Quote from: Toadmaster;1088860This was also the time of Tipper Gore and her crusade against "porn rock". John Denver made their list of inappropriate music...  Yeah, that John Denver.

The "anti-big government" Reagan years were a busy time for those in favor of a nanny state providing parental regulation.

Absolutely true. It's the same church lady "moral control" bullshit now with the SJWs and the social media companies.

WASP's Blackie Lawless had this NSFW response to Tipper Gore's crew 22 years ago.

[video=youtube;IAIda65XhYI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAIda65XhYI[/youtube]

Quote from: Dan Davenport;1088774For what it's worth, the kook who took over the RPGnet FB group labeled me a Nazi, so I feel your pain (such as it is).

If I was at all prone to use such internetisms, I think the one that best captures my reaction to that fact is "lolwut?".

Quote from: Chris24601;1088815So the 3e developers worked for free then?

And Paizo staff dont work for free either.

QuoteWotC absolutely paid to use the rules. That's how business works.

People designed and wrote up the d20 system rules and WotC paid for their work.

Paizo duplicated that work without paying for it because a licensing agreement allowed them to. It doesn't make them evil, it just makes them the China of game design.

Using your argument then everyone pays to make rules.

I wish that people would follow their logic through completely instead of stopping halfway.

Quote from: Shasarak;1088888I wish that people would follow their logic through completely instead of stopping halfway.

I wish you would stop with your bullshit argument.

WotC bought TSR (obviously including all the D&D IP)
WotC made 3e (and it sucked, fuck them).
WotC made the D20 license (which was smart business for them)
WotC made the OGL (what laughable idiotic morons!)
Paizo used the OGL to access 3e's rules and most of the D&D IP (because that was very smart business for them).
Paizo made Pathfinder (and it sucked, fuck them).

Quote from: kythri;1088906I wish you would stop with your bullshit argument.

You can have your halfpinion.

When you get a real opinion then we can talk.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1088868If I was at all prone to use such internetisms, I think the one that best captures my reaction to that fact is "lolwut?".

Kind of you to say.

I was a little bemused, but certainly not shocked. I was a fairly well-known conservative at RPGnet, which, of course, made me a Nazi in some folks' eyes. (Never mind the fact that as a conservative, I loathe the sort of Big Government tyranny that is Nazism.)

Quote from: Spinachcat;1088910WotC bought TSR (obviously including all the D&D IP)
WotC made 3e (and it sucked, fuck them).

No People loved 3/e - it did very well in sales

Quote from: Spinachcat;1088910Paizo used the OGL to access 3e's rules and most of the D&D IP (because that was very smart business for them).
Paizo made Pathfinder (and it sucked, fuck them).

No it did not "Suck" - it became very well loved because of organized play and the general public relations and customer friendliness of PAIZO.

At the game store level with customers, gamers -  both 'Pathfinder' and PAIZO are very well liked.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;1089319No it did not "Suck" - it became very well loved because of organized play and the general public relations and customer friendliness of PAIZO.

At the game store level with customers, gamers -  both 'Pathfinder' and PAIZO are very well liked.

I think Pathfinder is an excellent example of how to compete in a market that relies heavily on network externalities. Start by building a business that supports the dominant player in the market, but retain a distinct brand (Dragon/Dungeon, adventure paths), then take advantage of a split in the market by appealing to the lost customers.

Alternately, it's a cautionary tale for monopolists. Realize alienating your user base is potentially catastrophic, licenses you can't terminate allow others to replace you, and limit the right of licensees to uniquely brand themselves. (Cf. the DM's Guild.)

Quote from: Koltar;1089319No People loved 3/e - it did very well in sales



No it did not "Suck" - it became very well loved because of organized play and the general public relations and customer friendliness of PAIZO.

At the game store level with customers, gamers -  both 'Pathfinder' and PAIZO are very well liked.

- Ed C.

Something can be popular and still suck. TBP is a prime example.

Quote from: jhkim;1088834I agree this is a factor, but it's not as much of a factor as some might think. First, I don't think the main cost of producing a mainstream RPG is the mechanics. The illustrations, layout, editing, and so forth are a lot of work. Note that since Pathfinder uses the OGL, anyone can just take Pathfinder and copy it too - but no one has successfully done so.

Second, the OGL isn't a complete shift. Prior to the OGL, there were tons of games that were close to D&D, like Palladium Fantasy or Arduin Grimoire. *All* RPGs use ideas and mechanics from other RPGs, and even D&D took many ideas from prior wargames. Copyright requires that you rewrite the text into your own words, but ideas and mechanics are frequently copied - legally so. It is easier to create an OGL game like Pathfinder than a game like Palladium Fantasy - but the difference isn't that huge.


So I'll buy that Pathfinder is more derivative than other games, but it's an incremental change in degree. Also, China is often accused of illegal copyright violation - but Paizo worked with legal permission, so I think the parallel is off.

Agreed. Interestingly, I worked in commercial printing for 30 years, and when I left, by and large the highest cost of having anything printed is paper cost. Near the end of my career in printing, in a one year stretch, paper cost went up by 70%. It was unheard of and devastating to printers.

Quote from: Koltar;1089319At the game store level with customers, gamers -  both 'Pathfinder' and PAIZO are very well liked.

Very well liked? By gamers who suck!

But I do have to thank Paizo...for helping keep their players away from my game table. Huzzah!

