Do you think Paizo should take the D&D License?

487 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hey everybody,

as it is clearly to see on those boards here, people are frustrated.

There are no releases, the concept failed with essentials. The "core-world" of Points of light was poorly executed and other aspects of 4e didnt work.

Paizo did really well with Pathfinder and focusing on the Core World Golarion.

There are already threats asking what to do with the D&D License.

We just started with 4e and are not long time fans, the Red Box was our first game and we liked it.

Paizo is now working on something like the Red Box. Just looking at the website and boards there is a huge difference in quality.

Do you think it would be the best solution for Paizo to take the D&D license and give the players back
what they deserve? Attention, Playtests and quality releases as pdf and books instead of buggy 10$ a month silverlight(?) character creators.

I got a good feeling about this one guys!
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."-Douglas Adams
Hey everybody,



Hi there!


as it is clearly to see on those boards here, people are frustrated.



People are always frustrated on these forums.


There are no releases, the concept failed with essentials. The "core-world" of Points of light was poorly executed and other aspects of 4e didnt work.



Yes there are, I dont think it did, I liked it becaues it was enough but clearly campaign settings are a dime a dozen and alot of DMs do their own thing anyways.


Paizo did really well with Pathfinder and focusing on the Core World Golarion.



Good for them, they seem to be good for the adventure writing and world building.


There are already threats asking what to do with the D&D License.



There are threaDs about lots of things here.


We just started with 4e and are not long time fans, the Red Box was our first game and we liked it.



Im happy to hear that.


Paizo is now working on something like the Red Box. Just looking at the website and boards there is a huge difference in quality.



I can imagine there might be.


Do you think it would be the best solution for Paizo to take the D&D license and give the players back what they deserve?



What do we deserve?


Attention, Playtests and quality releases as pdf and books instead of buggy 10$ a month silverlight(?) character creators.



Oh that stuff.

1. You can only give a hoard so much attention.
2. We do get playtest articles,  as well as the new DDI beta testers group it seems like people are being heard.
3. eh, i have to agree with this one, i want to have these.
4. the CB fworks fine and is getting better. 

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

Thank you Herrozerro, 

thank you for answering. I was thinking about deleting the post as I dont want to start a flame war.
 
Hey everybody,

as it is clearly to see on those boards here, people are frustrated.

There are no releases, the concept failed with essentials. The "core-world" of Points of light was poorly executed and other aspects of 4e didnt work.

Paizo did really well with Pathfinder and focusing on the Core World Golarion.

There are already threats asking what to do with the D&D License.

We just started with 4e and are not long time fans, the Red Box was our first game and we liked it.

Paizo is now working on something like the Red Box. Just looking at the website and boards there is a huge difference in quality.

Do you think it would be the best solution for Paizo to take the D&D license and give the players back
what they deserve? Attention, Playtests and quality releases as pdf and books instead of buggy 10$ a month silverlight(?) character creators.




well, IME gamers (especially TTRPG gamer) are a very fickle bunch. we tend to grab onto a system and not let go. go check out dragonsfoot.org for people who don't care about the last 2, or maybe even 3 editions. yes people are frustrated, but i can assure you that 3rd ed was not all roses, rainbows and unicorn farts.

and i can assure you that 2nd ed had lots of people who were frustrated.

now back on topic, seeing as how paizo has done very little with ruleset to convince me that they should have control over the IP...

no. WotC is at least trying something new with the IP, which is more then i can say about the previous owners (each new "edition" was more akin to cleaning up the messes found in the previous one) or paizo (who's system was created by someone else, all they are doing is adapting it).

if i wanted to play old D&D, i would play old D&D. thing is, i don't want to play old D&D. i've played old D&D. i'm tired of old D&D. i'm ready for new D&D.

PF is not new D&D. it's 3.5 with another coat of paint. pathfinder hasn't shown me any indication that paizo wants the game to evolve.

paizo had an opportunity to do something different, instead they released a set of houserules that barely addresses the actual problems with the system (or at least my problems) and their supported world has yet to strike my creative juices in the way Eberron or Dark Sun has (IE: Golarion feels too "generic fantasy" for my tastes. i've got Grayhawk, FR, Dragonlance, etc... for my generic fantasy worlds already).

like i said, they had an opportunity and to me they let it slip. i wish them luck with PF, but it's a boat i've no intention of sailing on.

if they do get the D&D IP, and instead of doing something interesting they turn it into Dungeons & Pathfinders with 5th ed (or whatever), i'll get my gaming fix elsewhere.
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2

People are always frustrated on these forums.



