I do know that I have seen a bunch of 3PP stuff coming out (Goodman Games) as well as a couple of 3PP settings (Amethyst, Wraith) that both look really original and *very* cool. There is also the Advanced PLayers Guides books coming out pretty in not too much time. For someone who is interested in 4E, it is a good time.
When the PS3 came out, and the the PS2 was still a viable console, we saw the exact same thing. Focus shifted to the new kid.
I see a lot of 3.X fans out there, and that is great, for we will still continue to sell some 3.5 products, but we won't shift backward unless those same fans purchase 3.5 products like they did before the announcement of 4th.
Also, the 3.5 market is saturated. This is the reason to have a new edition - almost everything is done. Plus, 4th Edition is easier to design for. I felt like such a lawyer writing precise rules for 3.X so that they were not miscontrued.
Anyway, where do I deposit my 2 cents?
It is really due to the fact that 3.5 products do not sell - we took a dramatic dive when WotC announced 4E a year before its release. It is only natural for us to make products for a system that sells.
Pathfinder seems to be selling pretty well.
I see a lot of 3.X fans out there, and that is great, for we will still continue to sell some 3.5 products, but we won't shift backward unless those same fans purchase 3.5 products like they did before the announcement of 4th.
But since you're not shifting backwards, fans won't have the opportunity to purchase said products like they did before. This is a self-defeating idea.
3.5e may have cause a steep dive, but 3e is still going strong, be it soon-to-expire d20STL or the continuing OGL.
The TRUE TEST is when WotC puts out a new d20 Modern and with that, a new d20 GSL in a year or five.
...or are we seeing far more books in the pipeline from 3rd party publishers using the GSL than we are seeing new books being published or announced under the OGL?
We are seeing a lot less books in the pipeline for the GSL than we saw in the pipeline for the OGL back in 2000.
We are also seeing a lot more books in the pipeline from WotC than we saw back in 2000, or even in 2007.
Whether the numbers of OGL, GSL, and WotC books increases or decreases remains to be seen.
Pathfinder seems to be selling pretty well.
It isn't selling nearly as well as 4E, or as well as 3.5E did when it was current. Its certainly not popular enough to warrant its own 3rd party support.
But since you're not shifting backwards, fans won't have the opportunity to purchase said products like they did before. This is a self-defeating idea.
The market has to be in place before you can justify the investment it takes to produce a product. He's saying that in the current market, the market is not there for new 3E supplements.
Plus, 4th Edition is easier to design for. I felt like such a lawyer writing precise rules for 3.X so that they were not miscontrued.
Given the number of complaints about WotC errors in rules material for 4E, this is incorrect as it confuses two different subjects.
Writing rules is not the same as writing adventures, or even settings. There are extremely harsh requirements for writing comprehensible rules material as opposed to casual fluff that can be retconned away, or adventures that can be handwaved off.
It isn't selling nearly as well as 4E, or as well as 3.5E did when it was current. Its certainly not popular enough to warrant its own 3rd party support.
Which of course is why it is receiving such in the form of material for character design programs, as well as a wiki dedicated to indexing everything.
And why it is popular enough to sponsor its own organized play program.
And of course that is why people are regularly asking for when there will be a Pathfinder trademark license.
And it begs the question of the relationship between sales figures, popularity, and profitability.
Which of course is why it is receiving such in the form of material for character design programs, as well as a wiki dedicated to indexing everything.
And why it is popular enough to sponsor its own organized play program.
And of course that is why people are regularly asking for when there will be a Pathfinder trademark license.
And it begs the question of the relationship between sales figures, popularity, and profitability.
Pathfinder fans are more enthusiastic than they are numerous. These things aren't happening because of big numbers so much as they are happening because Pathfinder has a lot of rabid anti-4E stick it to WotC fans who are looking at Pathfinder to be the savior of 3.5E.
It isn't selling nearly as well as 4E, or as well as 3.5E did when it was current. Its certainly not popular enough to warrant its own 3rd party support.
It doesn't carry the brand recognition at this point to sell as well as the flagship RPG product.
I'd argue that it's selling pretty darned well for a product that can be freely obtained in PDF form and is advertised as being in an unfinished "beta" state.
The market has to be in place before you can justify the investment it takes to produce a product. He's saying that in the current market, the market is not there for new 3E supplements.
I don't disagree that there needs to be a suitable market for products. What I'm saying is that that market is being artificially altered by companies ceasing production for that market.
Arguing that the market is decreasing because of interest on the part of the consumer isn't the whole story. The market is also decreasing because of publishers who'd rather put out product for the new version, which undoubtedly has some effect on the consumer interest in the old version. I know that I'm not the only one that considers long-term viability when I buy a product, and make a decision accordingly.
That said, I'm not sure that many people are aware of the licensing fiasco that is the GSL, and may consider that their favorite publisher's move to support 4E and cease support for 3.5 may be because of reasons other than the license precluding them from doing so.
They may extrapolate that support is, in fact, drying up because of lack of consumer support, and then cease their consumer support of it themselves.
One could argue, quite well, that this is entirely what the GSL was designed to do - make 4E appear to be a more attractive product under current support, and make 3.5 appear to be a dead product.
It's definitely in WotC's best interest that this is the general perception.
Pathfinder fans are more enthusiastic than they are numerous.
Does that mean 4E fans are more numerous than they are enthusiastic?
That does not say much for the product.
These things aren't happening because of big numbers so much as they are happening because Pathfinder has a lot of rabid anti-4E stick it to WotC fans who are looking at Pathfinder to be the savior of 3.5E.
That might be relevant if supporting Pathfinder were somehow "stick(ing) it" to WotC.
It might also be relevant if the people with the money to invest were foolish enough to do so with the primary intention of throwing that money away in an attempt to "stick it" to WotC.
Or are you also suggesting that some GSL publishers are doing so solely to "stick it" to 3E?
Does that mean 4E fans are more numerous than they are enthusiastic?
How do you draw that conclusion? Is there some enthusiasm cap humanity has, where if one group is really enthusiastic, others must be less so?
How do you draw that conclusion? Is there some enthusiasm cap humanity has, where if one group is really enthusiastic, others must be less so?
It is a natural corollary.
There is no cap on enthusiasm; merely his assumption that economic activity indicates how much is present.
Once you make the assumption that the desire to invest money in compatible products is based primarily on enthusiasm for that product, you naturally suggest that the lack of such investments indicates a lack of enthusiasm.
It is a natural corollary.
There is no cap on enthusiasm; merely his assumption that economic activity indicates how much is present.
Once you make the assumption that the desire to invest money in compatible products is based primarily on enthusiasm for that product, you naturally suggest that the lack of such investments indicates a lack of enthusiasm.
I buy Red Bull almost every morning. This has nothing to do with enthusiasm. It has to do with me not being a morning person and disliking coffee(I prefer my drinks cold). The stuff works, and you get used to the taste.
