collection" but I'll be doing it through clenched teeth.

Lastly, if there are others like myself, that have not actively played in a long time, this "open playtest" may bring them out of the shadows. I just send the Alpha PDF to a local Kinkos to have it printed and spiral bound.  I'm psyched about having the opportunity to be involved in shaping the direction of this new D&D variant.

In my collection, I have every Dragon Magazine published since around issue #20 and every Dungeon Magazine as well as hundreds of modules & supplements from TSR, WoTC and third party publishers. This announcement by Paizo has energized me more than anything else in the last few years.

I work with and teach LOTS of folks that, like me, "used to play" D&D.  They talk of it fondly and we've discussed getting a campaign going.  If, as I believe, there are a good number of people in the same position - this has the potential of rejunevating more than just a younger generation.  It may just bring back hundreds, or thousands, of players that only needed a nudge to get involved again.

Anyone reading this that wants to do any Pathfinder playtesting in the Kansas City metropolitan area, please drop me a private message as I'll be looking for some opportunities.


----------



## dm4hire (Mar 21, 2008)

EricNoah said:
			
		

> Ooh, and a question: the description of the final Pathfinder RPG says a lot about classes and rules.  I don't see any mention of monsters.  Will the book contain a basic collection of monsters?  Do you anticipate following up with an Pathfinder monster book?




I hope they at least throw in basic monsters to challenge maybe to at least 5th level or so and maybe a scattering of mid to high level stuff.  I don't mind buying other books, but I'd like to see the main book fleshed out enough to be self contained for at least a few levels to help out starting players/GMs.


----------



## BadMojo (Mar 21, 2008)

Belen said:
			
		

> A general forum should be general enough to handle a wide variety of topics and sending stuff to the OGL forum tends to kill discussion.




It certainly does seem to be the place where threads go to die.


----------



## Voadam (Mar 21, 2008)

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> I seem to recall reading something about the Pathfinder core book being a merger of the PHB and the DMG.  It may still have monsters, though - I'd also be interested to hear what the plans are in this regard.




It would make sense to have the summons, familiars, and animal companions in such an at the table reference book as well as animals that items can call up, such as from a bag of tricks or figurines. Even if it is just useable condensed stat blocks that are included.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 21, 2008)

BadMojo said:
			
		

> It certainly does seem to be the place where threads go to die.



Pro and con, let's scoot this sidetrack over to the Meta forum, please. There's a thread or two there for it. I'd rather keep this focused on Pathfinder and Paizo.

Thanks.


----------



## mhensley (Mar 21, 2008)

subbob said:
			
		

> So, none of the folks in your group subscribed to, or bought issues of, Dragon or Dungeon magazines in the last several years?  If so, it was very clear that Paizo was publishing them.
> 
> Some of the "big names" in the community - Lisa Stevens & Erik Mona, for example - are among corporations senior leadership.




Would you be surprised to know that the majority of D&D players didn't read Dragon or Dungeon magazines?  Plus, Paizo was the publisher of magazines more associated with D&D and WotC.  Some of my players might have subscriptions to Cat Fancy, but I doubt they know (or care to know) the name of its publishing company.


----------



## dm4hire (Mar 21, 2008)

I agree that Pathfinder should get its own area.  I don't see it as favoritism since most other OGL are either niche markets (Thieves World, Conan, etc), modern/sci-fi themed, or a mix with no real dedication.  Pathfinder's concept maintains the general feel of D&D and has the most potential for dramatic affect upon our gaming industry while staying close to D&D in the general sense.  While Paizo will be maintaining their own boards and page for it, I think with all the continuing discussion which will be surfacing from it that to keep it from flooding every corner we might as well create one.  This is mainly because every time something new is revealed it will immediately be discussed in the 4e forum or general as to how this should have or should not have been done in relation to D&D or applied to your specific home campaign.  We now have less than 3 months at which the 4e forum will start to dry up as it moves into the general forum due to everyone talking about it and it becomes the main D&D.  That is unless we split the editions into separate forums which wouldn't be a bad idea either given the number of people talking about staying with 3.x.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 21, 2008)

dm4hire said:
			
		

> While Paizo will be maintaining their own boards and page for it, I think with all the continuing discussion which will be surfacing from it that to keep it from flooding every corner we might as well create one.  This is mainly because every time something new is revealed it will immediately be discussed in the 4e forum or general as to how this should have or should not have been done in relation to D&D or applied to your specific home campaign.  We now have less than 3 months at which the 4e forum will start to dry up as it moves into the general forum due to everyone talking about it and it becomes the main D&D.  That is unless we split the editions into separate forums which wouldn't be a bad idea either given the number of people talking about staying with 3.x.




This is true unless 4th edition gets a lot fewer adopters than is currently expected. Not saying it will happen, not saying I want it to happen, but it is a possibility. Remember all those people who felt burned by 3.5? There seems to be a lot more people feeling burned by 4th edition this time around.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Mar 21, 2008)

Skimmed through Pathfinder Alpha...

And to be honest really wasn't impressed.  I'll probably end up suggesting these to a friend of mine the next time he runs a D&D campaign as he's not convinced on making the move to 4e.

But otherwise... maybe it's just my having played almost nothing but SW Saga for quite a few months now, but Paizo's venture feels less like the much touted "3.75e" and more like "3.51e."  I know that I haven't seen the whole thing so far, and that this is indeed the "Alpha" stage, but it just feels like more of the same.


