In the short term, Paizo doesn't really need to do anything.  They're well established and are largely successful with what they're doing.  Any major changes show a lack of confidence with their current model and threatens disruption with their existing customers.  

In the long run, 3.x had a lot of problems.  Structural problems.  Paizo went in and changed some curtains, threw on a little spackling, and upgraded the countertops.  It looks a little nicer now, but in the long term, the structural issues they inherited from 3.x will need to be addressed.  

Since so many of their customers weren't ready for the wholesale abandonment of 3.x (it was too soon) and the radical changes envisioned for 4th edition, this isn't something that they need to rush into.  They don't want to 'push for a new edition'.  They want to get to the position where the fans are 'clamoring for a new edition'.

In the long term, Paizo will want to make a 'unique' game - but they're going to involve their fans every step of the way.  They're going to make the development a lot more transparent than D&D Next, and they're going to ask for feedback on specific aspects - through their vibrant online community.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686616Anything simpler than the Beginner Box (or D&D Next's Basic version, assuming they follow the modular pattern), and you're into the FATE and Savage Worlds areas of "rules lite".

Which is probably where I think an entry game needs to be.  Maybe even something like Dungeon World.

To me, an entry game is something that a *player* (not necessarily GM, though that's bonus) can get up and playing within 30 minutes, and has rules in the area of 50 pages.

(Gee, sounds a lot like Basic D&D, huh?)

Dungeon World, Savage Worlds, and Fate don't quite fit in this category.  I think DW could be pared down to that, especially if you could give players just their appropriate character packet.  Fate has FAE, which could probably work, but is a kinda different style of game.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;686619In the long run, 3.x had a lot of problems.  Structural problems.  Paizo went in and changed some curtains, threw on a little spackling, and upgraded the countertops.  It looks a little nicer now, but in the long term, the structural issues they inherited from 3.x will need to be addressed.  

I think many people would deny that those are problems.  I think lots of people think that what you consider "problems" are in fact features.

I mean, I'm not one of them, but I know enough people that think that 3.x is the BESTEST GAME EVAR to recognize it.

If you're into heavy charop, especially, it's hard to beat 3.x.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;686619Since so many of their customers weren't ready for the wholesale abandonment of 3.x (it was too soon) and the radical changes envisioned for 4th edition

I think there were two big issues with 4e.

1) It fell into the D&D Uncanny Valley.  There were things that sorta kinda looked like D&D things, but worked totally differently.  Saving Throws existed in name, but meant totally different thing.  "How close you are to losing the combat" and "health attrition over the day" got split from HP to HP and healing surges.  You couldn't get unlimited heals, regardless of potions.  All character abilities were in the same format.  Spells were divided into spells and rituals.  "Regular" saving throws were gone and replaced with non-armor defenses.

Even if in a lot of cases there wasn't a practical difference, it just felt wrong.  I had this experience the first few times I played, so I'm not knocking anyone here.

2) It targeted a different set of needs than 3.x did.  It de-emphasized character op.  It focused on tactical movement and combat.  It got rid of the "out-clever the GM" game with spells.  Spellcasters couldn't have near-limitless spellbooks any more, so the 'pick your spells' game went away.  The game didn't try to give you tools to model anything, it was clear about the general purpose of the system.  The higher end abilities that made you more like fantasy superheroes went away.

I think the second one is actually the bigger issue - if 4e had targeted the same player needs, I think the uncanny valley issues wouldn't have been as pronounced.

But the combination was deadly for any chance of winning over 3.x fans.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;686619In the long term, Paizo will want to make a 'unique' game - but they're going to involve their fans every step of the way.  They're going to make the development a lot more transparent than D&D Next, and they're going to ask for feedback on specific aspects - through their vibrant online community.

I really don't think it's in their best interest.  3.x/PF satisfy a very particular set of needs, and I don't know many games that satisfy that set of needs better than 3.x.  I see little advantage for them in making a new game that targets the same design space as PF.  If they do make their own game, I think it would be better for them to branch out and hit other targets, and just iterate and refine PF.

I don't care much for 3.x, because I don't really have the needs that it primarily targets.  But I can recognize those needs, and understand that 3.x does a fantastic job of meeting them.

