What's Next for Pathfinder?

[Palanan]

I'm on my third Pathfinder campaign right now, and despite missing some aspects of 3.5, I'm having fun with PF so far. I especially appreciate the APG, which is the one book I'd want with me apart from the CRB.

I gather that Pathfinder is coming out with Unchained later this year, but given that several of their supplements are named "Ultimate," I'm wondering what's left for them to do. It seems they're running into the same fundamental issue as Wizards: to survive as a company, they need to produce a steady stream of new material--but with Wizards this led first to the grand bloat of 3.5, and then their edition-of-the-month club.

Will Pathfinder be going this route as well? And with third-party publishers producing some of the most popular supplements, what else will Paizo be putting out themselves?

[dysprosium]

If I were to make a guess I would say that they would continue to put out adventure paths. Correct me if I'm wrong but there is a new adventure (part of a path) each month.

That is the thing that Wizards failed to do over the long run--make more adventures. They seemed to spend more time on coming up with the next "big thing" or next edition (as the case may be) and forgot about the settings and the adventures that could be had there.

[Sacrieur]

I don't really mind all the extra content, but yes, it does seem like they may struggle to find a steady revenue stream.

You know if they made a great online gaming service I'd buy that in a heartbeat. $10 a month would be more than enough icing on the cake if it worked and was intuitive.

Unfortunately it seems the best thing out there is Roll20, which I have many gripes about (despite it being better than many other alternatives). The market for it is wide open, imo.

[Psyren]

"to survive as a company, they need to produce a steady stream of new material"

Well, yes and no. Remember that new rules/mechanics are only a portion of the material they actually put out - the other, and arguably larger, part of their business model are all the APs and modules that people snap up so they don't have to devise entire worlds or scenarios to GM on the fly. If you look at their release schedule, APs pretty much dominate it, followed by the lore stuff (PF Tales and the comic series) with rules splats coming in third. Much easier to pay for someone else's plot hooks and artwork. Then you've got all the ancillary branded stuff like cardstock minis, crit/fumble decks, DM screens, maps and the like to go with it.

But you were specifically asking about the rules supplements so let's talk about that. Unchained has the potential of being pretty huge (like, reinvigorating PF for years huge) but they also have things like Occult Adventures, the PF Strategy Guide, Melee Tactics Toolbox, and Cohorts & Companions, in the works as well.

But the other big deal is that the TTRPG market is still a niche with a lot of room to grow. There are still many folks out there who've never even tried sitting around a table (physical or virtual) and rolling dice, and have no idea how much they would like it if they did. To those folks, "RPG" still means video games like Skyrim or WoW and very little else. Paizo's two upcoming forays into digital gaming - i.e. the Goblinworks MMO, and the Obsidian traditionalist CRPG - suggest they are aware of this and want to try attracting new players into the market. If they succeed, we'll have an influx of new blood growing the hobby just as we saw in the Baldur's Gate and NWN days. Add to that the growing usability of online tools (5 years ago, Roll20 would have seemed impossible) as well as the growing ways to find an offline game (10 years ago, MeetUp was only in a handful of cities and Facebook was just getting off the ground.)

So with all that said, they have a plan - and, I daresay, more of one than WotC does at the moment, who seem more interested in litigation than innovation at the moment, at least outside of their core product line.

[Barstro]

to survive as a company, they need to produce a steady stream of new material--but with Wizards this led first to the grand bloat of 3.5, and then their edition-of-the-month club.?

I certainly hope that they do not go this route. What I consider to be the fatal flaw of 3.5 is the glut of material leading to unexpected interaction between abilities/objects/spells that leads to Tippy's universe. More adventure paths would be nice, though.

[Ephemeral_Being]

Unfortunately it seems the best thing out there is Roll20, which I have many gripes about (despite it being better than many other alternatives). The market for it is wide open, imo.

You should try out Tabletop Simulator. It's a one time purchase of about $15, and it's really good. You can create tokens, import maps/models, play games other than DnD on it.

My only real complaint is that their d4 is wrong. It has the rolled number at the base, rather than the pinnacle. We had to remake it.

