General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Actually I understood that the problem for Paizo was that at the end of the magazine run they did not have the distribution framework in place for selling books in the stores. They are just now getting that in place and are hoping to be in bigger stores.
For what its worth Books-a-Million already carries Paizo books.
I've seen a couple oftheir titles at Barnes and Noble. Creatures revisited and the world book.
But for 4e? No Necromancer. No Green Ronin. No Malhavoc. No Paizo. No Privateer Press. No Paradigm Concepts. Hardly any Mongoose. Margaret Weiss's Dragonlance...nope. Arthaus/sword and sorcery? (I have every 3e ravenloft book.) Nope. Fantasy Flight games? Nope.
It's worth pointing out that many of those companies/imprints no longer publish for D&D 3e anymore, either.
I saw the PF carrion king book at Borders. That plus a ton of 4e and NWoD plus some Dark Heresy books. So they were one of four publishers in the RPG section.
Apples and oranges.
Yes. 3.5 put a major hits on 3.0 back stock and put everything in a tailspin.
The truth of that is in no way incompatible with the lack of appeal of 4E 3PP stuff to the overall market.
Eh? Didn't Green Ronin and Mongoose directly state that part of the reason they were doing their own thing away from d20 was so that they wouldn't be shackled to what WoTC did wit hthe D&D game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryonD
After 3.5 came out, new stuff clearly marked as 3.5 still sold.
But with few exceptions, nowhere near the volume of previous products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryonD
The weight of the impact, both to the finances of the 3PPs and the portion of the market that was ticked, both assured that things never went fully back.
So you agree that still solid isn't the same as selling strong?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryonD
Plus, 3.5 was still 3X, so a lot of people were flush with product. Those things hurt. But the 3.5 market was still viable for a few years. The 4E 3PP market was pretty much DOA. Even for those publishers who did dive right in.
Didn't Goodman post that while sales were not at the peak of 3.0 that they were significantly higher than 3.5 materials at the tail end?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryonD
If it was the same as 3.5, then sales should be BETTER for a whole new game, not far worse.
Agreed. And as Goodman said, they were better than 3.5 sales. And as WoTC seems to prove on numerous occassions, they've hit best seller lists and sold out of multiple items. Now there is no proof either way to indicate superior or worse sales than 3.5 but charting products and selling out is always better than not doing so no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryonD
I am 100% certain that you personally, Joe, would buy the stuff you are talking about. And I'm 100% a lot of other 4E fans reading this here on ENWorld would. But every one of you added together doesn't make nearly enough. The nature of the game and the nature of the fan base, as a whole, are very different.
Eh? Which part of the fan base are you talking about here? The part that wants 1e reprinted as POD? The fan base that is already playing 4e? The fan base that will only play official WoTC products?
But that does make for an interesting possible fork.
Pretty sure I read on their forums that PF will be in all major US outlets as far as B&N and Borders chains.
Though wishful thinking on my part, it would be great if the Pathfinder core book becomes an "evergreen" title.
None of the "big box" bookstores nearby have much of an rpg secton beyond WotC products, other than some old Everquest rpg books still on the shelves that nobody seems to pay attention to.
So it was such a huge success that they haven't made any other systemless settings?
I see it as entirely reasonable for Freeport to have been successful, but it not to be an easily reproducible success.
I think the biggest thing is that Freeport was an established brand, with a good-size fanbase, lots of previous books, etc.; it seems to me like doing a systemless book describing a setting with an existing fanbase would be less risky than a systemless book describing an entirely new setting. The other settings they published aren't so well-known, AFAIK. You couldn't remember the names of any of 'em, and neither could I -- I had to google to come up with Mindshadows.
The only other widely-recognized GR setting that I can think of is Freedom City, but there seems to be much less call for a systemless superhero setting. Most superhero games have their own settings, or just use a generic "today, with supers, like in Marvel/DC/etc" setting.
Also, the older versions of Freeport were long out of date, and for 3.0. Thus, an update was warranted when it came time to republish, and since GR had a few systems it could conceivably use (3.5, True20, wait for the upcoming 4e), a systemless book made sense. Freedom City is up to date with the current M&M system, so no updates are needed, and GR only has the one superhero system.