Fixed it for ya.

People are always frustrated on these forums.



Fixed it for ya.



thanks, something felt wrong about my post, i couldnt put my finger on it.

Play whatever the **** you want. Never Point a loaded party at a plot you are not willing to shoot. Arcane Rhetoric. My Blog.

The problem isn't WotC, the problem is Hasbro.

Hasbro will not sell D&D, even if it fails utterly.  They will shelve it until "demand recovers" and use the brand-name for board games and CCGs.

So, in other words, if D&D fails now, it is dead forever as we know know it... and I think it already has.  If we are very very lucky we will see 5e in winter of 2012.  If we are less lucky we will see 5e in winter of this year (ie, they rush it out the door)  That's our only hope though.
Started playing AD&D with 1st edition.  Consider myself a loyal customer, and I really enjoy the tactical aspects of 4e even though if feels like a totally different game.  

That being said, I feel like Hasbro needs to give the developer more resources to do what they gotta do.  I think WoTC are talented and they obviously are very passionate about the game.  TTRPG are a really niche market, and it could be that everything Hasbro wants WoTC to do is directed at changing that.  This would have the effect of changing D&D and taking it futher from the game I use to play.  

Paizo has some awesome developers.  I don't play PF, but I'm thinking about starting it, mostly cause I really like the tone of their forums (players and devs).  Their quality is top notch.  Not sure about their game math (3.5 is often referred to as difficult to manage, DM wise), but I love the feel of reading their books.  It feels like the DnD of old to me.  

But unless the DnD brand sinks (losing a ton of money) Paizo will never be able to afford it.  So the only reason to bring it up is to encourage an edition war.  

Personally, I wished I felt the same inspiration from most 4e products that I do from PF books.   Designers at both Paizo and WoTC are great designers, speaking generally.  I prefer Paizo's product and their ability to speak with their customers more directly (since they are a much smaller operation).  

It's almost like mom and pop shops vs. Walmart.  Mom and pop shops are great, but its hard for them to compete in almost any aspect, except customer service and personalization.  
RULE 0 FALLACY You can also work around some of these problems by invoking the Rule 0 Fallacy ("this rule isn't broken because I can fix it"). In this case, when the system is inappropriately reporting failure or success, the DM should simply ignore it. But if the mechanics are so broken that we need to frequently ignore them, why are we using them at all?
I feel the same. Thank you for your answer
I feel the same. Thank you for your answer




I think part of the reason this comes up so often is that we all have different notions of what DnD should be.  But ultimately I'm glad there are choices and it really does help all gamers.  Xbox vs. Playstation creates an atmosphere where companies have to strive to keep making their product better and ultimately we win.  

Old school DnD fans have to face that market realities are going to alter the game.  There will always be niche players who are still playing 1st edition.  3e was close to my notebook full of houserules for AD&D, but 4e is totally different.  It's still DnD because it says so on the box, but for me the similiarties pretty much stop there.  4e is a really fun tactical board/card game.  I love it!   It's cool that you can stop fighting do some role playing occasionally. I understand its not for everyone, but its the direction is going and that is nearly unstoppable.  

I think if more people could admit that 3.5 and 4e are just completely different games, and people are allowed to prefer one or the other, OR BOTH, things on the forums would be a lot more civilized.  
RULE 0 FALLACY You can also work around some of these problems by invoking the Rule 0 Fallacy ("this rule isn't broken because I can fix it"). In this case, when the system is inappropriately reporting failure or success, the DM should simply ignore it. But if the mechanics are so broken that we need to frequently ignore them, why are we using them at all?

There are far worse places that D&D can get turned over too (if that was to happen).  I just don't know if I could go back to a system like PF. 

There are many things I DO like about 4e, more than I don't like.  I would hate to see some of those elements go away. 

Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
That's our only hope though.