[weckar]

My only real complaint is that their d4 is wrong. It has the rolled number at the base, rather than the pinnacle. We had to remake it.
I actually prefer those d4s myself, so one can hardly say it is 'wrong'. It is equally fair, regardless.

[Knaight]

I certainly hope that they do not go this route. What I consider to be the fatal flaw of 3.5 is the glut of material leading to unexpected interaction between abilities/objects/spells that leads to Tippy's universe. More adventure paths would be nice, though.

Honestly, that pretty much all came from core. The added material didn't really contribute to balance issues, just to the mechanical load involved in learning the system. That's still a bit of a problem - personally I consider 40 splat books ridiculous for just about any system, and the few that might warrant exceptions are all generics which cover a very broad range of material. Pathfinder is running into the mechanical load issue a bit, but it's nowhere near 3.5 standards yet, and the focus on adventure paths will probably keep it that way.

With that said, they still run into an issue where every splat and every adventure path is marginally less valuable to their customers than the last.

[Elricaltovilla]

I actually prefer those d4s myself, so one can hardly say it is 'wrong'. It is equally fair, regardless.

Every other die in existence reads off the top. Why is the d4 the exception?

Not really trying to pick a fight, but I really prefer the d4s that put their numbers in the same relative position as every other die out there. My friend has some 12-sided d4s that are really nice too, because they actually roll.

[weckar]

Every other die in existence reads off the top. Why is the d4 the exception?

Not really trying to pick a fight, but I really prefer the d4s that put their numbers in the same relative position as every other die out there. My friend has some 12-sided d4s that are really nice too, because they actually roll.

I just find the number easier to read off the larger surface that is the base. Also makes the dice designs feel less crowded. And because the numbers displayed on every visible side anyway, there is no trouble regardless with reading it from across the table.

Honestly, either choice is valid. Just don't mix them in any one game.

[Knaight]

Every other die in existence reads off the top. Why is the d4 the exception?

Every other die reads off of a face. Why is the d4 the exception?

It's the only common die which has a point at the top instead of a face, there's really no way to set it up that isn't somehow weird. Either the bottom is used (labeling a face, but by putting the label on the bottom of the other three faces) or the top is used (not labeling a face at all), or the numbers 1-4 are repeated multiple times on a shape generally used for a larger die (where there are repeated numbers, which is a bit odd), or you go with a spindle die or die with weird curves that produces four faces (which gets away from the platonic solids generally used). Weirdness all around. There are a few more options, but they're usually even odder - dice rings, for example.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
Remember that new rules/mechanics are only a portion of the material they actually put out - the other, and arguably larger, part of their business model are all the APs and modules that people snap up so they don't have to devise entire worlds or scenarios to GM on the fly. If you look at their release schedule, APs pretty much dominate it, followed by the lore stuff (PF Tales and the comic series) with rules splats coming in third.

Interesting, thanks. The big rulebooks are most of what Barnes & Noble has on their shelves, so that's most of what I'm aware of. Apart from the hardbound Rise of the Runelords, I tend not see many of the APs. (And the campaign I just joined is running Rise of the Runelords, so I can't really look in that one….)


Originally Posted by Psyren
…they also have things like Occult Adventures….

That's right, I did see the playtest for that one.

I'm enjoying my dwarven oracle, but my next character needs to be a half-orc mesmerist. :smalltongue:


Originally Posted by Psyren
To those folks, "RPG" still means video games like Skyrim or WoW and very little else.

This is so deeply saddening.


Originally Posted by Psyren
…and the Obsidian traditionalist CRPG….

No idea what a CPRG is, much less a traditionalist one.




Originally Posted by Ephemeral_Being
My only real complaint is that their d4 is wrong.

…maybe a separate thread for the whole "d4 is wrong" debate? It's not really relevant to the OP.

[Ephemeral_Being]

…maybe a separate thread for the whole "d4 is wrong" debate? It's not really relevant to the OP.

Yeah... That was meant to just be a throwaway comment. Didn't mean to derail the thread.

Although this has made my 8AM lecture more entertaining.