But, to get back to the discussion:
Paizo's Pathfinder has an audience, but I reckon its a small one. It certainly does not in any way compare to the audience for WotC and D&D. That being said, the smaller number of fans it does have are very enthusiastic and in particular active on the internet. Paizo does most of its business through the internet, as opposed to brick and mortar stores, and it stands to reason that a higher percentage of Paizo's supporters are internet people.
I buy Red Bull almost every morning. This has nothing to do with enthusiasm. It has to do with me not being a morning person and disliking coffee(I prefer my drinks cold). The stuff works, and you get used to the taste.
Right. You buy an alternative caffeine drink but you do not go out and market one of your own, either out of enthusiasm for them or to "stick it" to coffee producers.
But, to get back to the discussion:
Except that is the discussion.
Or at least the refutation of your poor analysis of it.
Paizo's Pathfinder has an audience, but I reckon its a small one. It certainly does not in any way compare to the audience for WotC and D&D. That being said, the smaller number of fans it does have are very enthusiastic and in particular active on the internet. Paizo does most of its business through the internet, as opposed to brick and mortar stores, and it stands to reason that a higher percentage of Paizo's supporters are internet people.
And?
While the first is true (the audience is significantly smaller than WotC's), the second is generally true (the fans appear to be quite enthusiastic and have a significant internet presence), and the third might be true (I have not heard anything about how much they sell directly versus how much they sell through retailers), none of that addresses the issues of an organized play program that only has tabletop provisions currently, the agitation for a compatibility license, the support for character generation products, the existence of the wiki, or the issue of whether or not it can support additional compatible products. And it definitely does not suggest any gratuitous vindictiveness towards 4E or WotC or both driving any of that.
Barring some dramatic change, rabid pro-4E, stick it to anyone who is not WotC, fans (sycophantic kobolds to use WotC's marketing term), are just going to have to accept that Pathfinder is yet another RPG product competing with WotC in the overall market. And while it may not be particularly significant compared to WotC directly, it is currently quite comparable to the amount of GSL products being published.
Right. You buy an alternative caffeine drink but you do not go out and market one of your own, either out of enthusiasm for them or to "stick it" to coffee producers.
Except that is the discussion.
Or at least the refutation of your poor analysis of it.
And?
While the first is true (the audience is significantly smaller than WotC's), the second is generally true (the fans appear to be quite enthusiastic and have a significant internet presence), and the third might be true (I have not heard anything about how much they sell directly versus how much they sell through retailers), none of that addresses the issues of an organized play program that only has tabletop provisions currently, the agitation for a compatibility license, the support for character generation products, the existence of the wiki, or the issue of whether or not it can support additional compatible products. And it definitely does not suggest any gratuitous vindictiveness towards 4E or WotC or both driving any of that.
Barring some dramatic change, rabid pro-4E, stick it to anyone who is not WotC, fans (sycophantic kobolds to use WotC's marketing term), are just going to have to accept that Pathfinder is yet another RPG product competing with WotC in the overall market. And while it may not be particularly significant compared to WotC directly, it is currently quite comparable to the amount of GSL products being published.
I happen to think Pathfinder isn't going to succeed long term, and that opinion has nothing to do with 4E. In my mind, Pathfinder has two primary flaws:
1. It isn't D&D.
2. It isn't not-D&D.
In the long run, people will give it a look, play it for maybe a little while, and then realize it's the same game as 3.5E without offering as much material. Regardless of whether or not 3rd parties publish for Pathfinder, it will not challenge the pile of books 3.5E has to offer, and it really isn't compatible with 3.5E if you look at it objectively.
Pathfinder will die, but not to 4E. 3.5E will kill Pathfinder.
[/rant]
Given the number of complaints about WotC errors in rules material for 4E, this is incorrect as it confuses two different subjects.
Writing rules is not the same as writing adventures, or even settings. There are extremely harsh requirements for writing comprehensible rules material as opposed to casual fluff that can be retconned away, or adventures that can be handwaved off.
I will revise my qoute to say, designing rules for 4th (for me anyway - as a 3PP) is easier then 3E. I cannot talk for others. I am not talking about adventures or settings (though that is easier for me and less time consuming).
The rules in 4E made my job a lot easier (for me at least - I haven't really heard any solid complaints). For the rules I am developing for 4E are much more fluid and translate simplier including a honor and corruption system, heraldry and piety system, gaining noble titles and feudal lands, and a mass combat system.
The components in 4E made developing these supplemental rules easier for me.
I happen to think Pathfinder isn't going to succeed long term, and that opinion has nothing to do with 4E. In my mind, Pathfinder has two primary flaws:
1. It isn't D&D.
2. It isn't not-D&D.
In the long run, people will give it a look, play it for maybe a little while, and then realize it's the same game as 3.5E without offering as much material. Regardless of whether or not 3rd parties publish for Pathfinder, it will not challenge the pile of books 3.5E has to offer, and it really isn't compatible with 3.5E if you look at it objectively.
Pathfinder will die, but not to 4E. 3.5E will kill Pathfinder.
[/rant]
Except the big pile of books for 3.5 are disappearing. Every day fewer and fewer are on the shelves. That is the whole reason for having a PFRPG core book.
It also assumes a game system cannot survive without a constant stream of splat books to keep people interested in buying other products and using the system. While that has a lot of relevance for a CCG, it is far from absolute for an RPG, and indeed that may be a major element contributing to why RPGs have declined so much.
That is not to say Pathfinder does not have a constant stream of new material. In just over a year they have released enough new rules material to fill at least two sourcebooks, over and above background material and adventure content.
The components in 4E made developing these supplemental rules easier for me.
And the components in 3E made developing supplemental rules easy enough for all the OGL products out there.
That is pretty much incidental to the question of whether OGL products still have a market. Despite everything, they still seem to.
http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/d20/d20.htm
You'll notice the full 95 companies producing products.
And within a year of the release of 3s you had major publishers (Troll Lord, Necromancer Games, Green Ronin, and White Wolf/Swords & Sorcery) producing material. Some within 6 months, such as the Creature Compendium.
Compare that with the, what, two or three companies doing 4e. The single released GSL product. The major companies shying away from the licence.
It's just you.
Here's a complete list of d20/OGL products:
http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/d20/d20.htm
You'll notice the full 95 companies producing products.
And within a year of the release of 3s you had major publishers (Troll Lord, Necromancer Games, Green Ronin, and White Wolf/Swords & Sorcery) producing material. Some within 6 months, such as the Creature Compendium.
Compare that with the, what, two or three companies doing 4e. The single released GSL product. The major companies shying away from the licence.
It's just you.
I'm not comparing companies making GSL products with companies making OGL/d20 products at the launch of 3E.
I'm comparing announced GSL releases to announced OGL new releases in the second half of 2008 and beyond.