Help us Obi-Wan Kenobi; you're our only hope!
Only if you knew the power of the DArkside!!!!
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
The problem isn't WotC, the problem is Hasbro.

Hasbro will not sell D&D, even if it fails utterly.  They will shelve it until "demand recovers" and use the brand-name for board games and CCGs.

So, in other words, if D&D fails now, it is dead forever as we know know it... and I think it already has. 



I don't know about being dead currently, but the rest of this is spot-on for what I'm thinking D&D as a brand will turn into. Eventually, I think Hasbro will decide that the niche RPG market just doesn't hold up to what they were wanting, and the D&D brand name will be used for more primary markets - board games, video games, apparel, and so forth. It would't be the first time the actual original product was used as a brand for deritave products over the original product.

Not saying that it will definitely play out that way, but the possibility is certainly there.

Hey everybody,

as it is clearly to see on those boards here, people are frustrated.

There are no releases, the concept failed with essentials. The "core-world" of Points of light was poorly executed and other aspects of 4e didnt work.

Paizo did really well with Pathfinder and focusing on the Core World Golarion.

There are already threats asking what to do with the D&D License.

We just started with 4e and are not long time fans, the Red Box was our first game and we liked it.

Paizo is now working on something like the Red Box. Just looking at the website and boards there is a huge difference in quality.

Do you think it would be the best solution for Paizo to take the D&D license and give the players back
what they deserve? Attention, Playtests and quality releases as pdf and books instead of buggy 10$ a month silverlight(?) character creators.




While I and pretty much every group I know are huge Pathfinder fans running it almost exclusively to be honest with we really don't see Pathfinder as an updated version of D&D anymore.  Its just an alternative fantasy game that has a lot of similarities... In essence their is still a need in the group to feel the D&Dness and its why 4th edition while getting limited play gets periodically requested by our joined club.  It has however been thanks to essentials that the group has any interest in it at all anymore.

class books asside the three box sets (rules compendium, DM Kit and Monster Vault) are without question the absolute highest quality product for 4th edition today with the greatest value you can get.  There is no better deal in D&D today.

My Blog (The Gamers Think Tank)

"Edition wars like all debates exist because people like debates"

Pulls pin out of a grenade


*Yawn*

I don't care who owns the brand name, or even if the brand name gets replaced by another. There will always be D&D, or a game like it. 
As someone who loves the Pathfinder setting and the quality level maintained in the consistent release schedule products I have to give a huge resounding NO.

First, it would distract from the products that Paizo is already putting out that are top notch. Even if you don't like the system the writing quality of a lot of published adventures and setting materials are worth getting for porting to a system you do like.

Second, it would be over a year before we would really see anything produced. Paizo's public playtesting pattern is one of at least half a year in the public before bringing it back in to do all the shining and additions and whatnot. It's not worth the wait when the brand is still fine.

Third, why take it from the hands of those who have the most intimate experience with it? There's business practices that WotC employs (some of them might be the result of pressures from Hasbro, but there's no was we can know) that aren't good for them or their customers, but those are business practices. The game is still really dang fun.

Fourth, Hasbro and WotC never sell anything to anybody. It just doesn't happen. There are huge chunks of fans in the designer board game market that would gladly buy up tons of products that Hasbro and WotC are just sitting on, but they don't get produced because they don't make enough money to fit their business expectations. Notice that it's not "they wouldn't make money" it's that they wouldn't make enough money. And they still won't sell the licenses.

Fifth, I'm not sure Paizo could handle the demand levels required for something like D&D. They do great with their stuff, but that's because their business practices (subscriber service for printed products or pdfs and just having the pdfs available in general) allow them to much better protect themselves from overprinting any one product. D&D is in practically every bookstore, board game store, and even some of the big box stores - they can't help but print a massive amount more than they might need just because all those stores want to put up the books on the shelves.

Pretty much I just think Paizo's better off doing their own stuff and that D&D is in the right creative hands, just maybe not the best business hands. 
What on earth would make anyone think that Pazio would do anything constructive with the D&D license? They are a company that designs role playing games that really sucks at designing role playing games.

