| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
 Posted - 18 May 2012 : 15:31:49
|
|
The much awaited public playtest has finally been announced (though quietly, and only on their site, unlike the very public announcement of the development of the new edition).
|
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2012 : 20:44:54
|
| I recommend people join in and provide feedback. The game is still in it's infancy, and it could use some healthy eyes to take a look. Remember that this is a good thing and WotC should be applauded. |
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2012 : 20:48:47
|
Also, I don't think it was done quietly due to the info being released the same day as Monte's decision to leave. That news, I feel, drowned out the release date for the Open Playtest.
What format/avenue are they going to be reach out to the Playtesters? Havning never been in one, I'm not quite sure what to expect. Will this be a PDF emailed to playtesters? Will this require DDI subscription? Will this be mailed to the home address of the playtester? I'm not sure how this works, really. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 18 May 2012 : 21:07:12
|
I'm signed up...have five children and my wife ready to put it to the test!
Just don't know what is next... |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
PinkRose
Acolyte
2 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 05:22:53
|
quote:
Just don't know what is next...
D&D Next?
|
|
|
|
PinkRose
Acolyte
2 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 07:09:29
|
They said in their chat the Playtest would be a pdf to download from their site.
|
|
|
|
Tasker Daze
Seeker
84 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 15:20:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Remember that this is a good thing and WotC should be applauded.
They should be applauded for copying from Piazo? |
. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 17:23:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tasker Daze
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Remember that this is a good thing and WotC should be applauded.
They should be applauded for learning from Paizo?
Fixed 
{You also spelled Paizo wrong).
Nothing wrong with studying the success (and failures) of others and learning from it - Paizo was able to do it first, by sticking with an older formula employed by TSR and the WotC (both in depth of content, and in the rules themselves).
WotC moved on to a rules-heavy, 'lighter is better' fluff approach, but it could have easily gone the other way had 4e been handled a bit differently. Both companies gambled, and Wizbro lost - it happens.
I'm just hoping that Paizo isn't now copying the end-result of 2e - being so diversified as to stretch themselves thin, and wind-up tanking hard. They are growing a little too fast, IMHO... hope it works out for them. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 19 May 2012 17:24:22 |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 17:37:37
|
I don't think it's fair to say WotC is copying Paizo. It's not like Paizo is the first company to have playtested a game. 
Which is not to suggest that it's not a beautiful idea to apply to the world's favorite roleplaying game (TM).
Cheers |
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7976 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 17:58:09
|
Diversifying the game is never a bad thing - it provides the widest appeal, the most options, the greatest range of settings and rules to play within. Diversifying the audience is quite the opposite - it disintegrates player groups, at the worst extreme it isolates each member of the audience within a completely different game. Paizo has done well in achieving balance so far, usually by packaging uniform elements from their PRPG with any new options they produce (thus forcing people to buy pieces of both together, essentially anchoring them to a common point). I don't see any reason why Paizo would suddenly choose to abandon their formula for success. They probably have plenty of problems of their own, but subjugation to the whims of profiteering corporate executives and brand managers don't seem to be issues they need to address.
WotC, on the other hand, has struggled with repeated catastrophic setbacks in their RPG product releases. It seems like they're constantly gambling, constantly hoping to win the loyalty of new customers from a wider market audience - but doing so by constantly placing the loyalty of their existing customers up as ante. Sometimes they've lost those gambles. And sometimes gamblers just don't know when to quit. If WotC doesn't manage to come up with a winning hand and hit the jackpot, they'll lose everything they've got on the table. What can they come up with that'll convince me to bet on a gambler with a history of losing? To convince me my loyalty in a new product wouldn't be misplaced after their history of discarding customer loyalty in ever product which came before?