If GR wanted to license FC for other RPG versions, they could do that now, without the systemless book. I just don't think there's a big call for it -- Hero has a few Champions setting books, SW's super rules are tied up in a very specific setting/adventure path, and the other superhero RPGs are indie press books that use generic "just like your favorite comics" settings (and aren't likely to be huge sellers to boot).
Also, GR's spending their capital on other books (Song of Ice and Fire, Dragon Age, etc.) that they probably figure are better bets than Generic Setting That Even Internet Fans Can't Remember The Name Of.
That said, systemless books have historically, AFAIK, sold worse than non-systemless books. Which is fairly reasonable -- given the choice between Setting A, which is generic and systemless, and Setting B, which has stats for Your Favorite Game, I think most gamers will go for B, as it's easiest for them to use.
__________________ - Bob Huss
[H]e's dead and poisoned and possibly insane on another plane. It's a very stylish death, but a definitive one. - Piratecat
That said, systemless books have historically, AFAIK, sold worse than non-systemless books. Which is fairly reasonable -- given the choice between Setting A, which is generic and systemless, and Setting B, which has stats for Your Favorite Game, I think most gamers will go for B, as it's easiest for them to use.
Which is my point.
Which pretty much shoots in the head any idea that systemless setting books are the way to go.
Don't get me wrong. I love 'em. I have a ton of the ole Grimtooth Traps and Citibooks and even some of those old Gygax Infinitie Productions (Town of Baldemir or something along those lines and Aeshiba, greek Africa), along with several Lenetia books.
Not to mention Freeport systemless (as well as the d20 version.)
Often times, from my own personal experience, it's more work to make some statless monster/spell/character/magic item work in the game you're running unless it's a pure point buy system.
It's seems to suggest systemless is not the way to go, especially if you have any of your own IP to utilize. Systemless is wrong and will sell less against a product designed specifically for a given system.
Didn't Goodman post that while sales were not at the peak of 3.0 that they were significantly higher than 3.5 materials at the tail end?
Present sales being significantly better than at the tail end of 3.5E wouldn't be too surprising. According to my sources, they all mentioned that 3.5E book sales (both WotC and 3pp) literally "fell off a cliff" after 4E was announced in August 2007. The period from Aug 2007 to when the 4E core books were first released in June 2008, were dreadful times with tons of inventory which hardly moved at all without huge discounts (ie. bargain bins).
Comparing present sales figures to the "rock bottom" period isn't exactly saying much.
Present sales being significantly better than at the tail end of 3.5E wouldn't be too surprising. According to my sources, they all mentioned that 3.5E book sales (both WotC and 3pp) literally "fell off a cliff" after 4E was announced in August 2007. The period from Aug 2007 to when the 4E core books were first released in June 2008, were dreadful times with tons of inventory which hardly moved at all without huge discounts (ie. bargain bins).
Comparing present sales figures to the "rock bottom" period isn't exactly saying much.
Quote:
The 4E 3PP market was pretty much DOA.
Isn't exactly saying much?
When the quote in question is 4E 3PP market was pretty much DOA, it's wrong. And "is saying much". At least in Goodman's case.
We don't know how split the fanbase is, and the only people that could give us a reasonable estimate (WotC) won't. It ain't 5%, and it ain't 50%, but it lies somewhere inbetween.
But it's enough to generate a huge ammount of support for the Pathfinder line. Two years after the announcement of 4th ed (and what should have been the deathknell for 3rd ed 3pp), Paizo has grown from 2 magazines to a line of cards, books, adventures, adventure paths, licensed minis and more. They have subscriptions for not only their Adventure Paths (the direct inheritors for the old magazines) but for maps, cards, stand alone adventures and campaign setting materials.
And ALL of that is before their own set of rules hit the shelves.
When someone asks "how fragmented is the D&D fanbase?" my answer would have to be "enough".
Part of that is that Paizo is also selling to 4e players via their maps and decks. I know I have tons of 'em.
In addition, Paizo is awesome. They have fantastic name recognition from doing Dragon and Dungeon. They're also an... I don't want to say refuge from 4e, but they're a good rallying point for those who don't like 4e.
But saying that Paizo, where several members have essentially said, "we don't need to sell as much as WoTC. Just enough to remain viable", indicates to me, that the split COULD still be huge and still "enough" to justify Paizo not only staying around, but growing.