----------



## BadMojo (Mar 21, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Pro and con, let's scoot this sidetrack over to the Meta forum, please. There's a thread or two there for it. I'd rather keep this focused on Pathfinder and Paizo.
> 
> Thanks.




No problem.  I understand.

Anyway, I'm curious to see how much change we really see from Alpha to Beta to final product.  I *would* like to see more radical changes, but it's also important to keep backward compatibility as an option.  There's going to be a fine line to tread as far as fixing "problems" with 3.5 and making change that are too drastic to work with older products.

I have many, many 3.X adventures I'd like to run/play and too much divergence from the 3.5 rules will make that really tough for me to do that.  I'm really tempted to try to run Red Hand of Doom with my group to see how the Pathfinder rules work in play.  If the group goes for it, I think I'll give it a try.


----------



## dragonlordofpoondari (Mar 22, 2008)

ivocaliban said:
			
		

> I'm very pleased and intended to show my support for Paizo and their decision with my wallet. What WotC was to me from 2000-2007, Paizo will be from 2008 on. That is, they'll be receiving the bulk of my roleplaying budget and will serve as the springboard for most of my future purchases.




Hmm ... this describes my sentiments perfectly.

Rock on, Paizo, for you rock mightily.

-Paizo/NG fanboy for life


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Mar 22, 2008)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Rock on, Paizo, for you rock mightily.



thats going into my ever expanding sig.


----------



## risner (Mar 22, 2008)

dragonlordofpoondari said:
			
		

> Hmm ... this describes my sentiments perfectly.
> 
> Rock on, Paizo, for you rock mightily.




/agree

I've played 4E at DDXP, and hated it.

I will be sticking with Paizo and 3.75.

I just signed up for two of Paizo's "book" subscriptions.


----------



## Arkhandus (Mar 22, 2008)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> This is true unless 4th edition gets a lot fewer adopters than is currently expected. Not saying it will happen, not saying I want it to happen, but it is a possibility. Remember all those people who felt burned by 3.5? There seems to be a lot more people feeling burned by 4th edition this time around.



I still feel burned by 3.5.  _*sniff*_  Stupid 3.5.  I'll never believe it's an improvement, it's just a lot of pointless rule changes mixed in with a few actual, rare, minor fixes.
*3.0 is the one true game of D&D.*

Paizo rocks though, so I'll probably buy some Pathfinder stuff later, seeing as I won't be giving Wizards of the Coast any more of my money for the next 6-10 years until the new edition, if 5e bothers returning to its roots instead of growing off of 4e like some kind of fungus.


----------



## The Crippler (Mar 22, 2008)

This is awesome news.  Way to go Paizo!  I've been with you ever since your first issues of Dragon and Dungeon and I feel almost proud of how you've grown up.  This is a ballsy move, but I think you're going to make it work.  I know I'll be there, buying the products and cheering every step of the way!


----------



## jaerdaph (Mar 23, 2008)

Paizo needs to look at Apple's marketing to get some ideas for going up against a giant:


----------



## blargney the second (Mar 23, 2008)

*lmao* Nice one, jaerdaph!


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Mar 23, 2008)

LOL too funny jaerdaph


----------



## Druchii (Mar 24, 2008)

Good Job Piazo I will be buying books from ya, I already do.

Have not read all the pages here, so please correct me if I'm wrong and someone mentioned this already,
What we have here is a perfect opportunity for all current producers of 3.5 to say"no" to wizards and do what Piazo is doing, say "no" to 4th. If they all stuck together then 4th would not even come out, but it will not happen.


----------



## Demmero (Mar 24, 2008)

Druchii said:
			
		

> What we have here is a perfect opportunity for all current producers of 3.5 to say"no" to wizards and do what Piazo is doing, say "no" to 4th. If they all stuck together then 4th would not even come out, but it will not happen.




Here's my take on the scenario you suggest (and I may be wrong as well):

If all the current 3.5 producers said No to 4E, 4E would still come.  Wizards would ramp up production of adventures (and/or plug the Dungeon part of its D&D Insider program) to support the game.  Depending upon how nicely the 3.5 producers said No to 4E, Wizards would either pull whatever GSL offer off the table or leave it there (assuming they ever get around to actually completing it, of course).

Meanwhile, the 3.5 producers would have to support themselves by creating new material for a system that's already been on the market for 8 years.  IMO, there's not a whole lot of essential material left to be printed.  Adventures are always handy, and maybe some world sourcebooks would still sell.  But there's already a certain degree of rules bloat with the system; I'm not sure how much more can be added.

On top of that, Paizo's not strictly sticking with 3.5--they're working on a Pathfinder/3.75 version of the rules.  Will all of the other 3.5 producers follow suit?  Or will they choose to stick to the 3.5 RAW, further dividing the 3.5 market?

Lastly, Paizo hasn't said No to 4E, they've simply said Yes to Pathfinder for their current business model.  They've left the door open to producing 4E material...once they've got a look at the GSL.


----------



## tricky_bob (Mar 24, 2008)

The Advantage 3P has over 4.0 is that if you don't like the extra stat bonuses given to each Race, either don't use them or adjust your points buy system. If you don't like the skill max ranks idea, use skill points, etc. etc.

The point is, is that its Alpha... *YOU* get to try it out and have a say in its development. *YOU* get to pick and choose which bits you like and dislike and *ALL* of it is compatible with *ALL* your current books, adventures etc. even if it does require a little tweaking

Whereas 4.0 is *ONLY* a money spinning deal for WotC.