And within a year of the release of 3s you had major publishers (Troll Lord, Necromancer Games, Green Ronin, and White Wolf/Swords & Sorcery) producing material.
A nitpick: the only major publisher to sign on at the time you listed was White Wolf, as the other three only became major players because of the d20 boom. When they first published their products, they were untested companies who had some known industry figures (like Chris Pramas).
In the long run, people will give it a look, play it for maybe a little while, and then realize it's the same game as 3.5E without offering as much material. Regardless of whether or not 3rd parties publish for Pathfinder, it will not challenge the pile of books 3.5E has to offer, and it really isn't compatible with 3.5E if you look at it objectively.
That's part of the point of Pathfinder, to be the "same" game as 3.5E. There's an established group of players who want to continue to play, and want to continue to introduce new players (and there's always a new crop of new players) to the game. It's difficult to introduce and keep the new players if they can't buy core books of their own.
That's why some of us are purchasing the game - we want to continue to play 3.5, and we like the Paizo enhancements and refinement of the game.
I'm also quite confident that the Paizo folks, in addition to the other companies pledging support for Pathfinder, will produce some quality sourcebooks that provide a unique and refreshing take on some of the already published material, enhancing or outright replacing it.
I'm not comparing companies making GSL products with companies making OGL/d20 products at the launch of 3E.
I'm comparing announced GSL releases to announced OGL new releases in the second half of 2008 and beyond.
Given that the GSL prohibits dual-version publishing on a product line, at the present time, it's pretty likely that a 4E supplement is going to sell better than a 3.5 supplement. A lot of publishers are going to feel that money now is more important than money down the road.
Other publishers are likely holding out to see how well Pathfinder takes off - the system is still in "Beta", after all.
Give it time. Pathfinder isn't going anywhere, and neither are a LOT of fans of 3.5.
Obviously, I realize that my anecdotal sample of three whole FLGS' isn't necessarily indicative of overall performance or popularity, but 4E isn't doing that great around here. There was a lot of hustle and bustle during the first week of release, and a few dozen copies were sold, but so far, the print version of the Pathfinder Beta is holding it's own, and outselling 4E at two of those three shops.
The third shop, in the larger of the cities, has sold more 4E than they have Pathfinder, but not by a whole lot.
Pathfinder fans are more enthusiastic than they are numerous. These things aren't happening because of big numbers so much as they are happening because Pathfinder has a lot of rabid anti-4E stick it to WotC fans who are looking at Pathfinder to be the savior of 3.5E.
I'd be very curious to know what your basing your opinion. I can assure you that it is greatly misinformed. 4e, rarely comes up on the paizo boards, and when it is mentioned it's greeted with a passing dislike. In fact some of the pathfinder fans play both if you can believe that. If one were to actually compare the two boards, paizo's and this one, I suspect that the that the results would surprise. The fanboyish blind hatred for pathfinder that you see on these boards is not matched with the reverse over there.
Paizo's Pathfinder has an audience, but I reckon its a small one. It certainly does not in any way compare to the audience for WotC and D&D. That being said, the smaller number of fans it does have are very enthusiastic and in particular active on the internet. Paizo does most of its business through the internet, as opposed to brick and mortar stores, and it stands to reason that a higher percentage of Paizo's supporters are internet people.
I think pathfinders audience is larger then you think. Maybe not has large as 4e's audience, but larger then your willing to admit. And the audience is certainly large enough to keep pathfinder alive and well, and that's good enough for me. As for paizo selling more through the internet then then brick and mortar stores...No kidding! They are an internet store ya putz. Also I fail to see the relevance of that fact, amazon sells more 4e books then any brick and mortar store, what does that say about 4e?
I happen to think Pathfinder isn't going to succeed long term, and that opinion has nothing to do with 4E. In my mind, Pathfinder has two primary flaws:
1. It isn't D&D.
2. It isn't not-D&D.
1. It's more D&D then 4e is.
2. WTF? It isn't D&D but it isn't not D&D, what the hell does that mean?
In the long run, people will give it a look, play it for maybe a little while, and then realize it's the same game as 3.5E without offering as much material. Regardless of whether or not 3rd parties publish for Pathfinder, it will not challenge the pile of books 3.5E has to offer, and it really isn't compatible with 3.5E if you look at it objectively.
Pathfinder will die, but not to 4E. 3.5E will kill Pathfinder.
[/rant]
I'd say quiet while your ahead, but I don't think you ever where. Firstly all those 3.5 books that you say aren't compatible with pathfinder.. They are! No honestly, I use pathfinder in my Eberron games, I have yet to do a single necessary adjustment. (I adjusted the base races in the ECS so they were more a kin to pathfinder races, and made a 0 LA drow for my drow fangirl) The only thing I can see being of any difficulty is converting domains.Secondly pathfinder has the support of Paizo, which quite frankly produces the best adventures in the industry. It will also have the support of Kobold quarterly (Who, unlike WotC can produce a magazine ON TIME! Oh and they will print, bind and ship it to you.) And last I heard necromancer games is thinking about supporting them as well. Not to mention a host of others still producing 3e material. 4e may have more 3pp support, right now, but pathfinder has a few 3pps behind it as well.
And the point is still valid, there was a lot more 3pp support for 3e then there is for 4e at their respective releases. further on that line of thinking, there are more 3pps waiting to see what happens with 4e, or doing their own thing, then ones that are actually jumping on board with the GSL.
Lastly I don't think pathfinder will die...I think 4e will be replaced in 5 years by wotc. And hey maybe pathfinder will be producing pathfinder 2nd ed, but i doubt it. I am interested in seeing what 4e-5e's version of castle and crusades/pathfinder ends up looking like.
And the components in 3E made developing supplemental rules easy enough for all the OGL products out there.
True, but I find writing rules (and producing products) for 4E easier and less complicated than 3E. That is the point I am trying to make, not whether the OGL or GSL is better. Personally, I think the GSL needs a little loosening.
That is pretty much incidental to the question of whether OGL products still have a market. Despite everything, they still seem to.
They might still have a market, but according to most 3PP .pdf publishers (at least at RPGNow.com and YourGamesNow) sales hit rock bottom. Personally, our sales dropped significantly since the announcement of 4E (so send those customers wanting OGL products over to us - we still have a handful available ;) ).
The big 3PP companies are staying away from the GSL, because they have more to lose accepting the GSL than the 12,000 other small publishers like myself.
But, I will see - tomorrow is Oct. 1st and we have a new, 4E small product on the line as well as two more products this month. I also have a few 3E products I will release to tie up some loose ends.
That is when I will see which line I direct my efforts. Even if the OGL is better, if the GSL brings us more success - then so be it (or vice versa).