Exhbit A: Pathfinder RPG, a rule system that makes a large quantity of changes to 3E while somehow  managing to fix almost none of the core flaws of 3E  (the fixing of said flaws being the stated reason that Pazio gave for why they created PF in the first place) and actually make some of the flaws more pronounced.

So again you want to turn D&D over to Pazio why?

Not liking the new forums.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/18.jpg)

 

 

I don't know about being dead currently, but the rest of this is spot-on for what I'm thinking D&D as a brand will turn into. Eventually, I think Hasbro will decide that the niche RPG market just doesn't hold up to what they were wanting, and the D&D brand name will be used for more primary markets - board games, video games, apparel, and so forth. It would't be the first time the actual original product was used as a brand for deritave products over the original product.

Not saying that it will definitely play out that way, but the possibility is certainly there.


I have to agree - I've begun to feel that at this point D&D is more valuable to Hasbro as a brand they can push into other markets (e.g. board games) and license (e.g. movies, video games) than as an RPG line they release themselves.
“If the computer or the game designer is having more fun than the player, you have made a terrible mistake.” -Sid Meier
I think that the brand can be used for other things while the RPG is still going, myself. Wizards, as a group of gamers, is not gonna give up on the RPG anytime soon. Essentials was an attempt to revitalize the brand, but it backfired causing a split. This, I think, is the major reason for the slow down of material, a restructering rather than a complete halt for the game. Heros of Shadow is coming out soon, though it might disappoint with only one full Shadow Class and a Kit Build (Possibly) for Shadow, with everything else being peicemeal for other classes. It is still a major book on the line, though, and I hope the last with the Essential design holdover.

I have hope that the later products are redone in such a way to bring back choices and support the 4th edition as it offers new material. Essentials did not do this.

Should Piazo get the D&D License? No, they already have a D&D game, though they call it Pathfinder. It was started when they lost the Dragon Magazine, and updated soon after 4th edition came out.

I think Pathfinder, though, will eventually have a 4th edition version. I am not sure if it will be an edition change over (stopping the sale of the 3.5 OGL version) or if the two versions will be side by side. My wonderment over what PP and ED they would have staggers the mind. Certainly, Themes would be used.

Terms you should know...
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner) Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level. Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds. Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
56902498 wrote:
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2. The new sub-sub-classes will be: * Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks. * Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank. * Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture. * Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things. * Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind. Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2). These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing. (Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
but they have very little to offer in the realm of actual innovation.

That has not hurt Apple. Wink

but they have very little to offer in the realm of actual innovation.

That has not hurt Apple. Wink




And that's the one-two punch, folks!

Seriously though. . .
4th edition is the first D&D edition I see any reason to play.  And Wizards of the Coast made it.  Though I hate Essentials, the creation of the 4th edition system pre-E garners them much more good will from me than a small company that essentially released a house-ruled version of the previous version of D&D.
Basically, I'd prefer WotC keeps the D&D license until they **** it up royally.  So far, even counting Essentials classes (which I understand are more beloved by players of older editions on the whole than by newer edition players), I don't see them quite ****ing it up yet.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
I for one love 4E and think it'a an amazing product line. Keep up the great work WoTC! Thanks for the fortune cards, got to see my players really enjoy them at the encounters table yesterday! March of The Phantom Brigade is a well done encounters adventure, and simply can't wait to get more stuff centered around the Nentir Vale.

Oh - and keep those board games coming too! They Rock.

~V
OH hell no!  I don't care what your group is doing, here in our group 4e, essentials and all, has been a big win.  Of the 20+ gamers I know on this island, none are playing Pathfinder.  Paizo would just turn DnD into a over complicated, second rate rip off version of 3.5 anyway.  They are completly fearful of thier online community and have no initiative to strike out on thier own and develop new and fresh ideas in role playing.  They will continue to tweak, pull, twist and beat an old horse and outdated edition of DnD. 
]
Thank the Gods, WotC has the balls to try new and innovative ways to play rpgs, stir some controversy and generally move the whole hobbie forward.  If Paizo took over DnD it would become a stagnant overdeveloped rpg, ala late era, pre 3e, Ad&d 2e.  Let Paizo beat an old horse with Pathfinder and let WotC innovate with DnD. 
..;Essentials was an attempt to revitalize the brand, but it backfired causing a split. ..,



It backfired for you and maybe a few other vocal gamers on these boards, but it has been a win for a lot of other DnD players.  Truly the only split I see are on these boards.  If you judge the entire DnD community by the few that lurk these boards regulary, then your judgement is based on a narrow, very vocal, part of the whole community. 
Thank the Gods, WotC has the balls to try new and innovative ways to play rpgs, stir some controversy and generally move the whole hobbie forward. 