Anyone with a load of material for Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or Eberron can still use everything they have with 3P. In 4.0 unless you live 70000 years [I'm looking at you, Elf!!] all the NPC that are, say, Human will be dead, useless, and the game world will be out of date too, and they'll want you to buy all that again as well!

3P is about you, its about me and its about us, yeah WotC, remember us? well you should do as you've already got a load of our money....*^$*ers!


4.0 sucks because it need to attract 11 year olds, it will be over simplified and all about emptying your wallet.


----------



## Psion (Mar 24, 2008)

tricky_bob said:
			
		

> Whereas 4.0 is *ONLY* a money spinning deal for WotC.




Every product WotC produced is a money spinning deal for Wizards.

Same goes for Paizo, really. Neither is a vanity press.

And I'm sure designers for both love their products and are proud of their work.

So just be happy that we live in the age where such choice is possible. No reason to get angry and hurl negative images about business practices that aren't sinister in any way.

EDIT: Okay, DDI is a little sinister. But still...


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 24, 2008)

tricky_bob said:
			
		

> Whereas 4.0 is *ONLY* a money spinning deal for WotC...
> 
> 3P is about you, its about me and its about us, yeah WotC, remember us? well you should do as you've already got a load of our money....*^$*ers!
> 
> 4.0 sucks because it need to attract 11 year olds, it will be over simplified and all about emptying your wallet.



Congratulations! You've just _exactly_ repeated the statements that people made eight and nine years ago about 2nd edition and 3e. Exactly, including the profanity, insulting comment about 11 year olds, obvious comment about a corporation needing to actually earn a profit, and unqualified statement about the new game being over-simplified. The only thing you're missing is a rant about how it's dumbing down the game to have armor class count up instead of down.

Incidentally, we have 2,575 members who were 11 or younger when 3e was launched. Do you think it's bad for the industry and the game that they're playing? Do you think it's a bad idea to recruit younger players?

I think people fall into this trap that says "just because the game isn't the same as what I'm playing right now, it's evil-bad-fun and should have never have been made." Whether I love 4e or hate it, I have a lot of trouble buying into that line of thought. I think it's a fine thing that Paizo is helping offer people an alternative to 4e, but that doesn't make their game perfect, either.


----------



## tricky_bob (Mar 24, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Congratulations! You've just _exactly_ repeated the statements that people made eight and nine years ago about 2nd edition and 3e.
> 
> I think people fall into this trap that says "just because the game isn't the same as what I'm playing right now, it's evil-bad-fun and should have never have been made." Whether I love 4e or hate it, I have a lot of trouble buying into that line of thought. I think it's a fine thing that Paizo is helping offer people an alternative to 4e, but that doesn't make their game perfect, either.




Maybe, but those editions had major flaws and the number of players were far fewer than now and I'm assuming you are relating this to your post bag because the internet as today didn't exist and the average player didn't get *any* say in it or an opportunity to voice an opinion.

I don't remember too many threads/posts asking or calling for 4.0 before we all found out about it, do you?

I see 3.5 as a solid structure with a few flaws. Most of those flaws can be eliminated buy excluding certain books, by house ruling and sensible DM-ing. But on the whole, solid. 

3P gives us all a way of continuing to use our $£$£$ worth of books with some fresh revised options. 4.0 does not.

Lets not be fooled into thinking 4.0 is needed, or on the whole wanted. Those of you who are pro 4.0, good luck and don't forget your wallet will be empty.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 24, 2008)

tricky_bob said:
			
		

> Those of you who are pro 4.0, good luck and don't forget your wallet will be empty.




If you're not going to be spending money, then nobody gives a flying  what your opinions are as a consumer.

Not Paizo, not WoTC.

Be prepared to open your wallet for _somebody_, or go grumble somewhere else.


----------



## tricky_bob (Mar 24, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> If you're not going to be spending money, then nobody gives a flying  what your opinions are as a consumer.
> 
> Not Paizo, not WoTC.
> 
> Be prepared to open your wallet for _somebody_, or go grumble somewhere else.





Dude, there is a HUGE difference between supporting 3P [and getting to continue to use the books I already have] and having to completely start over.

Starting from scratch just because WotC want me to...NO!


----------



## BadMojo (Mar 24, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> EDIT: Okay, DDI is a little sinister. But still...




Like HAL in 2001 or GlaDOS in Portal?

"I'd like to roll up a character now.

I'm sorry, Brad, I'm afraid I can't do that."

Gleemax just better not start staring at me with it's creepy, red unblinking eye.


----------



## Psion (Mar 24, 2008)

tricky_bob said:
			
		

> Dude, there is a HUGE difference between supporting 3P [and getting to continue to use the books I already have] and having to completely start over.




That much is certainly true.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 24, 2008)

tricky_bob said:
			
		

> Maybe, but those editions had major flaws and the number of players were far fewer than now and I'm assuming you are relating this to your post bag because the internet as today didn't exist and the average player didn't get *any* say in it or an opportunity to voice an opinion.
> 
> I don't remember too many threads/posts asking or calling for 4.0 before we all found out about it, do you?



I doubt you will ever find players (in large groups) demanding a new edition. At least not vocally. You might read it between lines, like


> Most of those flaws can be eliminated buy excluding certain books, by house ruling and sensible DM-ing.



or


			
				non-acual quotes said:
			
		

> - I hate that 3.x forces player characters to wear a Christmas Tree in magical items!
> - You know, I really would like an alternate magic system. I hate Vancian magic.
> - How do I stop my players from resting all the time just to get their spells back.
> - Just stack up on a few Wands of Cure Light Wounds, and your group never needs to go back into combat without healing!
> ...