They might still have a market, but according to most 3PP .pdf publishers (at least at RPGNow.com and YourGamesNow) sales hit rock bottom. Personally, our sales dropped significantly since the announcement of 4E (so send those customers wanting OGL products over to us - we still have a handful available ;) ).
Linky, please?
True, but I find writing rules (and producing products) for 4E easier and less complicated than 3E. That is the point I am trying to make, not whether the OGL or GSL is better. Personally, I think the GSL needs a little loosening.
Yes, I understand that.
The point I am trying to make is that some people work quite well with designing OGL material, so that tends to wind up being just a matter of personal preference. That leaves the terms of the licenses being a bigger factor, as well as the content of an existing product line, in determining what license is used, as well as the perception of an available market for more OGL products.
I happen to think Pathfinder isn't going to succeed long term, and that opinion has nothing to do with 4E. In my mind, Pathfinder has two primary flaws:
1. It isn't D&D.
2. It isn't not-D&D.
Funny, I see both as strengths. :D
True, but I find writing rules (and producing products) for 4E easier and less complicated than 3E. That is the point I am trying to make, not whether the OGL or GSL is better. Personally, I think the GSL needs a little loosening.
I thought you like the GSL "as is."
What about content sharing among 3PP sources? Agree or Disagree?
Yes, I understand that.
The point I am trying to make is that some people work quite well with designing OGL material, so that tends to wind up being just a matter of personal preference. That leaves the terms of the licenses being a bigger factor, as well as the content of an existing product line, in determining what license is used, as well as the perception of an available market for more OGL products.
Yeah - the OGL is much larger than I think WotC intended and I hope to see OGL/3.X products 20 years down the road, but by then 7th Edition might be around the corner.
I thought you like the GSL "as is."
I like the GSL with the respect it takes 2 seconds to put the legal mumbo jumbo into a product without worrying whether or not my OGC is seperated from my PI.
Plus, reprinting the OGL in every product got old, especially for a one or two page free product.
At first, I thought it too restrictive - however, after looking at it for a while I don't mind it "as is" - except I would prefer the usage of reprinting monster stats for adventures. It just makes things easier on the customer (though it might mean a little more work for me).
What about content sharing among 3PP sources? Agree or Disagree?
The GSL does not kill 3PP content sharing. It just no longer makes it mandatory. Any company can make their 4th Edition stuff Open Game Content - the GSL does not prevent that.
For me its a gray issue, since I like having that option. There are a few things I will make OGC for our 4th Edition products to keep with consistancy or allow other publishers to use if asked. I don't have a problem with that.
However, do I want my hard work (this is a hobby for me - no real money in small 3PP publishing) to end up in a giant "Book of Rehashed Products." As a consumer, I love those books - but as a publisher, not so much.
So in short - as a consumer: "Yes, I agree with sharing content among 3PP sources."
As a publisher: "Yes - but to a point." If I recieved just compensation for my work, then I would say a definite "Yes."
But realize OGC is not dead because the GSL doesn't make it mandatory. It is up to the companies now to decide if they want to publish OGC. I think your worry (and mine) is companies publishing with the GSL will no longer make OGC because they don't have to.
Those that truly believe in the spirit of the OGL will not let that spirit die by signing with the GSL.
Linky, please?
Our Stuff at RPGNow.com: http://www.rpgnow.com/index.php?filters=0_0_0&manufacturers_id=52
Our Stuff at DriveThru:http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/index.php?filters=0_0_0&manufacturers_id=52
Our Website: www.aleapublishing.com
Thanks for the interest.
When the PS3 came out, and the the PS2 was still a viable console, we saw the exact same thing. Focus shifted to the new kid.
I heard that the PS2 was still outselling the PS3 after a month or two of the PS3 being out. A situation which certainly hasn't repeated with D&D 4e out.
I'd be very curious to know what your basing your opinion.
All the people on the WotC forums who said 4e was the work of satan and that they would buy Pathfinder and that WotC could kiss their ass. If these people went into their caves instead of the Pathfinder forums, then I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Although I for one actually believed them when they said they'd head over to Pathfinder.
The GSL does not kill 3PP content sharing. It just no longer makes it mandatory. Any company can make their 4th Edition stuff Open Game Content - the GSL does not prevent that.
What part of the GSL mention about OGC (or whatever it is now called) and sharing it?
AFAIK, you can't mix OGL with GSL.
What part of the GSL mention about OGC (or whatever it is now called) and sharing it?
It doesn't - but as a publisher, I can put an OGC clause (Open Game Content - something you have to do with the OGL) and allow other GSL publishers to use my Product Identity and 4E rules. The GSL does not prevent this.
AFAIK, you can't mix OGL with GSL.
You can't. But OGL and OGC are seperate things. The big differences between the OGL and the GSL is the following:
- The OGL forces publishers to identify and seperate Product Identity and Open Game Content. Other publishers do not need to seek permission to use another publisher's Open Game Content.
- Second, the GSL dictates how you will use WotC's 4E rules, with what venue you are allowed to produce 4E rules, and declaring OGC is no longer mandatory. Essentially, other GSL publishers need to seek your permission to use your rule mechanics that you worked hard on.
While the GSL restricts how to use WotC's and others' work, you have more control over your own work.
My problem is really with the 4E SRD being used as a reference document. If I want to make a new monster with the bugbear's Predatory Eye ability and the Stone Golem's Death Burst, I can't simply write out that ability under the new monster. I have to say, "Predatory Eye: see the bugbear description in the 4E D&D Monster Manual"; "Death Burst: see the Stone Golem description in the 4E D&D Monster Manual".
While that is a great time saver on the workload, it is frustrating for a customer to have to look at several books to figure out what my new monster does, especially when running a game on the fly.
So, it is really not the GSL, but the restrictive 4E SRD that is causing a lot of problems.
Oh, I did ignore one problem large companies have with the GSL: when 5th comes around, the GSL states they can't produce 4th Edition or their 4th Edition product lines anymore if WotC pulls the license; and you can't revert those 4th Edition products or lines back to 3.X.
I don't see this as a real problem, because I make too little money to be concerned with it. But that hurts the big 3PP and is the main reason why they refuse to publish under the GSL. So, when 5th comes along, WotC can say goodbye 3PP - "we don't want you to play in our 4th Edition or 5th Edition playground anymore."
I don't think that will ever happen (they will make a new 5th Edition GSL), but bigger companies want reinsurance.
Okay, this post is way too long.
I heard that the PS2 was still outselling the PS3 after a month or two of the PS3 being out. A situation which certainly hasn't repeated with D&D 4e out.
There's a reason for that - as much as we all love our FLGS, the traditional bookstore distribution chain sells far more of the D&D books than the gaming distribution chain.
That same traditional bookstore distribution chain has this handy little feature to it - sellers are able to send back unsold merchandise, and publishers are able to pull back unsold merchandise.