This is exactly why I like Essentials, and have liked 4E in general.  From the very beginning it brought brand new things to D&D, and has continued doing so.  Just when I would get comfortable with the material to the point where I could make my own stuff, they would push the limits a little more with something new.  I thus get more and more ideas to work with for my own game.  Even if I don't like something, it is still a new idea and thus something I can adapt for my own needs.

And +1 to the above post.  It is like how the media will present science issues as if the scientific community is divided, when actually the "divide" is 1 scientist vs. everyone else.  I'm not saying that only 1 person doesn't like Essentials (it is at least 100), just that citing these boards as evidence for anything is an excersize in folly.

 I hardly post here and I'm playing a 3.5/Pathfinder hybrid with an element of 4th ed/SW Saga rules set added into it.

Overall d20 generally is reasonably good and its very adapatable and I heave hgeard good things about some of the other d20 clones out their such as Conan and True 20 I think they were called but i haven't played them. Even 4th ed is actually reasonably quite good at what it does.

 However the main problem with 4th ed is that it doesn't feel like D&D to me and alot of other people. Even the most shrill 4th ed lover probably has to admit that for the 1st ime a large % of D&D players didn't switch over to the new edition. 4th ed killed to many sacred cows like alignment, the great wheel cosmology, vancian spellcasting etc. Yes some of those hings are archaic and stupid but they practically defined D&D for alot of players. Slaughtering FR probably didn't help and you are really only appealing to people who already hate the Realms and alienating existing realms fans.

 3.5 had some massive issues in regard to  overpowered spells and class imbalance and persoanlly I would have been happy if 4th ed threw out all the broken spells, overhauled the classes/skills and monster manual. There is also parts of 4th ed that are brillaint such minions and better balanced and less complicated monsters- the CR system was a bit of a mess. I wanted D&D not a tactical minis game with the D&D name slapped on it.

 But like it or not 5th ed is reliant on 4th ed making $$$$.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Those players are wrong, and they need to burn their books and take up a new hobby instead of holding this one back by throwing a tantrum everytime a game moves forward instead of mindlessly fellating tradition for it's own sake. I hear stamp collecting can be rewarding...they should collect stamps instead.



Crudely (and inflammatory) enough, but true enough.

To answer the original question: No. Like many others, I don't see Paizo's Pathfinder as a good thing for D&D. To put it crudely, I see Pathfinder as trying to dance with a bloated, rotting corpse that, if there was a just God, should have stayed bueried.

As for people turning away from D&D, well, they've done it before. Hopefully you can see this. If not, google, "I probably won't be switching after all" 

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Defenders: We ARE the wall!

 

I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D.

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
4th ed killed to many sacred cows like alignment, the great wheel cosmology, vancian spellcasting etc. Yes some of those hings are archaic and stupid but they practically defined D&D for alot of players.


Unfortunately most of those things needed an overhaul/removal. The problem is really that to many people are afraid of change, but if the game can not change then it will slowly die. 
The old alignment did not work as well as was liked, and can still be used in 4E if you want, you just need to realize that CG and NG are both covered under Good, Unaligned covers all 3 of the neutral aignments (LN, NN, and CN) and Evil covers LE and NE (this taking me less then 5 min to realize when I read the alignment section of the PHB). But then again the 9 alignments did not exist since the beginning of D&D and basic only used 3 alignments so I could not really call them a sacred cow, as a sacred cow would have been on both Basic D&D and AD&D back in the day. Also they never worked properly anyway we have all heard to many stories of Lawful Stupid Paladins and the like to sensibly believe that the system worked. 
Great wheel is fluff only, the astral see is just a new way of looging at the planes, and Manual of the planes even explains it in short as an alternate cosmology you can work with so it was no killed off.
Vancian needed to go plain and simple, it was a source of to much imbalance and problems, the only reason it lasted so long was the trouble in finding  better system as everything they tried (Psionics as well as Spells and Magic in 2Nd having alternates that could be used) ended up being worse. 
Also I think the Large % not converting you mentioned has more to do with the OGL letting 3.X material stay in production by other developers then with distaste with the system. But then again $e feeling like D&D really depends on how you look at things and how you think D&D is suppose to feel, for me it does feel like D&D