But players don't demand a new edition. Because they hope that things could be fixed with the next cool supplement. New edition means that the old supplements probably become less useful. Nobody likes that. 
But WotC designers have to find out how to fix these problems. And if this coincides with a general business demand of creating a new edition, a new edition it is then. And it will take all these little stuff, all that is written between line or critisized directly, into account.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Mar 24, 2008)

Man, and here I was happy that Pathfinder had diverted all the 3E/4E hate-posts into creativity on the Alpha edition..seems some find anything as a good excuse to start edition-bashing.  :\


----------



## FickleGM (Mar 24, 2008)

tricky_bob said:
			
		

> Those of you who are pro 4.0, good luck and don't forget your wallet will be empty.




Hmmm...three different times I started over with D&D, plus purchasing materials for at least three other systems.

No, I doubt that 4e will come anywhere near emptying my wallet.  Seriously.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 24, 2008)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Hmmm...three different times I started over with D&D, plus purchasing materials for at least three other systems.
> 
> No, I doubt that 4e will come anywhere near emptying my wallet.  Seriously.



And who cares whether the wallet is empty or full if you got what you wanted?


----------



## FickleGM (Mar 24, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> And who cares whether the wallet is empty or full if you got what you wanted?



 Very good point.


----------



## nerfherder (Mar 24, 2008)

FickleGM said:
			
		

> Hmmm...three different times I started over with D&D, plus purchasing materials for at least three other systems.
> 
> No, I doubt that 4e will come anywhere near emptying my wallet.  Seriously.



Yeah, I think RPGs have to be my cheapest hobby.  I have about 10 D&D 3.0 hardbacks, maybe 20 softbacks + magazines.  That's about $1000 over the last 8 years.  I've spent more than that on lenses for my camera in just the last 2 years!  I dread to think what I've spent on cars...


----------



## Klaus (Mar 25, 2008)

nerfherder said:
			
		

> Yeah, I think RPGs have to be my cheapest hobby.  I have about 10 D&D 3.0 hardbacks, maybe 20 softbacks + magazines.  That's about $1000 over the last 8 years.  I've spent more than that on lenses for my camera in just the last 2 years!  I dread to think what I've spent on cars...



 ... but then again, you live the fast life, Mr. Bond!


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Mar 25, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Congratulations! You've just _exactly_ repeated the statements that people made eight and nine years ago about 2nd edition and 3e. Exactly, including the profanity, insulting comment about 11 year olds, obvious comment about a corporation needing to actually earn a profit, and unqualified statement about the new game being over-simplified. The only thing you're missing is a rant about how it's dumbing down the game to have armor class count up instead of down.
> 
> Incidentally, we have 2,575 members who were 11 or younger when 3e was launched. Do you think it's bad for the industry and the game that they're playing? Do you think it's a bad idea to recruit younger players?
> 
> I think people fall into this trap that says "just because the game isn't the same as what I'm playing right now, it's evil-bad-fun and should have never have been made." Whether I love 4e or hate it, I have a lot of trouble buying into that line of thought. I think it's a fine thing that Paizo is helping offer people an alternative to 4e, but that doesn't make their game perfect, either.



Hmm, though I will note that my own response, as a sometime 2ed player, to what I had heard about 3.0 was very much positive. 3e did a very good job of piquing my interest, and some of the most 'encouraging' notes, to my mind, were many of the ones posted as negatives. Bad reviews can bring up points as well as good ones. (The selling points to me was a single consistent die mechanic, and the removal of THAC0.)

Another point is that I was pretty much done with 2ed before 3e was on the horizon - something that I cannot say about 3e, I still play it, and my interest has not noticeably flagged.  As a result I am unwilling to set aside the investment of time and money I have made to the older system (And yes, I realize that they can be considered sunk funds - that the money has been spent, whether or not I also invest in 4e.)

I may well pick up 3P, while I consider it unlikely that I will do so with 4e. 4e sounds like it might be a good game for casual play, but it just does not ring my bells. This is the first time that I have not felt that a newer edition of D&D was an improvement over the previous edition, and the first time, aside from OD&D, that an edition has appeared before I stopped playing the older edition.

The Auld Grump, about 11 when OD&D came out....


----------



## occam (Mar 25, 2008)

tricky_bob said:
			
		

> I don't remember too many threads/posts asking or calling for 4.0 before we all found out about it, do you?




Yeah, actually, I do.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Mar 25, 2008)

I don't at all. but then I like what I am seeing with pathfinder so it's all good.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 25, 2008)

occam said:
			
		

> Yeah, actually, I do.



There is a big difference between threads about "when do you think there will be a 4e"? and threads calling for 4e.  I remember lots of talk about 4e.  And the highly predominant tone of thread after thread was: NOT YET

I recall this clearly because I was generally on the "go for it" side.  I wasn't calling for them to do it right away, but I was ready to see a new take or keep plugging 3E, either way.   Of course, I assumed that 4e would expand on the advances made by 3E and therefore there would be a strong chance it would appeal to me.

But I was consistently in the minority of people who were not opposed to it happening.


----------



## Voadam (Mar 25, 2008)

tricky_bob said:
			
		

> I don't remember too many threads/posts asking or calling for 4.0 before we all found out about it, do you?




I remember a lot of threads of people saying they were done with 3e, that it was too much of a pain to prep, or run combats in, or handle high level gaming, or too superheroic for them, or not enough cool action options, that its grapple system was frustrating, that it encouraged 15 minute nova days, that it put too much focus on builds, that dying was too easy, that raising dead was too easy, that multiclassing was wonky, that vancian daily resource management was not fun, that D&D cosmology was esoterically wierd, that rogues felt useless half the time, etc.