Espeically if they continue to make those awesome books that are useful with any edition of D&D. (Classic Dungeon Monsters revisited can't get here soon enough!)
Honestly, I don't think 3pp's would have had an easy time of things for 4e even if the game were as open as 3e.
After the initial glut of products, the market was quickly trashed. Most third party publishers had already folded by the time 4e was announced, and I don't think 4e had anything to do with their decline.... IMHO, it's 3.5 and the huge distributor issues (what was the name? Adamant?) that effectively shuttered a large number of the smaller 3pps. Even the larger ones took a beating, but as a result, individually they each got a bigger share of the market. I don't remember any new 3pp's becoming big enough to rival them after the 3.5 announcement.
Personally, I think Mongoose, Paizo, and Green Ronin are doing the smart thing. For RPGs, I don't think you can reliably sustain anything other than a hobby business using someone else's game. (Goodman is an exception - but their products are remarkably flexible, and they concentrate mainly on solid adventures, rather than crunchier bits like rule-heavy settings and supplements.) As 3.5 and 4e demonstrated, the rug can literally be pulled out at any time - after all, the parent company needs to make money, too, and no game (other than Palladium) keeps a single edition forever. I think the OGL and d20 licenses allowed these other companies to get sufficient capital and name recognition that branching out became feasible.
So yeah, I don't blame 4e for 3pps' deaths. I think that's a pretty radical revision of history. 3pp's were already dying, and those who weren't were already moving on. From what I can tell, most 3pp's would have likely still produced some materials under a better GSL, but IMHO most would have nevertheless focused on their more reliable and totally-controlled in-house systems.
When the quote in question is 4E 3PP market was pretty much DOA, it's wrong. And "is saying much". At least in Goodman's case.
It would be more than "saying much", if the present sales figures are equal to or less than the "rock bottom" period.
Starting from "rock bottom" isn't exactly saying much in general, unless the company in question is falling deeper and deeper into its own grave below the previous "rock bottom".
Eh? Didn't Green Ronin and Mongoose directly state that part of the reason they were doing their own thing away from d20 was so that they wouldn't be shackled to what WoTC did wit hthe D&D game?
But with few exceptions, nowhere near the volume of previous products.
Agreed. But it sold *well enough* to maintain a market. 4E is failed to do that. And 3.5 had angry 3E players going against it. 4E should have hordes of thrilled 4E players in its favor.
If your comparison held water, 4E 3PP would be doing at least as well as post 3.5 stuff, not far worse, as it is.
Quote:
So you agree that still solid isn't the same as selling strong?"
I agree completely that 3.5 hurt 3PPs.
Quote:
Didn't Goodman post that while sales were not at the peak of 3.0 that they were significantly higher than 3.5 materials at the tail end?
Well, first of all, if you are forced to compare year 1 4E sales to the tail end of 3.5, then you have already lost.
And second of all, I already made the point that Goodman products (quick and easy modules) do, in fact, play directly in stream with 4E and should be popular. It is other products I specifically called out.
Quote:
Agreed. And as Goodman said, they were better than 3.5 sales. And as WoTC seems to prove on numerous occassions, they've hit best seller lists and sold out of multiple items. Now there is no proof either way to indicate superior or worse sales than 3.5 but charting products and selling out is always better than not doing so no?
If WotC products are selling well then it is just that much more damning that these people love 4E and yet won't buy 3PP product for it.
My point is not that people won't play 4E, it is that they won't buy 3PP for it, with the limited exception of modules such as Goodman produces.
Quote:
Eh? Which part of the fan base are you talking about here? The part that wants 1e reprinted as POD? The fan base that is already playing 4e? The fan base that will only play official WoTC products?
I'm talking about 4e players and the lack of them buying 3PP stuff.
__________________ It was one of those nights when you turn out the lights, and everything comes into view
The combat system should be based on the world design. The world design should not be based on the combat system.
My 4 year old ties a towel to her shoulders and pretends to be a superhero. Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.
As an extension of that, if you tell me that any game is the same just because you roleplay the same, then as far as I am concerned, you don't get the point.