Basically, I'd prefer WotC keeps the D&D license until they **** it up royally.  So far, even counting Essentials classes (which I understand are more beloved by players of older editions on the whole than by newer edition players), I don't see them quite ****ing it up yet.

No will get the liscense for DnD from hasbro. They will box it up in mothballs when they finally **** it up enough, and they will, been doing it from the start, and they keep doing it bit by bit. Drove me away.

Then years down the road they will pull it back out and try again. 

Even if they did decide to sell it I do not think that Paizo would want it. Too much cost for too much emotional baggage. Not worth it.

This thread already ran the course onthe Paizo boards, to a resounding answer that Hasbro can keep the DnD name and all the fail it has become.

Those players are wrong, and they need to burn their books and take up a new hobby instead of holding this one back by throwing a tantrum everytime a game moves forward instead of mindlessly fellating tradition for it's own sake. I hear stamp collecting can be rewarding...they should collect stamps instead.



Crudely (and inflammatory) enough, but true enough.

To answer the original question: No. Like many others, I don't see Paizo's Pathfinder as a good thing for D&D. To put it crudely, I see Pathfinder as trying to dance with a bloated, rotting corpse that, if there was a just God, should have stayed bueried.

As for people turning away from D&D, well, they've done it before. Hopefully you can see this. If not, google, "I probably won't be switching after all" 





i was looking for that about a month ago but could just not find it. still makes me chuckle to this day.
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2

 I hardly post here and I'm playing a 3.5/Pathfinder hybrid with an element of 4th ed/SW Saga rules set added into it.

Overall d20 generally is reasonably good and its very adapatable and I heave hgeard good things about some of the other d20 clones out their such as Conan and True 20 I think they were called but i haven't played them. Even 4th ed is actually reasonably quite good at what it does.

 However the main problem with 4th ed is that it doesn't feel like D&D to me and alot of other people. Even the most shrill 4th ed lover probably has to admit that for the 1st ime a large % of D&D players didn't switch over to the new edition. 4th ed killed to many sacred cows like alignment, the great wheel cosmology, vancian spellcasting etc. Yes some of those hings are archaic and stupid but they practically defined D&D for alot of players. Slaughtering FR probably didn't help and you are really only appealing to people who already hate the Realms and alienating existing realms fans.

 3.5 had some massive issues in regard to  overpowered spells and class imbalance and persoanlly I would have been happy if 4th ed threw out all the broken spells, overhauled the classes/skills and monster manual. There is also parts of 4th ed that are brillaint such minions and better balanced and less complicated monsters- the CR system was a bit of a mess. I wanted D&D not a tactical minis game with the D&D name slapped on it.

 But like it or not 5th ed is reliant on 4th ed making $$$$.



Don't worry, if WotC gets its way 5E will look just like 3.5E, but balanced. Fighters will be "hit it, hit it harder" and wizards will be "Spell here, spell there, combat over"...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
"Like 3.5e, but balanced"

Which is to say, absolutely nothing like 3e.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I hear stamp collecting can be rewarding...they should collect stamps instead.



Luckily WotC has come up with the novel idea of having randomised collectible packs of stamps that you can buy for the low low price of 3.99 a pack.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
The problem isn't WotC, the problem is Hasbro.

Hasbro will not sell D&D, even if it fails utterly.  They will shelve it until "demand recovers" and use the brand-name for board games and CCGs.




Thanks for saving me some typing.

 I hardly post here and I'm playing a 3.5/Pathfinder hybrid with an element of 4th ed/SW Saga rules set added into it.

Overall d20 generally is reasonably good and its very adapatable and I heave hgeard good things about some of the other d20 clones out their such as Conan and True 20 I think they were called but i haven't played them. Even 4th ed is actually reasonably quite good at what it does.