This isn't meant to be a rant, nor an attack or accusation against WotC. It's just an observation (my personal observation) that they seem to be stuck in a hole and depending on 5E as a rope to climb out. Will this rope be a lifeline, strong and long enough to serve this purpose? Or will it just become a noose? |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 20:48:46
|
I'm not really sure why, but people tend to hold WotC to some pretty unresaonable standards, espically when one takes the broader scope of ALL RPGs into account. Maybe it's because D&D is the flag-ship of RPGs and the most common house hold name in popularity, but multiple editions of the same game happen to almost every RPG in existance (and video games too). So why is it when WotC does so, people take it so hard?
From my own perspective, I came from playing at the tail end of 2E/AD&D (late 1998) and got into 3E. But we took a break during the v3.5 conversion and started up a gain pretty strongly after 2004. And when they announced 4th Edition, my first reaction was "Man, I hope they make a good, fun balanced game." There wasn't any resentment, no anger, no frustration due to them cancelling 3E. And with the announcement of 5E, my anger isn't directed at them changing stuff up again or that they're discontinuing my favorite Edition so far, but because I feared the game would revert to older, broken, and overpowered days of yore. So I'm actually getting excited for D&D:Next as I like to try new things. I like playing new games and I think it's a great opportuinity to get involved with the decision making process.
What I don't want is a rehashing or retro-clones or throwbacks to something that D&D was in the past. We've had those rules and it's not THAT hard to get them back or to play in groups that utilize them. There has to be something new and exciting for me in D&D:next to say "This is fun, lets do this next week!". If they do that, they'll have a good seller. |
Edited by - Diffan on 19 May 2012 20:50:03 |
|
|
|
Tasker Daze
Seeker
84 Posts |
Posted - 19 May 2012 : 23:01:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Tasker Daze
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
Remember that this is a good thing and WotC should be applauded.
They should be applauded for copying from Paizo?
Fixed
{You also spelled Paizo wrong).
Nothing wrong with studying the success (and failures) of others and learning from it - Paizo was able to do it first, by sticking with an older formula employed by TSR and the WotC (both in depth of content, and in the rules themselves).
It was right the first time. WotC has done many editions, but never done an open playtest until they found themselves trailing a competitor who did the same thing.
So they're copying. I can't applaud that. |
. |
Edited by - Tasker Daze on 19 May 2012 23:02:09 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2012 : 00:36:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tasker Daze
It was right the first time. WotC has done many editions, but never done an open playtest until they found themselves trailing a competitor who did the same thing.
So they're copying. I can't applaud that.
So then, by that logic, you couldn't really applaud Paizo's whole Pathfinder game because it's just reflavored, homebrewed v3.5 (something WotC created). It's a better example of copying than WotC running a public Playtest IMO.
PS. just for the record, I think Pathfinder is a good, fun, and exciting addition to what WotC did with v3.5. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2012 : 02:17:26
|
I think we should just go back to "Elf" being a class. "Halfling" as a class was fun too! 
What I mean to say is that each version of D&D has had its good qualities over the years!
When I first started playing D&D in 78' or 79' (can't remember any more when it was; all I know is that I could scarcely read well!) I thought ALL Elves should use magic! Of course, I also thought all Elves actually were supposed to look much like the Keebler Elf! 
My view on things has changed GREATLY since then.
I'm looking forward to doing these playtests...I'm hoping it will bring me around to being more fully invested in D&D so that my children will continue after me to support a gaming hobby that has always helped me a great deal in life.
Wherever D&D goes, I hope it does well. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2012 : 02:24:46
|
| What I'm really looking for out of D&D:Next is a great but quick game to get into. Character creation should be fun, but easy and able to be done in 10 minutes. I want a game easily DM'ed (like 4E, it was pretty simple IMO) and gives me a swath of options to utilize with my PCs. I want a game where it has elements of the aspects I enjoy about D&D but it doesn't have to replicate anything from previous editions 100%. I want D&D:Next to do justice to the name Dungeons and Dragons and provide options for varying types of setting and style (gothic horror, steam-punk, high fantasy, gritty realism, original fantasy). They pull that off, they've got me hooked. |
|
|
|
Tasker Daze
Seeker
84 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2012 : 05:10:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Tasker Daze
It was right the first time. WotC has done many editions, but never done an open playtest until they found themselves trailing a competitor who did the same thing.