[Psyren]

No idea what a CPRG is, much less a traditionalist one.

CRPG = Computer Role Playing Game.

By "traditionalist" - I mean the old-school ones like Baldur's Gate, Ultima, Wizardry, Might & Magic etc. that more or less follow digitized tabletop mechanics. The ones that involve rolls and checks outside of combat, most of the stats being visible to and allocated by the player, tend to be party-based and you need various roles filled within the party (like trap-guy, healer and tank) etc. In particular, there is demand for a NWN-style setup, where one or a group of players can take on limited DMing duties for a larger group of players within a custom world. (Are you familiar with Neverwinter Nights?)

[Elricaltovilla]

Nah, I'm pretty much done with the d4 debate.

One thing I've noticed with Pathfinder that they haven't quite confirmed (but it seems pretty apparent) is that they don't like subsystems. Everything is magic of whatever flavor (divine or arcane). You're not going to see psionics or initiating or incarnum, truenaming, invocations, or whatever other subsystems 3.5 brought to the table. Instead, they've tied everything to the base vancian spellcasting system, which works and keeps things on level, but it really doesn't allow for a great deal of creativity. I wonder how long they're going to continue that paradigm and what sort of effect it will have on the game.

I want to see what Unchained is going to bring to the table, since most of my favorite character concepts don't want to be forced into spellcasting in order to stay relevant. But I'm pretty certain that the gap between wizards and fighters won't get any smaller with the release of Unchained.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Psyren
Are you familiar with Neverwinter Nights?

I've heard of it...might have seen an ad in Dragon once. Also heard of Baldur's Gate, but never seen any of them played.


Originally Posted by Elricaltovilla
You're not going to see psionics or initiating or incarnum, truenaming, invocations, or whatever other subsystems 3.5 brought to the table.

They seem to be leaving most of those to the third-party crowd. I'd be interested to know what personal or business factors are in play here, since there's clearly an enthusiastic market for psionics and initiators in the Pathfinder context.

[The Glyphstone]

Admittedly, Psychic Magic isn't terrible as a Vancian substitute for actual psionics, if you're in a game that disallowed 3PP material, and the Paizo version of the Binder in the same book is interesting if extremely bland. But there's no truenaming, no incarnum, no shadowcasting, no martial adepts...all that is for 3rd-party successors.

[Bhaakon]

They seem to be leaving most of those to the third-party crowd. I'd be interested to know what personal or business factors are in play here, since there's clearly an enthusiastic market for psionics and initiators in the Pathfinder context.

That is an interesting question. I suspect that, at first, they wanted to stick with "Core 3.5" under the assumption that most of the diehard fans of the later subsystems were going to 4E anyway (and, also, because porting nearly a decade's worth of materiel into their first release would be crazy). Also, from interviews I've heard, some of the design leads really, really don't like points-based casting for whatever reason (though points-based abilities--grit, panache, etc.--have slipped into the game elsewhere).

As for why they've continued to do it, that's a good question. Setting aside "the devs don't like it", they seem to be very concerned about power creep and rules complexity (which seems a bit silly, because the Pathfinder rules set is monstrously complex at this point). Adding new subsystems with potentially problematic rules interactions is likely to lead to both. Additionally, as mentioned previously, Paizo really views the APs and setting as their core IP (since the OGL prevents them from exercising much control over the game itself), and two major points that come up in a lot of AP-centric interviews are 1) wanting to limit the number of rule books a GM needs to run any given AP, and 2) new classes 'breaking' older adventures that weren't designed with them in mind. Adding new subsystems generally leads to problems on both counts.

[Psyren]

They seem to be leaving most of those to the third-party crowd. I'd be interested to know what personal or business factors are in play here, since there's clearly an enthusiastic market for psionics and initiators in the Pathfinder context.

There's an enthusiastic market for these things if you're only looking at this board as your population. But ToB and Psionics are extremely controversial in the wider 3.5 audience, and have broken the base (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrokenBase) before. There are, to this day, a large proportion of GMs who have only played with 2e and 3e psionics and consider the very word to be so tainted that they will have nothing to do with it. ToB's perceived status as "weeaboo/animu fightan magic" is similarly controversial.