 However the main problem with 4th ed is that it doesn't feel like D&D to me and alot of other people. Even the most shrill 4th ed lover probably has to admit that for the 1st ime a large % of D&D players didn't switch over to the new edition. 4th ed killed to many sacred cows like alignment, the great wheel cosmology, vancian spellcasting etc. Yes some of those hings are archaic and stupid but they practically defined D&D for alot of players. Slaughtering FR probably didn't help and you are really only appealing to people who already hate the Realms and alienating existing realms fans.

 3.5 had some massive issues in regard to  overpowered spells and class imbalance and persoanlly I would have been happy if 4th ed threw out all the broken spells, overhauled the classes/skills and monster manual. There is also parts of 4th ed that are brillaint such minions and better balanced and less complicated monsters- the CR system was a bit of a mess. I wanted D&D not a tactical minis game with the D&D name slapped on it.

 But like it or not 5th ed is reliant on 4th ed making $$$$.



Don't worry, if WotC gets its way 5E will look just like 3.5E, but balanced. Fighters will be "hit it, hit it harder" and wizards will be "Spell here, spell there, combat over"...




I have no objection to skills, powers or class abilities added to a fighters arsenal. For most of D&D's existence fighters have been hit hit and hit harder and they were still popular enough.

Like it or not 4th ed has to compete with PAthfinder and 3.5 holdouts and no one really knows the numbers but for the first time ever a large % of D&D players hasn't made the switch over to a new edition for a variety of reasons.

 Paizo are very good at designing adventures and worlds. One day I hope they make Pathfinder 2 which will step further away from 3.5 while still being d20 under the OGL. Ideally I would like to see Paizo and WoTC making a bigger pie rather than fighting over RPG players. If this means Paizo makes a few 4th ed adventures or if WoTC acknowledges their bastard step child IDK.

 I wouldn't throw around to many insults about Paizo being bad designers as virtually every non Magic original product WoTC has produced has either failed or only lasted a few short years (WoTC obviously didn't design D&D as such TSR did) Basically this means I don't buy any non MtG or D&D WoTC product.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 


Fourth, Hasbro and WotC never sell anything to anybody. It just doesn't happen. There are huge chunks of fans in the designer board game market that would gladly buy up tons of products that Hasbro and WotC are just sitting on, but they don't get produced because they don't make enough money to fit their business expectations. Notice that it's not "they wouldn't make money" it's that they wouldn't make enough money. And they still won't sell the licenses.



Thanks for saving me some typing.
Static and creativity free exploitation of something they didnt even design? No I dont want the D&D name in their hands HELLL N00000000000000 !!! has Cyber-Dave posted in this thread yet? 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I'm always amused by these threads. The D&D License is referred to not as an Intellectual Property that can be bought and owned, but a nebulous thing that can only be held by the worthy and must pass from the hands of those who do not appreciate it.

Fact is, Wizards of the Coast (rich from Magic: The Gathering and Pokemon) own it. You may be playing D&D in your basement, doing whatever you wish with the idea of D&D, but the folks in Renton have the rights and resources to all your favourite monsters and classes. If Bill Slavicsek replaced Mike Mearls with a flatulent Gibbon, we'd have Banana Power: Options for Tree-swinging and Poop-flinging D&D characters. And that would be official D&D right there.

What I'm trying to say is that Paizo has no right to the D&D brand, even if they were the Rebel Alliance of D&D and WotC was the Empire. I'll chime in that I'm glad that WotC has it and Paizo doesn't, but I'll also remind you that, if the current holder of D&D doesn't agree with your tastes, your vision of true D&D can exist at your table, and no-one can take that away from you.

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick

I actually sorta hope that another game entirely takes DND's place.

Of course that ain't happenin,

To answer your question, although I don't think they'd take it in the direction that I would want it to go, I do feel that Piazo would do an amazing job with the DND license. That said, I think that Piazo would be better off branching out and really stretching their wings, making a completely original game.
The essential theme song- Get a little bit a fluff da' fluff, get a little bit a fluff da' fluff! (ooh yeah) Repeat Unless noted otherwise every thing I post is my opinion, and probably should be taken as tongue in cheek any way.