I remember a bunch of threads of people saying they were done with 3e or burnt out on it for the moment and looking for alternative games to play (with suggestions such as WFRP, True20, Conan, Exalted, GURPS, Heroes, Iron Heroes, Savage Worlds, Star Wars Saga, CoC, etc.)


----------



## SavageRobby (Mar 25, 2008)

I know any number of folks that left 3x because of its over-complexity as a system. My group did, and moved to something else. While that isn't an explicit call for 4e, it was most definitely saying "3x isn't right for us". 

Of course, I don't think 4e is going to be right for us, either. I'm unimpressed with what I've seen so far (other systems do what its trying to do better), and it looks like the complexity level isn't decreased so much as shifted.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 25, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> that dying was too easy, that raising dead was too easy,



So, you think these particular people are going to like a game with mechanics that state: "Once a day, when you die... "?


----------



## Voadam (Mar 25, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> So, you think these particular people are going to like a game with mechanics that state: "Once a day, when you die... "?




Not all people who were through with 3e and looking for an alternate game will like what WotC came up with for 4e.

People who thought that 3e was too magically superheroic, for instance, might not like 4e with 1st level teleporting eladrin.

But I'm not familiar with your reference. What mechanic says "Once a day, when you die..."


----------



## Darrin Drader (Mar 25, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> But I'm not familiar with your reference. What mechanic says "Once a day, when you die..."




One of the playtesters reported that some epic level powers start with that wording.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 25, 2008)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Not all people who were through with 3e and looking for an alternate game will like what WotC came up with for 4e.
> 
> People who thought that 3e was too magically superheroic, for instance, might not like 4e with 1st level teleporting eladrin.



I agree.



> But I'm not familiar with your reference. What mechanic says "Once a day, when you die..."



It has been reference as typical of the epic tier.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 25, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> So, you think these particular people are going to like a game with mechanics that state: "Once a day, when you die... "?



No, but then, the epic level rules probably weren't for them, either, so I don't think that epic play in 4E will appeal to them better.  (With that said: Were epic levels for anyone at all?  )

The point is - there was enough posts indicating that people didn't like 3E anymore, for various reasons. In the end, WotC probably looked for some "common ground", and maybe those that feeling D&D was to superheroic weren't common enough.

But I still think that even those can have a better play experience with 4E. Maybe you already start "heroic" at 1st level, but the three tiers give you some pointer what levels you can expect to enjoy. In 3E, this was a lot harder to manage, especially since the closest equivalent to the Heroic Tier was probably over at 6th level, and the first 3 levels didn't really feel "heroic" yet, either...


----------



## BryonD (Mar 25, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> No, but then, the epic level rules probably weren't for them, either, so I don't think that epic play in 4E will appeal to them better.



 Yeah, they will need to stay in 4e's sweet spot....

 



> The point is - there was enough posts indicating that people didn't like 3E anymore, for various reasons. In the end, WotC probably looked for some "common ground", and maybe those that feeling D&D was to superheroic weren't common enough.



I'd still point out that this is different than wanting 4e. And whenever a "do you want 4e?" thread came up the answer was overwhelmingly "No".

(There are also a hell of a lot more anti-4e threads now then there were pro-4e threads then, so this logic can get dangerous in a hurry)


----------



## Psion (Mar 25, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> (There are also a hell of a lot more anti-4e threads now then there were pro-4e threads then, so this logic can get dangerous in a hurry)




Not to mention, I could easily dig up complaints about things that in no way, shape, or form looks like 4e.

Anyone can post a complaint on a messageboard, and the presence of such posts only have the weakest correlation to the audience. If I were a 4e hopeful, I'd be hoping that WotC went with something more substantial than messageboard complaints when deciding what needed changed.


----------



## Aegir (Mar 25, 2008)

The whole point of a new edition of anything (at its core) is to take what one learns from the previous editions and fix it: in short, to take a step forward. The RPG industry (and perhaps even _just_ D&D) is one of the very few places where this is seen as such a bad thing, and thats caused mostly by the business model that corporate RPG companies use (printing supplements for the ruleset on a regular basis).

Pathfinder has the right idea by making their RPG a longterm open playtest, but frankly, as its own system I think its doomed to be either an outright failure, or an extremely short-term thing specifically because of their design goals. Pathfinder simply can't fix all the issues 3E has and remain backwards compatible: so while their rules may slow the bleeding somewhat (if even that much), they're still working off what amounts to a system whose flaws have been exposed, and (so far) refusing to make the needed changes because of a desire for backwards compatibility.

I don't think 4E is coming too soon: in fact, for me personally, it should've come about 18 months ago, when the biggest flaws in 3E really started to hinder my gaming, and I gave up on 3.x to look for something else. Right now I'm making due with Iron Heroes (which while still d20, has taken steps to fix several flaws), but I literally cannot wait to move over to 4E.

Will it have its own problems? Sure. Does that mean its too soon? No, it means that once those problems begin to show themselves, its time to start recording them and looking into how to fix them for 5E.

Things evolve, and evolution is a *good* thing.


----------



## jmucchiello (Mar 25, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> (With that said: Were epic levels for anyone at all?  )



I loved Epic levels. We didn't use the spellcasting system from ELH but otherwise epic levels were played by the book. That game ended around 32nd level when the campaign came to a logical conclusion. Yes, stat blocks were a chore but it was fun the first time my mage cast two quickened teleports in the same round along with a touch spell in the middle of course. That's not how I want to play every D&D game. But getting to use those fun high level spells every now and then is fun.