Quote from: Mistwell;686187I always know when I make you uncomfortable...you come out with these non sequitur rote responses.  I'm not butthurt over anything...it's not my group or game, and I'm not involved in any way.  And who am I white knighting there, your group for not having the privileged of having your entitled ass playing with them? Hardly.

Naw, I must have hit a nerve.  This has been an issue for you with your group in the past, hasn't it? They moved on to a system you didn't like and you threw a hissy fit, didn't you?

You're either confused (vaguely possible) or being disingenuous (again), so let me give you a little help. Remember when you told me to not to be so "fucking childish"? Then you started getting more uppity because I wouldn't play a certain game? You conveniently ignored this part of my earlier statement:

Quote from: Sacrificial LambThe only games I feel like a "gaming martyr" for are 4e and FATAL. Beyond that, I'm open.

So that's it. 4e and FATAL. There's no crying here. No hissy fits (other than by you). I will try these games, but I won't get excited about them. A session or two I can tolerate, but only tolerate....so that means that I'm unwilling to play in a long-term campaign of 4e and FATAL.

I am open to other games. So please spare me your precious butthurt. It gets tiring after a while.

Quote from: robiswrong;686630I think many people would deny that those are problems.  I think lots of people think that what you consider "problems" are in fact features.

Or they just play in such a way that those "problems" don't manifest.

If you play 3.x like TSR D&D with brawny fighters, blaster wizards and healy clerics then a lot of the so-called "broken" parts never come up.

Quote from: robiswrong;686630I think many people would deny that those are problems.  I think lots of people think that what you consider "problems" are in fact features.

I mean, I'm not one of them, but I know enough people that think that 3.x is the BESTEST GAME EVAR to recognize it.

If you're into heavy charop, especially, it's hard to beat 3.x.

I'm one of the people that say 3.x is hte 'BESTEST GAME EVAR', but I recognize the problems.  It's possible to keep a lot of the things that make 3.x attractive and still fix issues.  

Another way to say it: 3.0 was a pretty big departure from earlier versions of D&D.  I never played Spells and Powers, and I'm sure I was in a big part of the 2nd edition player base in that.  Our splats were limited to some of the Complete books.  3.x refined some things, but in a minor way.  

The next version will be 'more' of what makes 3.x fun - because they've had plenty of time to experiment.  You're going to see MORE feats, not less, but reducing the 'char-op' because feats will be more freely available with less 'non-organic' character design.  You'll also see a whole bunch of feats just become something everyone can do.  There are a lot of Feats that should be universal options, but they were created in an environment when 'making a feat' was seen as a solution.  

People like me admire 3.x because it has more of what I like than any other system - but it's not perfect.

Quote from: Piestrio;686634Or they just play in such a way that those "problems" don't manifest.

If you play 3.x like TSR D&D with brawny fighters, blaster wizards and healy clerics then a lot of the so-called "broken" parts never come up.

Pretty much.

Once the optimization genie is out of the bottle, you can't push it back in.  4e tried to address the OP caster issue by giving everyone "powers", but we all know how well that went over.  And even then, min/maxers would tinker with data models to figure out the best exact build evah.

To borrow from the MMO genre, Blizzard found out to their dismay that all of the changes they made in the latest WoW expac didn't get rid of the theorycrafters at all, in spite of their express intention of trying to eliminate the "one true way-ism" with a radical redesign of the skill trees.

You eliminate the min/max-ers by designing your campaign where that sort of thing doesn't matter.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686647You eliminate the min/max-ers by designing your campaign where that sort of thing doesn't matter.

I do not agree. I think you eliminate min/maxers by designing a game that caters more to common sense judgement than to compile game rules to control every gaming option as 3.xe tries to do. The design philosophy of the Pathfinder begginer box is superior for tabletop gaming than the design philosophy behind Pathfinder core.
In fact, I believe that Pathfinder Next will be based upon the beginner box and offer modular rule add-ons from there.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686534There is a wargame out there that sells well year in and year out.  Axis and Allies.  It's just that to the grognards, it's anathema.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686616Pathfinder can be a gateway game, courtesy of their Beginner Box.

Anything simpler than the Beginner Box (or D&D Next's Basic version, assuming they follow the modular pattern), and you're into the FATE and Savage Worlds areas of "rules lite".