As such, not only did WotC cease production of the 3.5 stuff prior to release of 4E, but upon release, they put out the call to recall the earlier books so that they couldn't be sold at the retail establishments.
Not all retail establishments heed the call to return the old stuff, but most of the big chain stores do.
This severely curtails the supply of available 3.5 core books, and skews those sales figures. In a case like this, if 4E is available, and 3.5 isn't, of course 4E is going to outsell it.
It doesn't - but as a publisher, I can put an OGC clause (Open Game Content - something you have to do with the OGL) and allow other GSL publishers to use my Product Identity and 4E rules. The GSL does not prevent this.
You can't. But OGL and OGC are seperate things. The big differences between the OGL and the GSL is the following:
- The OGL forces publishers to identify and seperate Product Identity and Open Game Content. Other publishers do not need to seek permission to use another publisher's Open Game Content.
- Second, the GSL dictates how you will use WotC's 4E rules, with what venue you are allowed to produce 4E rules, and declaring OGC is no longer mandatory. Essentially, other GSL publishers need to seek your permission to use your rule mechanics that you worked hard on.
Yeah, you can pretty much guess I don't like the second one.
There's a reason for that - as much as we all love our FLGS, the traditional bookstore distribution chain sells far more of the D&D books than the gaming distribution chain.
That same traditional bookstore distribution chain has this handy little feature to it - sellers are able to send back unsold merchandise, and publishers are able to pull back unsold merchandise.
As such, not only did WotC cease production of the 3.5 stuff prior to release of 4E, but upon release, they put out the call to recall the earlier books so that they couldn't be sold at the retail establishments.
Not all retail establishments heed the call to return the old stuff, but most of the big chain stores do.
This severely curtails the supply of available 3.5 core books, and skews those sales figures. In a case like this, if 4E is available, and 3.5 isn't, of course 4E is going to outsell it.
Recalling what Ryan Dancey wrote about visiting TSR's warehouse full of unsold merchandise in Wisconsin, what is WotC going to do with their inventory of unsold merchandise, specifically RPG products?
Yeah, you can pretty much guess I don't like the second one.
Yeah, a lot don't.
Recalling what Ryan Dancey wrote about visiting TSR's warehouse full of unsold merchandise in Wisconsin, what is WotC going to do with their inventory of unsold merchandise, specifically RPG products?
The books seem to be finding their way to the remainder market, but I'd imagine that WotC would probably have the core books pulped/destroyed rather than put them out there for sale.
I hear that Dragon Dice went to a German landfill, so, who knows...
It doesn't - but as a publisher, I can put an OGC clause (Open Game Content - something you have to do with the OGL) and allow other GSL publishers to use my Product Identity and 4E rules. The GSL does not prevent this.
You can't. But OGL and OGC are seperate things. The big differences between the OGL and the GSL is the following:
- The OGL forces publishers to identify and seperate Product Identity and Open Game Content. Other publishers do not need to seek permission to use another publisher's Open Game Content.
- Second, the GSL dictates how you will use WotC's 4E rules, with what venue you are allowed to produce 4E rules, and declaring OGC is no longer mandatory. Essentially, other GSL publishers need to seek your permission to use your rule mechanics that you worked hard on.
While the GSL restricts how to use WotC's and others' work, you have more control over your own work.
You had the same control over your own work as now, though - there was no requirement that you release something as "Open Game Content" - the requirement was that you seperate OGC from PI. You were well within your rights and abilities to produce a book of spells, or a book of monsters, and keep some of those spells and monsters as Product Identity.
The requirement was that you identify which is which. If you were using previous OGC, or creating new OGC, you needed to note that, so people knew what they could or couldn't use.
I happen to think Pathfinder isn't going to succeed long term
I'm not sure whether pathfinder will make it long term or not, but I do think they are in a precarious situation at the moment. The pathfinder world / campaign setting is pretty cool imo. In fact I have no problem with a DnD Megaworld that puts Eberron's, Forgotten Realms, Golarion, Athas, and Dragonlances' continents all together in one place. That is how i'm using things at the moment anyway. I buy pathfinder world information and use a 4E rule set.
However, it took some real guts to take a really nice campaign setting and move it to a system that is neither the current "most popular role playing system in the world" nor does it strictly even use a straight translation of an older version of said system. It uses its own system that can trace its roots from the 3.5 version, but I think it is neither 3.5 nor 4e. They are striking off on their own, and creating their own brand. It will take time to see if they can do as well as says Sword & Sorcery/White Wolf in creating their own brand.
I hope pathfinder doesn't fail. I think it would be a loss of a cool world. In a way it would feel like the loss of the old dragonlance world. I don't believe piazo will ever update golarion to 4E though. I think it's way too late in the game for that one. They are probably going to forge ahead with their new brand. Time will tell if that brand can survive on it's own. Not even all DnD brands survived on their own even though some of them were quite cool (planescape).
Then again the whole 3.5/3.75/Book of ExperimentalMight/4E argument kind of strikes me as timmy vs. johhnny. Rules intricacy vs overarching concepts. MtG's player personality types
You had the same control over your own work as now, though - there was no requirement that you release something as "Open Game Content" - the requirement was that you seperate OGC from PI. You were well within your rights and abilities to produce a book of spells, or a book of monsters, and keep some of those spells and monsters as Product Identity.
The requirement was that you identify which is which. If you were using previous OGC, or creating new OGC, you needed to note that, so people knew what they could or couldn't use.
Actually, I couldn't keep any spells or monsters - now I could keep the spells' and monsters' names PI if they were original (i.e. not public domain - like dragon - this is why I could use St. Cuthbert or Orcus in 3.X products), but not the mechanics. All rules I created for any d20 product were not subject to PI. Now, if people used those rules in another product, they had to site my product.
So, in a sense, you are right in theory, but in practice it doesn't and did not work like that.
Edit: To be nitty gritty, everything someone produces under the OGL is PI, including rules, but another company can use all rules mechanics in an OGL product without permission (if they too adhered to the rules of the OGL)- even if previous publisher declared those rules as PI. This is why I cannot convert other publishers' OGL 3.X product to 4th Edition. As you can see - even after 8 years, the OGL is still a complicated piece of work.
I'm not sure whether pathfinder will make it long term or not, but I do think they are in a precarious situation at the moment. The pathfinder world / campaign setting is pretty cool imo. In fact I have no problem with a DnD Megaworld that puts Eberron's, Forgotten Realms, Golarion, Athas, and Dragonlances' continents all together in one place. That is how i'm using things at the moment anyway. I buy pathfinder world information and use a 4E rule set.[/url]
Actually I think you have this somewhat backwards. I don't think that Pathfinder is in any kind of a precarious situation and I don't think that their is any question of whether or not Pathfinder will make it long term. I frequent the Pathfinder boards and I have a 3.whatever game going using the Pathfinder Beta rules right now and it is going wonderfully, much better than any 3.5 game I ever ran went. We actually had fun grappling in a game session one evening with the rules overhaul in this area. (The um... pcs not the players... but that could be fun too. ;)) I think that Pathfinder has already got at least as big of a fan base as Mutants and Masterminds and they are only in the beta stages right now and how many years has M&M been going strong? Quite honestly, I would say that D&D 4th edition more than any other game system on the market right now is the one who is in possibly the most precarious of a situation that any game system can be in right now, with the exception of a case where people are just totally not buying your product.