And while "Once per day, when you die..."* appeals to me**, that there are "many" powers with that description is a bit off-putting even to me. Many? How many different ways can folks revivicate, teleport, and/or explode for 20+ dice of damage/healing?

---
* I can accept that there is no way to state the power works on your death, but only once per day, without ending up with that awkward phrasing above. As written it unfortunately implies that you _will_ die each day.

** I love contingency effects.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 25, 2008)

Aegir said:
			
		

> Will it have its own problems? Sure. Does that mean its too soon? No, it means that once those problems begin to show themselves, its time to start recording them and looking into how to fix them for 5E.
> 
> Things evolve, and evolution is a *good* thing.



By that logic anything labeled 4e would be better. 
I think it is far more reasonable to make the case based on the elements of the edition in question.

I know for certain that many people really didn't like 3e and I know for certain that many people will like 4e.  Those items are not in question and don't really prove anything.

I also know for certain that 3e was a huge success.  Has it run its course in terms of being a large-scale marketable game that can keep cranking out big selling title after title?  Probably so.  And so I don't question at all the logic of going to 4e.

But again, you have to look at the details.  IMO 4e will start in a hole of some fraction of lost players.  And I really don't believe that it will retain players as well either.  I'm not claiming people will change their mind and decide they didn't like it after all.  But I think it is losing a lot of what makes it distinct, what makes it a game of choice.  I think it will be a lot more common for 4e to be a game that people like to play, amongst a lot of games they like to play, rather than being THE game they play, or at least the first choice of games they play.

3E proved itself as a landmark and very successful.  So telling me that some people didn't like it doesn't mean much.  4E has a high standard to reach, a standard that can not even be measured for two or three years. So telling me know that some people like it doesn't mean much.

Which gets to the point where I strongly agree with you.  5e will be a great opportunity.

In the mean time, there are many people who don't see 3E's problems as all that hard to manage.  (Many of the debates on the Paizo boards right now are around how much the changes should be rolled back!!! )And PF has a much lower standard it needs to reach in order to be a smashing success.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Mar 25, 2008)

Aegir said:
			
		

> Things evolve, and evolution is a *good* thing.




200 million years of stagnation would like to disagree.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Mar 26, 2008)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> 200 million years of stagnation would like to disagree.




Right there with ya, young feller!


----------



## doghead (Apr 1, 2008)

OGL - pathfinder

The paizo server doesn't seem to be responding, so I thought that I would ask here. What are the design principles or guidelines behind Pathfinder? From what I understand, they are something like 'streamline the 3.5 system while maintaining backward compatibility'. But I was wondering what they were exactly.

doghead
aka thotd


----------



## Psion (Apr 1, 2008)

doghead said:
			
		

> The paizo server doesn't seem to be responding, so I thought that I would ask here. What are the design principles or guidelines behind Pathfinder? From what I understand, they are something like 'streamline the 3.5 system while maintaining backward compatibility'. But I was wondering what they were exactly.




Yes, there are.

Paizo's working for me. Here's what Jason Bulmahn had to say:



> When work first began on the Pathfinder RPG, I set down a number of principles to guide me. Since this game is based off the 3.5 rules set, I wanted to make sure that it stayed true to the original vision of the game. When taking a look at these rules, please keep the following guidelines in mind as they might help you understand the changes that were made.
> 
> Improve the Game: The 3.5 rules set is excellent, but it has its flaws. Over the past few years, a number of common problems have seemed to crop up again and again, problems that delay the game or cause no end of arguments (grapple and polymorph, for example). I wanted the Pathfinder RPG to clean up these rules, by streamlining in places and adding options in others. You can still grapple in the Pathfinder RPG, but it is no longer the huge headache that it was. I also worked to even out some of the choices. A number of 3.5 skills are far less valuable than others, making them suboptimal choices. In my experience, few rogues took Forgery, but Spot was an incredibly common choice. These rules work to even out some of these choices. So while you might still take Perception over Linguistics, the latter is now a far more useful choice than it was before.
> 
> ...


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Apr 1, 2008)

Aegir said:
			
		

> I don't think 4E is coming too soon




Good for you.  I hope you enjoy your 4E.  I'll be enjoying my Pathfinder RPG.  You have your game.  I have mine.


----------



## Sunderstone (Apr 1, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I know for certain that many people really didn't like 3e and I know for certain that many people will like 4e.





Thats what the good folks at WotC told us when they announced 4E. Your game is broken, even if it works for you. You need to move on to our upcoming shiny 4E. You will like 4E because we say it'll be better. 


umm.... no.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Apr 1, 2008)

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> Good for you.  I hope you enjoy your 4E.  I'll be enjoying my Pathfinder RPG.  While you're playing a game that feels like the depth of a movie, I'll be enjoying my game that feels like a book.  While you're spending your hard earned money on overpriced priced books with a slimmed down page count, I'll be using my library of material with little trouble converting over.
> 
> I sincerely hope you enjoy 4E.



Wow, that was unnecessarily ridiculous.

I am of the opinion that Pathfinder is succumbing to the sample bias of the most vocal posters on Paizo Publishing's forum, which is by and large virulently hostile to any ideas that smack even slightly of "4th Edition." As a result, I have every belief (sadly) that Pathfinder will continue the proud tradition of making Wizard the uberclass, with CoDZilla close behind, and giving fighty classes little or nothing in the way of utility past level 9.