Thus if they were to do a first-party version of either of these, likely they would alienate as many fans as they gained, and that's assuming they even executed it correctly (i.e. without another Summoner-style power gaffe.) Better to leave it to 3rd-party, and then lend it legitimacy by incorporating bits of it into the odd adventure path here and there - which, since everything including their own work is published under the OGL, they can freely do.

[Almarck]

I imagine that Pathfinder will get to a second edition eventually... but I don't think a "true" second edition will happen for atleast another three to five years. At best, we'll probably be seeing a slight overhaul

I've talked with some of my friends about the subsystems and one of them brought up an interesting point about building a nonvancian casting subsystem is alot of work not only to develop, but to maintain as well. Then you have to consider balance issues, how to handle transparency rules. Couple the fact that each book requires you to atleast mention or add details of each subsystem and you have yourself a brewing problem.

To demonstrate my point, in one of the last books Wizards made for 3.5, Dragon Magic, they had enough room for Warlock specific invocations, dragon themed spells, dragon themed psychic powers, a vestige, and a soulmeld that can be used for like 3 different slots. That's nuts considering the kind of work that has to be put in each book. While I get that lots of people here can brew up things in a second, not all of us are major publishers who have to worry about quotas and design space...

Comparitively, alternate systems for martial characters in Paizo's publish that we've seen, like Deeds and such are simple and self contained. There's no expansion into other deeds without say taking an archetype or specific feat or some other conditions, not like initiators, binders, and casters who can just replace their choices with other things. So, Deeds are less prone to expansion bloat.

It actually was a big eye opener for me; Paizo may have some really inclination for sticking with vancian casting not just for traditionalism reasons. And then factor in all of the things they have to publish, AP's, settings, lore bits. The work load is insane. I think probably the main reason DSP might be able to handle all the subsystem stuff is they focus on the game mechanics rather than setting data and APs.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Bhaakon
As for why they've continued to do it, that's a good question. Setting aside "the devs don't like it", they seem to be very concerned about power creep and rules complexity (which seems a bit silly, because the Pathfinder rules set is monstrously complex at this point). Adding new subsystems with potentially problematic rules interactions is likely to lead to both. Additionally, as mentioned previously, Paizo really views the APs and setting as their core IP (since the OGL prevents them from exercising much control over the game itself), and two major points that come up in a lot of AP-centric interviews are 1) wanting to limit the number of rule books a GM needs to run any given AP, and 2) new classes 'breaking' older adventures that weren't designed with them in mind. Adding new subsystems generally leads to problems on both counts.

All very interesting, thanks.

It seems that Paizo is at least thinking about these issues, and being strategic about what they produce, which is good to know.


Originally Posted by Psyren
There's an enthusiastic market for these things if you're only looking at this board as your population.

Well, no doubt you're on many more gaming boards than I am, but I'd guess DSP wouldn't be such a going concern if there weren't a market for what they produce.

The Playground may be only a small subset of the larger gaming audience (and gawd, my recent gaming groups have made that plain) but it's still representative of enough interest in 3PP to keep the respective publishers going.


Originally Posted by Psyren
…without another Summoner-style power gaffe.

As it happens, my current DM bans the summoner in his game. I've barely looked at it, because the eidolon seems like way too much of a hassle. I gather there are power issues as well?


Originally Posted by Almarck
It actually was a big eye opener for me; Paizo may have some really inclination for sticking with vancian casting not just for traditionalism reasons. And then factor in all of the things they have to publish, AP's, settings, lore bits. The work load is insane.

That's something I've always wondered: what do these people do all day? :smalltongue:

Seriously, I really do wonder how they plan their products and structure the workload. I've worked in research and scientific publishing for years, and I know how to take a manuscript from raw submission to final proofs; but grinding out new game rules and story material on a publishing schedule is a world away for me.

