From what Paizo has stated over the years, the PBB sold pretty well - they've reprinted it at least a couple of times.

The problem with it has already been stated - no follow-up, no support, and poor guidance/segue into the CRB.

PBB should have been guided into a "Pathfinder Basic Edition" which had a couple of support products for it (module, 2-part or 3-part AP, etc.) and that then should have been guided into the CRB.

They missed a big step.

Quote from: Kael;1080756But, for those that like crunchier systems, I imagine PF 2E will garner quite a few fans indeed.

The problem is PF has always been bad at crunch. When they could just hang more tinsel on the basically functional if rickety 3.5ed tree then it holds together. If they have to make up more core rules themselves then their weaknesses really shine through...

Quote from: Shasarak;1080793One day I would really like to know how you can steal something that was given away for free?

o_O

Socialism!

Quote from: Shasarak;1080793One day I would really like to know how you can steal something that was given away for free?

o_O

Quote from: James Gillen;1080830Socialism!

You think you're kidding but that principle is the same.  But instead of a government stealing the work of it's own people and redistributing the wealth gained for themselves, Paizo took the work by several employees at a rival company and repurposed with some minor changes to the wording and resold it under their own branding as their own work.

This would be considered theft if it wasn't for the OGL.  What Paizo did is why IP laws exist, so that some rando can reword someone else's document/product in an afternoon and and make money off of it.  But Paizo did, with the help of a legal contract that gave them that loop hole.  But most of the work for PFRPG was already done for them, all the balancing, all the math, done.  All they needed to do was change a few words, but they also added a few houserules, gussied it up with some pretty art from an in-house artist and brilliantly sold it as the second coming of D&D with a devastatingly low price.

HURR DURRRRRR, PAIZO BAAAAD.

It's not a loophole when it's explicitly designed to allow that.
A lot of Paizo's Pathfinder staff were the very people who worked on 3E/3.5 for WotC.
Wayne Reynolds is not an "in-house artist", considering that he does a ton of work for WotC as well.

Seriously, fuck off with this bullshit.

Quote from: kythri;1080949HURR DURRRRRR, PAIZO BAAAAD.

We get it, you're a Paizo fanboy.

Quote from: kythri;1080949It's not a loophole when it's explicitly designed to allow that.

Just because it's not completely illegal, doesn't make it RIGHT.

Quote from: kythri;1080949A lot of Paizo's Pathfinder staff were the very people who worked on 3E/3.5 for WotC.

So?  Most employees don't keep the rights to their own contributions.  But instead of making a new system, they were allowed to more or less copy it.  Which in any other situation would have been illegal.

Quote from: kythri;1080949Wayne Reynolds is not an "in-house artist", considering that he does a ton of work for WotC as well.

He worked almost exclusively for Paize during the 1e days, just because he did side work doesn't change that.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  Please don't mistaken that.

Quote from: kythri;1080949Seriously, fuck off with this bullshit.

Just cuz the facts hurts your feelings, doesn't change them.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080948But most of the work for PFRPG was already done for them, all the balancing, all the math, done.  All they needed to do was change a few words, but they also added a few houserules, gussied it up with some pretty art from an in-house artist and brilliantly sold it as the second coming of D&D with a devastatingly low price.

I'm no expert on Pathfinder (nor on D&D) but wasn't the actual value to Pathfinder for gamers the additional content that they published? People wanted primarily more material for 3.x and Paizo gave it to them? Wasn't it possible to play PF adventure paths with 3.x only also?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080959We get it, you're a Paizo fanboy.

I'm not so much a fan of Baizuo as much as I am less a fan of your bullshit.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080959Just because it's not completely illegal, doesn't make it RIGHT.

It's not even remotely illegal.  It is 100% legal, and specifically allowed for in the license, which most assuredly DOES make it right.  Fuck off with your "oh my stars, they exploited a loophole!" lies.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080959So?  Most employees don't keep the rights to their own contributions.  But instead of making a new system, they were allowed to more or less copy it.  Which in any other situation would have been illegal.