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Apr 1, 2008)

Sunderstone said:
			
		

> Thats what the good folks at WotC told us when they announced 4E. Your game is broken, even if it works for you. You need to move on to our upcoming shiny 4E. You will like 4E because we say it'll be better.
> 
> 
> umm.... no.



Even though the problems WotC identified with 3E were commonly identified and complained-about problems well before the announcement, but why let facts get in the way of a good rant?


----------



## doghead (Apr 1, 2008)

OGL - Pathfinder

Wow. Some people really do have their underpants on too tight.

Thanks Psion for the design stuff. I wonder which of the two - compatibility or improvement has the highest priority. I think it is a choice that is going to a have significant impact on the end result.

I still can't connect to Paizo. I think I might have cookie issues. I clear those in a minute.

BTW, what is CoDZilla? It has something to do with the cleric I suspect.

doghead
aka thotd


----------



## crow81 (Apr 1, 2008)

The main problem I have with the WotC decision is they made it in 2005 that means every product they put out after the day they started working on 4e had a diminishing shelf life. Players put up with the 3.0 to 3.5 rehash because it was believed that the game was made better. 3.5 was given a 5 year run by WotC and it deserves more. The system is better than that. I am just shock to see how many people are on the new edition band wagon when the  record of quality at WotC has been inconsistent. Goto to the wizard's web site how much errata  does it take to convince players that quality isn't their first priority. Play testing for 4e was rushed. DDXP delves had huge flaws such as  "Paladin's Mark" and that was only playing at first level. The first 4e splat book is scheduled for 2008 before people even learn the rules

I for have seen the sights from this merry-go-round and have decided to get off


Viva le Pathfinder


----------



## Psion (Apr 1, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> Even though the problems WotC identified with 3E were commonly identified and complained-about problems well before the announcement, but why let facts get in the way of a good rant?




What about the people who weren't complaining?


----------



## Psion (Apr 1, 2008)

doghead said:
			
		

> BTW, what is CoDZilla? It has something to do with the cleric I suspect.




Halfway there. CoD = Cleric or Druid


----------



## Firevalkyrie (Apr 1, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> What about the people who weren't complaining?



In that case, congratulations, you've just become a statistical outlier


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 1, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> In that case, congratulations, you've just become a statistical outlier



Even people that identify problems don't always complain.  I don't think I complained that much on the web, for example, though I remember that at least since the times of Arcana Evolved, I developed a deep hatred for the Grapple rules (and not because they were complicated, but because of the incredible bad balance issues it created with larger monsters vs NPCs), and I dreaded adventure (or rater: NPC) preparation...

But if Psion is saying there are no problems for him, and he never complained, yes, he's probably a statistical outlier.


----------



## Psion (Apr 1, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> In that case, congratulations, you've just become a statistical outlier











Yeah. It's statistics. _Internet statistics._ That makes it better.


----------



## Eridanis (Apr 1, 2008)

Sunderstone, dmcoy - Don't belittle the playing preferences of others on this board. Continued posts like those will result in a vacation from here.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Apr 1, 2008)

Eridanis said:
			
		

> Sunderstone, dmcoy - Don't belittle the playing preferences of others on this board. Continued posts like those will result in a vacation from here.




Does my editted post made mods happy?  (trying to be the skittles of ENWorld)


----------



## BryonD (Apr 1, 2008)

Sunderstone said:
			
		

> Thats what the good folks at WotC told us when they announced 4E. Your game is broken, even if it works for you. You need to move on to our upcoming shiny 4E. You will like 4E because we say it'll be better.
> 
> 
> umm.... no.



I think you may have misunderstood my emphasis.
I think it is without question that "many" people had issues with 3E and "many" people will like 4E.

I don't think it is at all clear that more people had issues with 3E than liked it.  (I really quite doubt that).
I don't think it is at all clear that 4E will be embraced 2 years in by as many people as 3E was two years in.  (Again, I personally doubt it).

I don't consider 3E at all broken.  There are some points that could have used a fix up.  But 4e's "solution" to a draft in the basement was to tear down the house and move us into a tiny shack - with no basement at all.


----------



## Psion (Apr 1, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Even people that identify problems don't always complain.  I don't think I complained that much on the web, for example, though I remember that at least since the times of Arcana Evolved, I developed a deep hatred for the Grapple rules (and not because they were complicated, but because of the incredible bad balance issues it created with larger monsters vs NPCs), and I dreaded adventure (or rater: NPC) preparation...
> 
> But if Psion is saying there are no problems for him, and he never complained, yes, he's probably a statistical outlier.




Well, a quick search will reveal that I have my share of complaints. But I am not fool enough to think that just because lots of people are grousing about something means it's a problem that most real tables are experiencing. Call to mind, if you will, the days of yore when the boards were filled with dread over how overpowered the Monk and Mystic Theurge are.  

I once had a player convinced that sneak attack was overpowered and HAD TO GO. Now most of us would agree that sneak attack isn't ALL THAT under normal circumstances. This sort of thinking is endemic of the sort of thinking that drives a lot of internet complaints: the perception that if any character but my own does something cool/powerful/decisive, its worthy of jealousy, regardless of the fact that my favorite class does stuff just as important. In short: to many players, _the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence_.

Further, I see many supposed problems that people complain about and 4e aims to patch over to be characteristic of particular gaming styles and expectations... the whole 15 minute day thing comes to mind here.