So they're copying. I can't applaud that.
So then, by that logic, you couldn't really applaud Paizo's whole Pathfinder game because it's just reflavored, homebrewed v3.5 (something WotC created). It's a better example of copying than WotC running a public Playtest IMO.
PS. just for the record, I think Pathfinder is a good, fun, and exciting addition to what WotC did with v3.5.
Not even close to the same thing. WotC is doing something unpresedented for them, and only doing it because they're losing the company that did it first. |
. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2012 : 06:19:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tasker Daze
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
So then, by that logic, you couldn't really applaud Paizo's whole Pathfinder game because it's just reflavored, homebrewed v3.5 (something WotC created). It's a better example of copying than WotC running a public Playtest IMO.
PS. just for the record, I think Pathfinder is a good, fun, and exciting addition to what WotC did with v3.5.
Not even close to the same thing. WotC is doing something unpresedented for them, and only doing it because they're losing the company that did it first.
So it's not because they might actually be interested in what gamers have to say? Or because they're excited to see how people will react to a (possibly) very modual RPG with the lable D&D? And it couldn't have anything to do with them wanting to extend an olive branch to people as a good faith token? Nope, they're just doing it because it's what Paizo did. That has to be the only reason  .
And how, exactly, isn't Paizo making a ton of money off of the OGL not "copying"? Don't get me wrong, I think their rules are better than the original OGL but....c'mon it's just a different flavor with tweaks on the same chassis. Really, the famework is already there and waiting. All Paizo did was see that the mechanics weren't done, added some spit-shine and resold it to the fans. But it wasn't WotC so it was ok. People even expressively ignored the famed Monte Cook's article on how the changes from 3E to v3.5 weren't needed or welcomed because it was pretty much what Pathfinder did. |
Edited by - Diffan on 20 May 2012 06:20:57 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7976 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2012 : 08:36:29
|
The dragon eats its own tail. D&D now inspired by things several orders removed from other things originally inspired by D&D.
It's incorrect to say that D&D is copying from Pathfinder, just as it's incorrect to say D&D elves and wizards and orcs are copied from Tolkien and Rowling and Blizzard. It's a genre, with D&D traditionally cresting the vanguard. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Tasker Daze
Seeker
84 Posts |
Posted - 20 May 2012 : 16:40:39
|
I didn't say D&D was copying from Pathfinder. I said WotC was copying from Piazo.
WotC has never done a public playtest before, despite releaseing many editions of D&D. WotC rarely asks for input on anything and theyve never done it in such a large scale -- until now, when they are second to someone who did the same thing. WotC is copying Piazo's tactics because Piazo showed it works. After earning plnty of bad feelings from players, WotC is trying to look good by doing the same thing that got Piazo a lot of good attention. |
. |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2012 : 21:09:26
|
I certainly won't complain against WotC for doing the right thing, even if Paizo did it first. I also find it ironic to blame WotC for taking something from Paizo, when Paizo just bought 95% of the mechanics with which they built their game from WotC.
Let's not start about discussing what d&d did first before being copied by others... |
|
|
|
Stonwulfe
Seeker
Canada
81 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 00:50:26
|
I don't comment on here much of late. I think my last serious post to the boards was in early 2009 when I was reviewing the 4e Core Books. I lost drive and commitment half-way through that process, and I would like to expand on that here as it is relevant to this thread.
I am a long-time gamer, like many of you here. I can trade Realmslore with the best of 'em, but my résumé isn't key here. I grew up with a computer, and with D&D, and I've gamed in both worlds quite heavily.
When I started to review 4e after being a seriously invested 3/3.5e I was determined, nay committed to resisting the compulsion to go the route of so many veterans I had observed before.