Think of these things, Wizards has made an awful lot of promises that they haven't delivered on as of yet, no virtual game table, no character builder, no character visualizer, almost no D&D Insider period with the exception of a few moderately useful tools that they have managed to scrape together and put online even though they advertised it and made it a major marketing tool for fourth edition D&D to the point of putting full color ads for it in the core books inviting players and DMs to basically come try it out as if it actually existed at the time the core books were released. I wonder how much those full color ads cost for something that thus far has only been an additional financial drain (staffing, development, research, man hours, programming and everything that goes with that) and so far has produced absolutely 0 income with the exception of the extra books that it sold to customers who now feel as if they were cheated and some if not many are considering going back to other editions or moving to Pathfinder if they haven't already.
They also have promised to make changes to the GSL and these changes have not seen the light of day yet either.
Meanwhile third party software companies are already working on datasets and game modes for popular character generator programs (Hero Lab, RPGXplorer, PCGen etc.) that will soon enable their use with the Pathfinder RPG Beta, and then updates will be made to those sets and modes when the full game is released next year. Third party publishers have the freedom of the OGL to make third party products for the Pathfinder RPG and if a company decides to support both 4e and Pathfinder with product then they can as long as they don't try to produce the same product line for Pathfinder as they do for 4e (at least as the GSL is written now).
4e D&D is up against the most staunch competitor that it ever could be and that competitor is the previous incarnation of D&D. I am not sure what would have happened if such a situation had existed with 2e and 3e, or even 1e and 2e. So now you have a situation where people are railing against the new edition of D&D as they always do when their is an edition change but in this situation the old edition is not going anywhere, it is just undergoing a few changes.
Quite honestly I would say that D&D 4e has got a tough way to go over the next several years. A lot of people will stay with 3.5 and go with Pathfinder simply because the third party software is supporting them and it can't support 4e and because they have been using that software for several years and because they are already comfortable with the system and because they thought it needed a few adjustments but not the drastic changes that 4e made, and because many people feel (whether you agree with this or not, many people still feel it and you can 4e Avenger till the cows come home and not change that) that 3.5/Pathfinder are more true to the original spirit of D&D than 4e ever will be.
Couple these things with the fact that the Pathfinder Community is open, as honest as they can be, they are developing their game in conjunction with the community and trying to give them what they want in a Fantasy RPG as opposed to developing behind closed doors and trying to make the community like what the game designer's like or the direction that the game designers feel the game needs to go in order to make money and draw in new players. Paizo consistently keeps their promises, consistently releases top notch product on schedule and has a very good reputation and relationship with the gaming community as a whole. Nope I see no precarious situation for Pathfinder. D&D 4e could have quite troubled waters ahead if Wizard's doesn't shape it's act up. And quite honestly, I have been a long time D&D fan, but with as good an alternative as Pathfinder RPG out there I would not shed a single tear if the D&D brand name went belly up tomorrow.
Charles
Actually I think you have this somewhat backwards. I don't think that Pathfinder is in any kind of a precarious situation and I don't think that their is any question of whether or not Pathfinder will make it long term. I frequent the Pathfinder boards and I have a 3.whatever game going using the Pathfinder Beta rules right now and it is going wonderfully, much better than any 3.5 game I ever ran went. We actually had fun grappling in a game session one evening with the rules overhaul in this area. (The um... pcs not the players... but that could be fun too. ;)) I think that Pathfinder has already got at least as big of a fan base as Mutants and Masterminds and they are only in the beta stages right now and how many years has M&M been going strong? Quite honestly, I would say that D&D 4th edition more than any other game system on the market right now is the one who is in possibly the most precarious of a situation that any game system can be in right now, with the exception of a case where people are just totally not buying your product.
Think of these things, Wizards has made an awful lot of promises that they haven't delivered on as of yet, no virtual game table, no character builder, no character visualizer, almost no D&D Insider period with the exception of a few moderately useful tools that they have managed to scrape together and put online even though they advertised it and made it a major marketing tool for fourth edition D&D to the point of putting full color ads for it in the core books inviting players and DMs to basically come try it out as if it actually existed at the time the core books were released. I wonder how much those full color ads cost for something that thus far has only been an additional financial drain (staffing, development, research, man hours, programming and everything that goes with that) and so far has produced absolutely 0 income with the exception of the extra books that it sold to customers who now feel as if they were cheated and some if not many are considering going back to other editions or moving to Pathfinder if they haven't already.
They also have promised to make changes to the GSL and these changes have not seen the light of day yet either.
Meanwhile third party software companies are already working on datasets and game modes for popular character generator programs (Hero Lab, RPGXplorer, PCGen etc.) that will soon enable their use with the Pathfinder RPG Beta, and then updates will be made to those sets and modes when the full game is released next year. Third party publishers have the freedom of the OGL to make third party products for the Pathfinder RPG and if a company decides to support both 4e and Pathfinder with product then they can as long as they don't try to produce the same product line for Pathfinder as they do for 4e (at least as the GSL is written now).
4e D&D is up against the most staunch competitor that it ever could be and that competitor is the previous incarnation of D&D. I am not sure what would have happened if such a situation had existed with 2e and 3e, or even 1e and 2e. So now you have a situation where people are railing against the new edition of D&D as they always do when their is an edition change but in this situation the old edition is not going anywhere, it is just undergoing a few changes.
Quite honestly I would say that D&D 4e has got a tough way to go over the next several years. A lot of people will stay with 3.5 and go with Pathfinder simply because the third party software is supporting them and it can't support 4e and because they have been using that software for several years and because they are already comfortable with the system and because they thought it needed a few adjustments but not the drastic changes that 4e made, and because many people feel (whether you agree with this or not, many people still feel it and you can 4e Avenger till the cows come home and not change that) that 3.5/Pathfinder are more true to the original spirit of D&D than 4e ever will be.
Couple these things with the fact that the Pathfinder Community is open, as honest as they can be, they are developing their game in conjunction with the community and trying to give them what they want in a Fantasy RPG as opposed to developing behind closed doors and trying to make the community like what the game designer's like or the direction that the game designers feel the game needs to go in order to make money and draw in new players. Paizo consistently keeps their promises, consistently releases top notch product on schedule and has a very good reputation and relationship with the gaming community as a whole. Nope I see no precarious situation for Pathfinder. D&D 4e could have quite troubled waters ahead if Wizard's doesn't shape it's act up. And quite honestly, I have been a long time D&D fan, but with as good an alternative as Pathfinder RPG out there I would not shed a single tear if the D&D brand name went belly up tomorrow.