This isn't "any other situation" but, since we're talking game rules here, well, as they can't be copyrighted in the first place, yeah, they could have done what they did without the license, the license just made it easier/quicker.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080959He worked almost exclusively for Paize during the 1e days, just because he did side work doesn't change that.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  Please don't mistaken that.

Well, that's bullshit too, because he did about as much work for WotC during the same time - a lot of cover work among that.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080959Just cuz the facts hurts your feelings, doesn't change them.

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1080961I'm no expert on Pathfinder (nor on D&D) but wasn't the actual value to Pathfinder for gamers the additional content that they published? People wanted primarily more material for 3.x and Paizo gave it to them? Wasn't it possible to play PF adventure paths with 3.x only also?

I think the original adventure paths were written specifically for 3.5 as they predate PFRPG. It likely is possible to play even the later ones with 3.5 rules, assuming they don't reference their rule additions which have no parallel in 3.5 (e.g. haunts). 3.5 characters are less powerful than PF ones, though,so that may cause issues.

As for the actual value, in my then-group's case it was simply the fact that we needed a PHB for a new player but couldn't buy one as they were out of print. We then decided to switch to PF, whose core rulebook was and is available. Martials being less boring and simpler grapple rules didn't hurt either. I'm sure there were other reasons too, but I forget.

(I have since bought many more books but, apart from the APG, they mainly gather dust. Paizo's writing or rules for stuff aren't that exciting. They somehow managed to make even called shots lame; we techically use them in my game, but no-one ever attempts them.)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080948You think you're kidding but that principle is the same.  But instead of a government stealing the work of it's own people and redistributing the wealth gained for themselves, Paizo took the work by several employees at a rival company and repurposed with some minor changes to the wording and resold it under their own branding as their own work.

This would be considered theft if it wasn't for the OGL.  What Paizo did is why IP laws exist, so that some rando can reword someone else's document/product in an afternoon and and make money off of it.  But Paizo did, with the help of a legal contract that gave them that loop hole.  But most of the work for PFRPG was already done for them, all the balancing, all the math, done.  All they needed to do was change a few words, but they also added a few houserules, gussied it up with some pretty art from an in-house artist and brilliantly sold it as the second coming of D&D with a devastatingly low price.

Yeah, it would be theft if it was not for the fact that it was given away for free, so again how do you steal something that was given away?

Legal Loophole my hairy white ass that is the OGL working exactly as designed.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080959Just because it's completely legal, doesn't make it RIGHT.

If it is completely legal then it does make it RIGHT.  That is why it is completely legal.

QuoteJust cuz the facts hurts your feelings, doesn't change them.

You are right that facts dont care about your feelings.

So how do you feel about the OSR works that are not retro clones?  I mean like games such as Stars Without Number and Godbound.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1080961I'm no expert on Pathfinder (nor on D&D) but wasn't the actual value to Pathfinder for gamers the additional content that they published? People wanted primarily more material for 3.x and Paizo gave it to them? Wasn't it possible to play PF adventure paths with 3.x only also?

If all they wanted was more 3.x content, they didn't need to remake 3.x, they just needed to keep the pipeline flowing.  But because a 'dead system' loses consumers, Paizo needed to make an evergreen product to keep the fanbase engaged.  And at the time, there was a significantly vocal group who hated the idea of another edition, remember no one knew what 4e was going to be like except a select few in the playtests, and that had changed radically with each progression.  And so Paizo smelt an opportunity and being very smart business people, they capitalized on the fan backlash and made bank.

If nothing else, Paizo are great business men.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081008If nothing else, Paizo are great business men.

Well, they were.

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;1081029Well, they were.

JG

Until the business burns down, I reserve judgement.  But again, I think that PFRGP 2e is going flop, but not do much damage.