The genuine urge to throw up my hands and say, "Screw you guys, I'm going home" nearly overtook me on several occasions. It happened because I saw 4e's weaknesses, what I perceived as their attempts to secure an expansion on their base of loyal subscribers, and because they were making changes I then considered tantamount to dropping a steaming coiler on the altar of the Sistine Chapel and then rubbing it on the walls. 4e was in many ways WotC's Windows Vista.
This is why I refrained from a fecal-dismissive tirade on the future of WotC. Because for all that Windows Vista is (and 4e is), it got some things right. Some core issues that were in desperate need of review that hadn't been ever considered because... well... it was canon. That's really the biggest thing that bothered me about 4e; they messed with canon - sometimes, that something has become sacrosanct is precisely the reason you should screw with it.
[I suggest reading Naked Lunch and not messing with the hopes of millions of roleplayers, but hey, I'm not in charge.]
What WotC got right with 4e boils down to four key elements:
- They organized their core rulebooks to flow through the character creation process from the front to the back of the book.
- They addressed the problem of individual role within a party and the issue of healing shortages from a structural level.
- They reached out to computer gamers of younger generations, those who were familiar with Everquest and World of Warcraft, and said we have something they don't.
- They broke expectations by introducing significant, world-changing elements to their strongest brand.
Say what you will about the aftermath of the latter two decisions. Yes, I realize I'm being quite specific in my fallacy of intent on the part of WotC (that the change was motivated by a desire to capture PC gamers) but the shoe fits. You can also say what you will about the kneejerk reaction to 4e and the move to further implementations of 3.5e such as Pathfinder. Pathfinder's a fine system, but it gives into that aforementioned loyalist/old-guard attitude.
I believe that the core value behind the structural changes, the outreach to gamers, and the murder of Mystra were all very much-needed. Like breaking a femur, this hurt like a sonova. It was unpleasant, people cringe just thinking about it, and you can get hopping mad about the fact that it happened. But like breaking a femur, if you don't die of sepsis or blood clot or some other Gods-awful predicament, you heal stronger. The bone becomes more resilient. You end up with a stronger structure.
WotC will recover because the fans forget, like breaking a bone the nearness of it fades in the mind. But they may not recover completely, and the brand will have scars, because they didn't just give us a clean break - they broke the f'n world and then, when it was bleeding, they giggled madly as they ran amok in its entrails. Why stop at changing the world and killing a god, let's change the planes!
What lingers for me is the principle. They didn't just break the world. That will heal. What pisses me off is that they stopped listening to Ed.
For that, I will be very, VERY vocal and specific in my play-test feedback and in my review of their materials.
Only if they start to listen, think, and respond to their fans will they heal what they've done and recover lost market share. If only then. |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3286 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 01:23:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stonwulfe
What lingers for me is the principle. They didn't just break the world. That will heal. What pisses me off is that they stopped listening to Ed.
Good thing that WotC started listening to him again. We shall see how much they listen, but at least they are listening again... |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
|
|
|
Eltheron
Senior Scribe
740 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 02:01:51
|
Is everyone talking about the same thing?
I don't have any impression from anywhere that Greenwood has any input on the 5e rules or playtest. Maybe that's possible, but I'd doubt it.
If you mean that they're "listening to Ed" because of his upcoming Elminster's Realms, I think it's way, way early to say that. WotC says all sorts of things, and frankly I need to see hard proof before I get my hopes up for anything they say they'll do.
|
"The very best possible post-fourteenth-century Realms lets down those who love the specific, detailed social, political and magical situation, with its thousands of characters, developed over forty years, and want to learn more about it; and those who'd be open to a new one with equal depth, which there just isn't time to re-produce; and those repelled, some past the point of no return, by the bad-taste-and-plausibility gap of things done to the world when its guardianship was less careful."