Quote from: shuddemell;1089404Near the end of my career in printing, in a one year stretch, paper cost went up by 70%. It was unheard of and devastating to printers.

What caused the huge price increase?

Quote from: shuddemell;1089404Agreed. Interestingly, I worked in commercial printing for 30 years, and when I left, by and large the highest cost of having anything printed is paper cost. Near the end of my career in printing, in a one year stretch, paper cost went up by 70%. It was unheard of and devastating to printers.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1089490What caused the huge price increase?

I can speculate. I worked in a related industry to the US forest products industry back in the early '00s.There was a consolidation going on in that industry back then - one of the four major companies in that industry bought another during that time. That kind of consolidation reduces competition, which allows prices to rise.

Second, the overall demand for paper and paper products has diminished due to the rise of the (semi-) paperless office and digital books. Reduced demand over time causes supply to diminish, which often causes the price of the remaining supply to increase due to both scarcity and the far less elastic overhead costs of providing the reduced supply.

Quote from: RandyB;1089514I can speculate. I worked in a related industry to the US forest products industry back in the early '00s.There was a consolidation going on in that industry back then - one of the four major companies in that industry bought another during that time. That kind of consolidation reduces competition, which allows prices to rise.

Second, the overall demand for paper and paper products has diminished due to the rise of the (semi-) paperless office and digital books. Reduced demand over time causes supply to diminish, which often causes the price of the remaining supply to increase due to both scarcity and the far less elastic overhead costs of providing the reduced supply.

Actually - overall the demand for paper has been going up pretty steadily. Not just for paper - but for cardboard etc. (all those Amazon boxes?) Especially when you consider worldwide demand.

In addition, environmental rules have made harvesting trees somewhat more expensive.

Quote from: Koltar;1089319No People loved 3/e - it did very well in sales
No it did not "Suck" - it became very well loved because of organized play and the general public relations and customer friendliness of PAIZO.

Agreed and seconded. I may not have liked everything about 3E and the later itierations like PF did nothing to solve the flaws of the overall rpg engine. It did reenergize and revitalize both the brand and rpg who imo had been stagnating for many years due to TSR doing nothing really to innovate. While also nearly killing the brand with some bad business decisions. Iy is not to say no one played D&D before 3E far from it yet in my area it was beginning to lose populairty,

 

Quote from: Koltar;1089319No it did not "Suck" - it became very well loved because of organized play and the general public relations and customer friendliness of PAIZO.
At the game store level with customers, gamers -  both 'Pathfinder' and PAIZO are very well liked.
- Ed C.

This I will disgree with. Yes in terms of replacing a damaged book or other book related order issues their customer service is one of the best. Anything else they are getting a reputation for being tone deaf imo/ They truly don't like any negative criticism or pushback from the fanbase. A good example was the Advanced class guide they rushed it out for Gencon release and it was full of errors at least 9-10 pages of errata including a major error on the cover. Their non-apology was to use making money at Gencon as an excuse. Yes all well and good to make money at Gencon not when your product is full of mistakes and the only reason they acknowledged it was that the fans ripped them a new one on their forums.

Their public play tests are mostly a sham and they use it as an excuse to get brownie points with the fan base. Even when the fans point out major errors on their play-test material they pretend to listen to the fans by saying "thank you we will take your feedback under advisement then ignore it completely with a polite "suck it up buttercup. During the play-test for the gun rules before they went to print they were told repeatedly over and over that targeting Touch AC would result one of the ranged weapons in the rpg being much stronger than bows and crossbows. They pretended to listen to the fans yet when the book with the gun rules went to print they gave the play-testers a polite "too bad so sad the gun rules stay the same". Resulting in many DMs who already dislike guns to ban the Gunsliner class and guns from their games as the guns imo are too broken. I don't mind guns they are too strong with targeting TOUCH AC imo. With the right build and player someone using a gun will never miss the target. And no it is not my job or others job to fix a huge mistake that should never have made it into an official product.

The overall quality of their products began to suffer because they jumped on the fluff beats crunch bandwagon where pretty prose descriptions of +1 feats still amount to them being nothing more than +1 feats and not worth taking imo. So many archetypes that I and my gaming group will probably never use because they take away a major class ability to replace it with two +1 to an attribute or skill ability. Again fans like myself have asked them to try and find the proper middle ground and give a good mix of both crunch and fluff. Screw the fans Fluff wins over Crunch and in may games I almost never see the archetypes designed with fluff in mind every being used. Sure their maybe that one player that wants a challenge and nerfs themselves at level one to take such an archetype yet very few and far between.

While still keeping many legacy issues from PF 1E into 2EPF. Paladins still have to be Lawful Good. Where 5E if the DM wants Paladins to be LG they can be yet they can be any alignment. Apparently their is a product that will be released later on for PF 2E that may allow Paladins with no alignment restriction. Yet a player who left PF 1E behind because of alignment restrictions is not going to return if the same restrictions are in the core. The worst and it is why I say they no longer are a consumer friendly company is not them becoming Fully woke. It is how they talk to the fans on page 5-7 of the core 2E PF book. Picture someone who is rude, demeaning, finger poking/wagging finder in face talking down to the fans trying to pander to a specific demographic. Where all they had to say in one short paragraph was "don't be rude, treat others with respect and make sure to listen to player feedback especially if they seem uncomfortable."

I enjoy playing Pathfinder yet dislike the Devs because to pander to a certain segment to try and get more money they threw away all their self-respect while insulting the majority of their fans.