But to hobby wargamers, Axis and Allies is to real wargames as, well, I don't think there is even an equivalent in RPGs. Even Savage Worlds is a big, difficult game to learn for a 12-year old opening by himself and hoping to play with his buddy on Friday night.

The Pathfinder Beginner Box sounds like it's fine, as far as it goes. It still asks a lot of a new player. And it's a big, big jump to full Pathfinder, a jump that many casual gamers will never want to make.

A lot of D&D fans suffer from the same assumption that wargamers do: that if you want to get someone into your brain-burning, option-rich hobby, all you need is an intro game to get them hooked, and then they'll progress the way you did to the full monty. But not everyone wants more and more options, more and more complexity. Some just want something quick and accessible, and that's all they'll want. Only a small fraction of people who play Axis and Allies ever go on to World in Flames.

Quote from: Haffrung;686657But to hobby wargamers, Axis and Allies is to real wargames as, well, I don't think there is even an equivalent in RPGs. Even Savage Worlds is a big, difficult game to learn for a 12-year old opening by himself and hoping to play with his buddy on Friday night.

The Pathfinder Beginner Box sounds like it's fine, as far as it goes. It still asks a lot of a new player. And it's a big, big jump to full Pathfinder, a jump that many casual gamers will never want to make.

A lot of D&D fans suffer from the same assumption that wargamers do: that if you want to get someone into your brain-burning, option-rich hobby, all you need is an intro game to get them hooked, and then they'll progress the way you did to the full monty. But not everyone wants more and more options, more and more complexity. Some just want something quick and accessible, and that's all they'll want. Only a small fraction of people who play Axis and Allies ever go on to World in Flames.

I thought that WoTC had a really good thing going on with their Castle Ravenloft/Wrath Of Ash- box sets.  They could have leveraged those into a springboard for their rpgs.

Quote from: Haffrung;686657The Pathfinder Beginner Box sounds like it's fine, as far as it goes. It still asks a lot of a new player. And it's a big, big jump to full Pathfinder, a jump that many casual gamers will never want to make.

It's not just casual gamers - I'm not a casual gamer, and I'm more than put off by the complexity. Have you seen the Pathfinder core rules? I reckon it would be quicker to read the Bible.

Quote from: robiswrong;686630To me, an entry game is something that a *player* (not necessarily GM, though that's bonus) can get up and playing within 30 minutes, and has rules in the area of 50 pages.

The problem is that the type of "rules lite" you need to be friendly for new players is generally not the type of "rules lite" that people in the industry generally mean with that term.

People already in the industry generally use "rules lite" to mean a simple, universal mechanic that gives the GM essentially limitless flexibility in how it can be used and the situations it can be applied to.

For a new GM, that's a nightmare. No guidance. No support.

The type of "rules lite" that you need in an introductory product is one featuring a simple, complete, and robust game structure accompanied by a set of rules which gives explicit mechanical support for every aspect of that game structure.

The 1983 Basic Set completely and utterly nailed this product. Coincidentally, it has reportedly sold more copies than any other core rulebook for the game.

Another mistake I commonly see is people trying to figure out what systems would be good for a new player. While some consideration should be given to that, virtually any RPG that doesn't feature a lot of dissociated mechanics is very friendly to new players: The player simply describes what they want to do and the mechanical load is carried by the GM who figures out how to resolve it.

Of far more importance is the game's ability to create new GMs from people who haven't played before: The people who see the game on the shelf (whether that shelf by physical or digital), browses it over, and then decides to grab a copy because he thinks it would be fun to get his friends together and play it. Those are the mavens that the RPG industry has largely lost in the last 20 years.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;686631You're either confused (vaguely possible) or being disingenuous (again), so let me give you a little help. Remember when you told me to not to be so "fucking childish"? Then you started getting more uppity because I wouldn't play a certain game? You conveniently ignored this part of my earlier statement:



So that's it. 4e and FATAL. There's no crying here. No hissy fits (other than by you). I will try these games, but I won't get excited about them. A session or two I can tolerate, but only tolerate....so that means that I'm unwilling to play in a long-term campaign of 4e and FATAL.

I am open to other games. So please spare me your precious butthurt. It gets tiring after a while.