"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." - A 4E fan
"I've got to have all that, but I require intelligent conversation as well." - Me
As far as systemless campaigns goes when dealing with WotC the one thing they have to increase their chance of success is the novel tie-in. They could easily run novels for any setting they chose to work with continuing to drive the interest in the world while letting the players decide how things work in that world by choosing their own mechanics. Part of what Clark was pointing out and what I was agreeing with is they could do the systemless material with out of print settings such as Dark Sun, Spelljammer, whatever that they don't plan on getting fully detailed with. Thus selling to old fans who want the material but not the 4e or 3e or whatever edition was originally tied to it. Then to capitalize on the setting they release their own player's guide to go along with it. More in line with what they are already doing, but minus the DM portion in the campaign book we already see.
As for the ever green edition of PF it has been stated that subscriptions will definitely get the PDF. Paizo hasn't decided if they will offer it any other way yet, at least at this time.
Clark: Have you thought about working with other publishers in creating a systemless campaign?
__________________ DM4Hire
"What doesn't kill you will probably turn you into a vampire, a werewolf, or a zombie." - Myself
"This is Sky Captain. I'm on my way." - Joe "Sky Captain" Sullivan
When the quote in question is 4E 3PP market was pretty much DOA, it's wrong. And "is saying much". At least in Goodman's case.
Yes. Saying that year 1 sales are as good as post cliff dive, nearly a decade in, 3E sales is not saying much at all.
If your entire argument is married to Goodman despite the fact that I already said that Goodman should sale well before you even responded to me, then you are not saying much either.
Are you claiming that 4E 3PPs are doing well? Show me the market for non-quick-and-easy-modules in 4E 3PP. Please. What is flying off shelves?
__________________ It was one of those nights when you turn out the lights, and everything comes into view
The combat system should be based on the world design. The world design should not be based on the combat system.
My 4 year old ties a towel to her shoulders and pretends to be a superhero. Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.
As an extension of that, if you tell me that any game is the same just because you roleplay the same, then as far as I am concerned, you don't get the point.
"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." - A 4E fan
"I've got to have all that, but I require intelligent conversation as well." - Me
I'm talking about 4e players and the lack of them buying 3PP stuff.
But given the lack of publishers for 4e (at least print products cause I honestly know nothing about how the PDF side of things goes), how can that be an accurate statement. That's like putting someone on an abandoned island and then claiming that they won't eat pizza. You can't buy what hasn't been produced.
Edit: And Goodman does more than modules. They've done the Orc sourcebook for GMs and a Dragonborn sourcebook for players. In addition, they have several more such books coming (Eladrin and Tielflings next.)
If Goodman, known for their adventurers, can make it in the supplement market, it seems that well regarded supplements from the previous editions would also be easy sellers.
If WotC products are selling well then it is just that much more damning that these people love 4E and yet won't buy 3PP product for it.
My point is not that people won't play 4E, it is that they won't buy 3PP for it, with the limited exception of modules such as Goodman produces.
I think you're missing the mark here. I don't disagree that the 3pp market is very dry - I just think the ball was rolling before 4e was even announced and the GSL issues.
Before the 4e announcement, 3pps weren't producing very much for D&D - again, with the exceptions of Goodman and Paizo. Certainly, the print market was minimal at best - Necromancer was already declining, looking at their release schedule. Not much was being sold, either, IIRC, especially if you look at the print market.
Two of biggest 3pp's - Mongoose and Green Ronin - had already branched out, seeing the writing on the wall. Mongoose was doing about a half-dozen things at once, while GR was very focused on M&M and True20. Yes, both produced materials for D&D, but I don't know if those paid the bills.
Basically, I think the die was cast before the 4e announcement. The GSL fiasco just prevented a hoped-for rebirth of an already-dying market.
We don't know how split the fanbase is, and the only people that could give us a reasonable estimate (WotC) won't. It ain't 5%, and it ain't 50%, but it lies somewhere inbetween.
I disagree. It could be above 50%. And given you were trying to give a range of guesses, I think it would be fair to represent at least the guesses represented here. In this thread we have seen guesses as high as 80% I believe. So, 5% to 80% is a more representative range I'd say, with no suggestion that it is some sort of average or anything but just pure guesses.
Personally, I think 80% of people converted to 4e, but that is just my own pure guesswork.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