[Almarck]

From what I gather, it's much harder to build an RPG book than most other types of books or documents. First is the planning phase, then allocating how big you want the book to be and thus how many words can be put, people to write individual rule sets with strict word limits and quotas to meet, play test them, commision art work, a project lead has to organize where everything goes, get it double checked, do correcting, then when it's all said and done, you gotta put the book through the printer or finish it up for digital distribution, lastly get someone to sell the books for you, DrivehtruRPG, Barnes & Nobles.... in roughly that order.

In short, it's a big amount of work to make an RPG book, and that's without going into the details of how what each general topic requires.

[Barstro]

Every other die in existence reads off the top. Why is the d4 the exception?

That's how it was in the original Red Box I bought 30 years ago. Box also came with a crayon (white) to fill in the numbers on those (light yellow) cheap plastic things. My guess is that the molding wouldn't work well with numbers at the top. Better manufacturing led to numbers at the top. Maybe the makers of Tabletop Simulator are old-school.

I think Pathfinder will stick around until they actually make coherent rules for Synthesist. :smallwink:

[Psyren]

Well, no doubt you're on many more gaming boards than I am, but I'd guess DSP wouldn't be such a going concern if there weren't a market for what they produce.

Yes, but you misunderstand me. I'm not saying "there is no market for psionics or ToB." I'm saying "Leaving that market for a 3rd-party to target may in fact be the smarter business decision than going after it with 1st-party product."

The folks who like psionics and ToB feel comfortable going out to 3PP for it and incorporating it in their games. And the folks who find it daunting or actively hate it can feel comfortable knowing it is "3rd-party, somewhere over there" and that they have legitimate grounds to say no to it (or not to expect it in the first place.)



The Playground may be only a small subset of the larger gaming audience (and gawd, my recent gaming groups have made that plain) but it's still representative of enough interest in 3PP to keep the respective publishers going.

Oh absolutely. And I say, that is a good state for the market as a whole, it gives the 3PP publishers very low-hanging fruit to get their name out there and be established, resulting in a bigger market for everyone.



As it happens, my current DM bans the summoner in his game. I've barely looked at it, because the eidolon seems like way too much of a hassle. I gather there are power issues as well?

It's a spotlight-stealing thing. You can make a wizard tank or a wizard skillmonkey (or even both), but neither will ever be as easy as doing it with a summoner, nor will it play the same way as the other classes while still doing its own thing.

[Bhaakon]

From what I gather, it's much harder to build an RPG book than most other types of books or documents.

Not only that, but there have been a number of recent gaffes in Paizo products (The poor editing and misprinted logo in the advanced class guide, the lengthy delays in the Strategy Guide) to suggest that Paizo is already pushing the limits of how much product they can put out. TTRPG are surprisingly tiny market, and while Paizo is one of the biggest fish in that pond, it's not a big company, and a lot of the work done on their books is farmed out to freelancers rather than in-house talent.

[Raven777]

They could develop and put out a digital character and campaign manager application that doesn't give me urges to shoot myself. Something like Inkarnate (http://inkarnate.com/) or Morningstar (http://www.trapdoortechnologies.com/morningstar/) but, you know, actually getting made instead of mired in failed kickstarters or canceled partnerships...

It boggles the mind that in 2015, besides Hero Lab (http://www.wolflair.com/), we're still stuck with no better than 3rd party editable pdfs or glorified online spreadsheets...

[Psyren]

They could develop and put out a digital character and campaign manager application that doesn't give me urges to shoot myself. Something like Inkarnate (http://inkarnate.com/) or Morningstar (http://www.trapdoortechnologies.com/morningstar/) but, you know, actually getting made instead of mired in failed kickstarters or canceled partnerships...

It boggles the mind that in 2015, besides Hero Lab (http://www.wolflair.com/), we're still stuck with no better than 3rd party editable pdfs or glorified online spreadsheets...

What in the name of Beelzebub did Morningstar need $425,000 (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/trapdoortech/codename-morningstar) for? And they expected that Kickstarter to succeed? I don't know what they were smoking but it must have been the grade-A stuff.

InKarnate looks great, pity they were going after 3.5 in 2012 for some very odd reason.

[deuxhero]

Complete ____ were some of the first 3.5 books. I doubt the use of "ultimate" in PF's book naming means anything