I'll ask again...what is it you think I am white knighting or butthurt about? You keep throwing out these bashes, unattached to anything meaningful.  Are you seriously arguing I am white knighting your own gaming group for not being able to play with you if they want to play 4e or FATAL, and do you think I am butthurt on behalf of your group? Do you even know what you're trying to say? Right now you sound like one of those stereotypical bullies in movies who tries to make a cliche threat but accidentally mixes his cliches and it comes out as nonsense.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;686675For a new GM, that's a nightmare. No guidance. No support.

The type of "rules lite" that you need in an introductory product is one featuring a simple, complete, and robust game structure accompanied by a set of rules which gives explicit mechanical support for every aspect of that game structure.

The 1983 Basic Set completely and utterly nailed this product. Coincidentally, it has reportedly sold more copies than any other core rulebook for the game.

Yep. I've always maintained that a new DM should be able to simply follow a set of concrete steps and produce a fun/passable game session.

The BD&D turn based exploration rules do this perfectly.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;686675The type of "rules lite" that you need in an introductory product is one featuring a simple, complete, and robust game structure accompanied by a set of rules which gives explicit mechanical support for every aspect of that game structure.

Yeah, as you point out, Basic D&D nailed it.  I still prefer Moldvay, but a solo adventure would have been nice.

Beyond that, if *I* were in charge (god forbid), I'd try to find out what people might be interested in trying RPGs, and what kind of things they'd be interested in.  You know, market research.  I'm pretty sure that making the game I want to play wouldn't really be a good idea.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;686675Another mistake I commonly see is people trying to figure out what systems would be good for a new player. While some consideration should be given to that, virtually any RPG that doesn't feature a lot of dissociated mechanics is very friendly to new players: The player simply describes what they want to do and the mechanical load is carried by the GM who figures out how to resolve it.

Cognitive load is a big factor.  I don't know if it's really about dissociated mechanics, but I do think it's about having the primary interaction (from a player's view) being with the GM, not being directly with the rules (and probably not a map).

Clear, concise mechanics with minimum complexity is, I think, the key, and possibly minimizing the workload by offloading more to the GM.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;686675Of far more importance is the game's ability to create new GMs from people who haven't played before:

A friend of mine was commented that he had played Palladium for years, and only after a long time realized that there was nothing in the books that actually told him how to GM.

I think a relatively prescriptive set of instructions for the new GM is important - that doesn't mean that it needs to be *totally* mechanical, but it should certainly be more than "here's a resolution mechanic, have fun."

Quote from: Piestrio;686699Yep. I've always maintained that a new DM should be able to simply follow a set of concrete steps and produce a fun/passable game session.

The BD&D turn based exploration rules do this perfectly.

I don't mind rules as a structure in general.  Newer GMs can use them as instructions, experienced ones can use them as a guide or just forget about them.  Much like drawing - yeah, you don't want to just draw perfect proportion people constantly, but you need to learn basic proportions before you go off and do crazy stuff.

Picasso is known for his Cubism, but he was a hell of a "traditional" artist as well.

If you just start off by saying "I don't need no rules!" you end up as Rob Liefeld.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;686644I'm one of the people that say 3.x is hte 'BESTEST GAME EVAR', but I recognize the problems.  It's possible to keep a lot of the things that make 3.x attractive and still fix issues.  

Another way to say it: 3.0 was a pretty big departure from earlier versions of D&D.  I never played Spells and Powers, and I'm sure I was in a big part of the 2nd edition player base in that.  Our splats were limited to some of the Complete books.  3.x refined some things, but in a minor way.  

The next version will be 'more' of what makes 3.x fun - because they've had plenty of time to experiment.  You're going to see MORE feats, not less, but reducing the 'char-op' because feats will be more freely available with less 'non-organic' character design.  You'll also see a whole bunch of feats just become something everyone can do.  There are a lot of Feats that should be universal options, but they were created in an environment when 'making a feat' was seen as a solution.  

People like me admire 3.x because it has more of what I like than any other system - but it's not perfect.

I'm with you. I also admire 3.x, but I do recognize the flaws. I think that they'd need to significantly streamline the game though, by speeding up the character creation process.

The base game for a "better D&D" can be a simple core, while specifically designing the game to be modular enough to handle increasing complexity. 3.x was designed with too much complexity at its core, and that was the real problem. If WoTC fixes that, it could make a difference in improving the game.