--Faraer |
Edited by - Eltheron on 21 Jun 2012 02:02:56 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7976 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 02:28:19
|
| Ask Ed, and I certainly can't speak for him, although I personally suspect he's largely uninvolved with the "mechanical" aspects and constantly kept busy tending the Realms and his other story/setting/narrative work. "D&D 5E" is probably just not Ed's thing - and besides, he's admitted his 2E preferences before, he can be prolific with writing game rules but never within a setting-vacuum. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 21 Jun 2012 02:33:02 |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3286 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 04:08:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
Is everyone talking about the same thing?
I don't have any impression from anywhere that Greenwood has any input on the 5e rules or playtest. Maybe that's possible, but I'd doubt it.
If you mean that they're "listening to Ed" because of his upcoming Elminster's Realms, I think it's way, way early to say that. WotC says all sorts of things, and frankly I need to see hard proof before I get my hopes up for anything they say they'll do.
Probably not. WotC is listening to Ed on the 5E Realms... |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
Edited by - Brimstone on 21 Jun 2012 04:09:47 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 06:55:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eltheron
I don't have any impression from anywhere that Greenwood has any input on the 5e rules or playtest.
Eltheron, the recent Book Wyrms: Elminster and the Story of the Forgotten Realms article by James Wyatt is what people are referring too.
On topic: participated in a 5E playtest at a friend's house over the weekend. I liked the mobility options available to all (players and monsters) though it seemed way to easy for the lead PC to get killed to death (which happened with that same DM, running the rules for another group) if a bunch of monsters can all move in, attack and move away.
I also liked the new rules for a brief rest (not sure if that's the right term). |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 18:42:02
|
Some interesting comments here.
WotC does an open playtest: They ripped off someone else
WotC doesn't do an open playtest: Those bastards
People need to look objectively at each situation, and then look internally. |
|
|
|
Stonwulfe
Seeker
Canada
81 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 18:48:00
|
Thus far I like the 5e Playtest, and have found nothing wrong with it. Where I was going with my tangent is that the FR is by far the broadest, most developed campaign setting and game world. It's also the only one relevant to my own Dungeon Mastering and that of many gamers I know, including those who use Pathfinder.
With 4e Realms I really just want to close my eyes and hum "la di dah" and make like it was Highlander 2; forget it ever happened. |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 19:08:27
|
4e game is fun for me.
I don't care for "4e Realms"...but I don't have to use it. I CAN use some of the awesome ideas that came with/after the S.P.; so essentially I've sort of come around here at the tail end of it to realize that the spellplague wasn't the absolute disaster I felt it was.
I mean, essentially, "My Realms" (meaning 1e and 2e without the Time of Troubles) is now left alone for me to do with as I wish. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 21:27:25
|
| I really think that WotC needs to look more closely at what caused Pathfinder's success. Making people sign an NDA even to just look at the playtest seems a bit over-controlling to me. Paizo took 2 years of truly open playtest data before they had what resulted in the final product. All of their PDF versions cost only $10. Also, they scaled back production to three major (hardback, 260 pages) products a year, instead of the mess of 160 page splat books that we got during the latter years of 3.x. And finally (though I know that this is partially because Pathfinder was designed under the OGL), everything, all of the non-setting specific material, is open game license (OGL, i.e. free to take and do with as you please). And not only is it OGL, all of the major books are available for free on their website. Beyond the three Core Rulebooks (PH, DMG, & MM), Deities & Demigods, the XPH, and the ELH, nothing was OGL under the 3.x reign of WotC. And the best website to use as a tool for these resources (d20SRD.org) was not even created by WotC. This created a lot of material that there was no 3rd party support for, and therefore niche publishers were not able to really find a foothold (i.e. like Dreamscarred Press with Psionics). What if the rules beyond the core rules for 3e (and all the rules for 4e) had truly been free? I think that the result may have been a community of customers like what Pathfinder enjoys. So, while I applaud WotC for their open playtest of D&D Next, I am still waiting to see if they pick up on any of the other aspects of what has made Pathfinder the leading tabletop RPG for the past year and a half. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 21 Jun 2012 : 23:15:25
|
| You can't compare the two. Paizo had a running start with an established game system. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D "Next" Public Playtests