Finally, I think that many problems that people complain about can be addressed by effective GMing, and fixing these sorts of things will be temporary at best if you just rely on rules fixes being a tweak to your problems.

Which is all not to say I don't see potential for improvement and very real issues that make GMing more challenging than it could be. But I also see lots of complaints that to me stem more from the attitude of the players/GMs than the rules.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Apr 1, 2008)

Firevalkyrie said:
			
		

> In that case, congratulations, you've just become a statistical outlier




Hmmmm, could we get some numbers with this hyperbole, please?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 1, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> Well, a quick search will reveal that I have my share of complaints. But I am not fool enough to think that just because lots of people are grousing about something means it's a problem that most real tables are experiencing. Call to mind, if you will, the days of yore when the boards were filled with dread over how overpowered the Monk and Mystic Theurge are.



I remember that. Especially because I thought the Mystic Theurge as overpowered and still feel stupid about it.
I think there is a typical symptom: What looks overpowered or underpowered on paper sometimes just isn't. 

But if after actually using the rules you stumble upon issues, then there is one. Maybe it's only for you, but if you find enough posters (with experience, not just avid rule-book readers, actual "users") wondering, complaining or ranting on the same topics, you know there is really something wrong there. 

If you look back, the primary reason why monks looked overpowered was that people didn't really grasp all the details of the rules until a lot later. The Monk class table is full of cool sounding abilities. But you totally miss the fact that he doesn't wear any armor and requires a lot better stats then other character classes to get a comparative AC, and that he doesn't use weapons that could be magically enhanced. And that his two strengths - speed and flurry of blows - are actually at odds with each other, since you can't flurry after a move... 
MAD and the beloved Christmas Tree weren't well-known concept that time...

Unfortunately, that also means, that 4E still has a chance to suck, since we haven't played it yet. (Well, except maybe the D&D 4 Light test runs after or during the D&D Experience. But that was first level play. it was a lot of fun, probably more so then 3E 1st level play, but then, 3E was also a lot more fun after 1st level... Which either indicates it's getting better in both cases, or just means there is correlation...)



> I once had a player convinced that sneak attack was overpowered and HAD TO GO. Now most of us would agree that sneak attack isn't ALL THAT under normal circumstances. This sort of thinking is endemic of the sort of thinking that drives a lot of internet complaints: the perception that if any character but my own does something cool/powerful/decisive, its worthy of jealousy, regardless of the fact that my favorite class does stuff just as important. In short: to many players, _the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence_.
> 
> Further, I see many supposed problems that people complain about and 4e aims to patch over to be characteristic of particular gaming styles and expectations... the whole 15 minute day thing comes to mind here.
> 
> Finally, I think that many problems that people complain about can be addressed by effective GMing, and fixing these sorts of things will be temporary at best if you just rely on rules fixes being a tweak to your problems.



On the other hand, I always wonder if it wouldn't be a lot cooler if the rules would allow to concentrate the DMs not on fixing perceived or real problems, but doing other stuff, like creating better maps, more memorable NPCs, cooler plots, clever villains, good background music, baking cake for his players, or whatever else might come to your mind when thinking of "Things I would do as a GM if I had all the time and energy of the world"


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 1, 2008)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Hmmmm, could we get some numbers with this hyperbole, please?



I have some numbers, look

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 200234, 42, 23, 666, 911, 4711, 64, 1024, 3.142

Does this help you or Firevalkyrie? If you need more, just PM or something...


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Apr 1, 2008)

I'm planning on keeping an eye on the Pathfinder game.

The thing that strikes me as interesting is that at the end of the day, the Pathfinder project is simply going to be making at least one group of potential adopters unhappy. There really is no way to avoid it. But everyone seems to think that it's "obvious" what problems there are and how to "fix" them.

Like skills for example. Yup, everyone's going to be on the same page.

At the end of the day, here's the problem:
There is absolutely no way that any game can be tested by a group of people, and have it satisfy the needs/desires of _everyone_. WotC couldn't (and can't) do it regardless of how many playtesters it's had, and Pathfinder won't be able to do it despite the fact that it's probably going to be the first game ever to have such a large number of (potential) playtesters.

Keep in mind, that while WotC has "game designers" that are smart folks, and has had a bunch of people to play test their games when they develop them, the number of people that play the game is far and away beyond the number of people that play test(ed) it.

Which is my roundabout way of saying that 3.x/4E/Pathfinder basically amount to a group's house rules for a fantasy game that are published an distributed to a large number of people.

Pathfinder is interesting because finally, all the yelling and screaming internet cranks have a chance to actually influence and direct the revision of their game. Instead of second-guessing, "sunday quarterbacking", "backseat driving", and so forth, folks are being invited to step up to the plate and seriously discuss "problems" within the game and what those solutions are.

Of course, not everyone is going to be happy with the way things turn out but then again they're already unhappy with a set of changes that's being done to begin with (4E). Despite that though, there's going to be a portion of people that got most (if not all) of what they're looking for, and then they'l handwave/houserule the rest just like people have been doing for the past 20 years.

Hopefully those people that get what they want are actually playing the damn thing, instead of forum rats that haven't played a game for years and don't plan on it either. 

I do hope that Pathfinder is going to stay the course and focus on fixing actual rule problems instead of playstyle preferences, but only time will tell on that.

Of course, for the cynical people out there that have a wider knowledge of game systems, there's always the possibility of Pathfinder becoming the modern-day version of Fudge. With more rules. Then again, Fudge did lead to the eventual creation Spirit of the Century, so in another 15 years or so Pathfinder could birth something pretty spiffy.


----------