Charles
all this is valid. I participated in the beta to some degree and found the fan base to be very open and willing to discuss things (some quite vehemently acutally). I have also been very pleased with the products so far both in quality and timeliness.
Maybe i should revise my statement slightly and say fantasy RPG in general is in a precarious state at the moment. The "biggest dog" in the the yard is having some problems at the moment delivering "their vision" out to the masses. I will venture a guess that there is more to this than meets the eye. In addition, arguably the "second biggest" dog in the yard has decided to play their own game. You might say it is an implied line in the sand. But that is the rub, we don't have to choose one side or the other. I believe we have evolved enough as a mass market to allow multiple mainstream RPGs. I believe WoW, DnD, Pathfinder, and WoD can all exist side by side and be financially successful. I believe the market is now large enough for all that (compared to 10 or 20 years ago).
Again don't misunderstand me. I like pathfinder. I don't wan't it to fail =).
all this is valid. I participated in the beta to some degree and found the fan base to be very open and willing to discuss things (some quite vehemently acutally). I have also been very pleased with the products so far both in quality and timeliness.
Maybe i should revise my statement slightly and say fantasy RPG in general is in a precarious state at the moment. The "biggest dog" in the the yard is having some problems at the moment delivering "their vision" out to the masses. I will venture a guess that there is more to this than meets the eye. In addition, arguably the "second biggest" dog in the yard has decided to play their own game. You might say it is an implied line in the sand. But that is the rub, we don't have to choose one side or the other. I believe we have evolved enough as a mass market to allow multiple mainstream RPGs. I believe WoW, DnD, Pathfinder, and WoD can all exist side by side and be financially successful. I believe the market is now large enough for all that (compared to 10 or 20 years ago).
Again don't misunderstand me. I like pathfinder. I don't wan't it to fail =).
Paizo is in no way the second biggest dog in the yard. White Wolf has that hands down. I'm not sure Paizo would even manage third at this point. Green Ronin, Mongoose, Palladium, GURPS, Warcraft/World of Warcraft RPG, ect. could arguably be placed ahead of Paizo. Paizo is just getting a lot of attention right now, especially on the internet.
As for things being able to survive in the market, I think it would be the smaller games that would fall out first.
all this is valid. I participated in the beta to some degree and found the fan base to be very open and willing to discuss things (some quite vehemently acutally). I have also been very pleased with the products so far both in quality and timeliness.
Maybe i should revise my statement slightly and say fantasy RPG in general is in a precarious state at the moment. The "biggest dog" in the the yard is having some problems at the moment delivering "their vision" out to the masses. I will venture a guess that there is more to this than meets the eye. In addition, arguably the "second biggest" dog in the yard has decided to play their own game. You might say it is an implied line in the sand. But that is the rub, we don't have to choose one side or the other. I believe we have evolved enough as a mass market to allow multiple mainstream RPGs. I believe WoW, DnD, Pathfinder, and WoD can all exist side by side and be financially successful. I believe the market is now large enough for all that (compared to 10 or 20 years ago).
Again don't misunderstand me. I like pathfinder. I don't wan't it to fail =).
Yeah, so many things are just up in the air right now. I was going around some of the other message boards awhile ago and saw this post by Necromancer Games' Clark Peterson and kind of thought it was relevant to the discussion here. Clark has always stuck to his guns as being a supporter of the current incarnation of D&D and he still is but some of the statements that he makes here I was quite surprised to hear him make in a public forum. Check it out here:
http://necromancergames.yuku.com/topic/9969/t/Ongoing-GSL-Saga.html
Now I don't know this may have already been talked about in another thread and if so I appologize for bringing it up here, but when someone who knows the gaming industry as well as I have long felt that Clark Peterson does says things like this I tend to stand up and take notice.
Charles
I'm not sure Paizo would even manage third at this point. Green Ronin, Mongoose, Palladium, GURPS, Warcraft/World of Warcraft RPG, ect. could arguably be placed ahead of Paizo.
Paizo is in no way the second biggest dog in the yard. White Wolf has that hands down. I'm not sure Paizo would even manage third at this point. Green Ronin, Mongoose, Palladium, GURPS, Warcraft/World of Warcraft RPG, ect. could arguably be placed ahead of Paizo. Paizo is just getting a lot of attention right now, especially on the internet.
You're kidding, right?
You're kidding, right?
You mean to say that Paizo is bigger than White Wolf, the longtime(over a decade now) #2 name in the RPG market, maker of Vampire, Mage, Werewolf, and Exalted among others? You mean to say that a company whose game system is still in the Beta stage is bigger than established 3PP stalwarts like Green Ronin and Mongoose?
You mean to say that Paizo is bigger than White Wolf, the longtime(over a decade now) #2 name in the RPG market, maker of Vampire, Mage, Werewolf, and Exalted among others? You mean to say that a company whose game system is still in the Beta stage is bigger than established 3PP stalwarts like Green Ronin and Mongoose?
I really wouldn't bother.
If you quoted figures and sworn statements from whatever divinity took your fancy people will still quote Paizo as the second coming.
I like Paizo, I've been a customer since the pathfinder/gamemastery line started and I promise you if you suggested to the PF guys that they werw ANY WHERE near the number 2 slot they would laugh themselves silly.
I really wouldn't bother.
If you quoted figures and sworn statements from whatever divinity took your fancy people will still quote Paizo as the second coming.
I like Paizo, I've been a customer since the pathfinder/gamemastery line started and I promise you if you suggested to the PF guys that they werw ANY WHERE near the number 2 slot they would laugh themselves silly.
And if similar figures and statements were quoted putting Paizo at 3rd on that list he would still rank it as near death from lack of interest.
It doesn't really matter what is presented it seems people will believe what they will no matter what is said.
You mean to say that Paizo is bigger than White Wolf, the longtime(over a decade now) #2 name in the RPG market, maker of Vampire, Mage, Werewolf, and Exalted among others? You mean to say that a company whose game system is still in the Beta stage is bigger than established 3PP stalwarts like Green Ronin and Mongoose?
I think I'll chime in here again. Now in a post not far back, you mentioned Palladium in your list, and even the World of Warcraft RPG as being bigger than Paizo. While I can agree that White Wolf is bigger than Paizo for the simple fact that they have been around longer, have more products on the market and probably have a somewhat more established fan base. I think though it would not be difficult for Paizo to take this position from White Wolf given time. Most WW games by their very nature are going to have a much more limited following than a strong main line fantasy game, especially a 3.5 based ogl fantasy game that is striving to remain usable with existing 3.0 and 3.5 D&D supplements. You seem to forget that the Pathfinder RPG Beta is not the only product that Paizo has on the market right now, they also have a very strong line of adventure paths, they have Pathfinder modules, they have Gamemastery map-packs (that are quite nice I might add) they have the Pathfinder Chronicles and Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Companion series, and the various Gazeteers, and Guides to various parts of the Pathfinder world and they have the reputation of someone who knows D&D 3.5 inside and out and of being the most successful publishers of both Dungeon and Dragon magazines ever. Plus there are a few products that I neglected to mention I am sure.
I think Paizo is probably currently nearly neck to neck with Green Ronin if I were to compare them to someone right now and are in excellent position to surpass bothe Green Ronin and Mongoose Publishing, though it would take a little longer for Mongoose because they have so many different products going at the moment. Palladium has its little nitch market and they are pretty good at what they do but I don't think they can even compare to the current overall popularity of Paizo at the moment . The World of Warcraft RPG... come on now you are really grasping at straws, where I live it is very difficult to even find copies of this game on store shelves anywhere these days, I know because I wanted to buy a copy of it awhile back. I would say that GURPS and White Wolf are actually probably the current leaders in the gaming industry at the moment, Wizards of the Coast just hasn't figured that out yet.
Some people say that Amazon.com reviews don't mean anything, but I often consult them when I want to cut through a companies hype about their own product. I find that Amazon reviews are very valuable because I can find reviews that actual users of the products in question have written. Not people who write reviews on gaming sites (though I find those handy too), not what the company has to say about its own product, and not what people are payed to say about a companies product and not what a website says that has made it a practice to be loyal to a certain companies product. I get the real scoop from people who have bought the product just like me and used the product in real life situations just like I would. I find glowing reccomendations, I find neutral reviews, and I find the people from the "this product sucks" camp. If I am seeing enough reviews that say this product sucks then I am likely to turn away from the product and not waste my time. If you compare the reviews of D&D 4e products with GURPS products, White Wolf products, Paizo products and even other products a pattern will begin to reveal itself.
Paizo Reviews are top of the stack nearly every time with a few exceptions, GURPS product reviews are usually pretty good, White Wolf product reviews average pretty good over all with some being awesome and a few being not so awesome I don't know about Palladium reviews because I don't watch Palladium. D&D 4e reviews for the past 2-3 months (nearly since launch) have consistently averaged from 2.5 to 3 stars on a 5 star ranking system. I am not trying to spread around 4e hate here folks. I have looked at the numbers and even though Wizards is saying that 4e products are selling like hotcakes the evidence that I am coming across is not looking real promising. Plus it seems the longer that 4e is out I keep seeing more and more posts that are saying that 4e was fun for a while but it fails to capture the attention for the long term, becoming boring because of the lack of options and other things. Then with the GSL in the state it is in and the lack of 3rd party support for 4e. I just don't think that Wizards is the industry leader anymore and if they are it wont be for long.
Charles
I buy Red Bull almost every morning. This has nothing to do with enthusiasm. It has to do with me not being a morning person and disliking coffee(I prefer my drinks cold). The stuff works, and you get used to the taste.
But, to get back to the discussion:
Paizo's Pathfinder has an audience, but I reckon its a small one. It certainly does not in any way compare to the audience for WotC and D&D. That being said, the smaller number of fans it does have are very enthusiastic and in particular active on the internet. Paizo does most of its business through the internet, as opposed to brick and mortar stores, and it stands to reason that a higher percentage of Paizo's supporters are internet people.
Ya have an awful lot of assertions there with little substance to back them up dude. I think you have spent way to much time in the 4e crowd that is to busy still self congratulating themselves over a good initial release when they had everyone deceived into thinking that 4e was going to be worth playing. I am not trying to be anti-4e here but you are making statements that have no basis whatsoever in fact, while all of the evidence surrounds you right here on the WotC website of what and over whelming success D&D Insider is proving to be and how happy everyone is with the new digital versions of Dungeon and Dragon, and how wonderful, the new GSL is... oh wait that is the old GSL the new GSL has been promised but not seen yet and some people are wondering if it ever will actually be seen despite what Scott Rouse or others have said on these boards. Then Wizards up and "re-aligns"... um yeah that is always a good sign, and the Rouse is so overwhelmed with the work left behind that he can't get to the new GSL yet. It is evident that Linae Foster was still needed because of the statements that Scott has made about the work load left behind... then why did they let her go? QUestions... questions... questions... oh yeah but there are no problems, and Pathfinder is just a pipe dream whose support is so small that it's hardly even there. Oh well... man I thought folks were supposed to leave the fantasy behind at the game table.
Charles
Yeah, so many things are just up in the air right now. I was going around some of the other message boards awhile ago and saw this post by Necromancer Games' Clark Peterson and kind of thought it was relevant to the discussion here.
Yeah, it's always sad when one of the few established name third party pubs who believed in the new edition and who was pushing for others to believe seems to have ended up feeling abandoned.
Around GenCon ScottR said in an interview that they had revisions to the GSL that he had talked with Clark/Orcus about, and Clark said that he would be on board with the GSL if Scott could get them through... I love how after the positive publicity of upcoming changes to the GSL before/during GenCon that WotC gets rid of the person who had been working on the project so that it gets tossed onto the desk of someone who is already swamped to begin with.
Yeah, it's always sad when one of the few established name third party pubs who believed in the new edition and who was pushing for others to believe seems to have ended up feeling abandoned.
Around GenCon ScottR said in an interview that they had revisions to the GSL that he had talked with Clark/Orcus about, and Clark said that he would be on board with the GSL if Scott could get them through... I love how after the positive publicity of upcoming changes to the GSL before/during GenCon that WotC gets rid of the person who had been working on the project so that it gets tossed onto the desk of someone who is already swamped to begin with.
I have a difficult time understanding it. It seems like every time Wizards seems to be heading in the right direction these days that they end up shooting themselves in the foot. The have someone come out and make announcements about D&D Insider and the tools that are coming up, saying that some of them will be functional soon (and they are now) but others wont be available for a while. That was a good move because they at least gave out some info where previously there was none. People thanked them and attitudes improved a little. Then they go right back into silence mode and the next thing we are hearing is that they are going to start charging a fee this month for subscriptions... to what? There are almost no useful tools that are functional in D&D Insider right now. Then the whole GSl thing they announce that it is going to be revised... this makes ripples throughout the gaming community and the industry and people are applauding what everyone sees as a good decision made by Wizards. The revisions are supposed to come "soon" "sometime after Gen Con"... well Gen Con came and went and not only are their not any revisions, they let go one of the key players that was working on getting them done. They shot themselves in the foot with a double barreled shotgun this time around. They promise D&D Insider will be ready at the launch of 4e and BANG... they shot themselves in the foot with a Bazooka on that one. I just get the feeling that there could be big trouble behind the closed doors of WotC.
Charles