Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

Dannager · Jul 6, 2011

billd91 said:
For some of us, your version of moving the hobby forward may be moving it off on a wild tangent.

For what it's worth, I'm running most of my Pathfinder game off my iPad. So integrating technology at my gaming table isn't a problem. What I prefer is the two pronged approach I get from Paizo - an e-version of the book as well as a physical version. That way I can run with technology at home or pack up a couple of books and take them camping and play in a screened tent around a Coleman lantern, far from an easy recharge (how many of us in my area played a lot when we were Boy Scouts). The DDI-heavy 4e is less friendly to the camping approach.

Heh, speaking as a former scout myself, that is certainly true.

TheAuldGrump · Jul 6, 2011

billd91 said:
For some of us, your version of moving the hobby forward may be moving it off on a wild tangent.

For what it's worth, I'm running most of my Pathfinder game off my iPad. So integrating technology at my gaming table isn't a problem. What I prefer is the two pronged approach I get from Paizo - an e-version of the book as well as a physical version. That way I can run with technology at home or pack up a couple of books and take them camping and play in a screened tent around a Coleman lantern, far from an easy recharge (how many of us in my area played a lot when we were Boy Scouts). The DDI-heavy 4e is less friendly to the camping approach.

Heh, I'm going to be running a couple of scenarios at a pagan retreat up the woods in a few weeks.

Two games a day for three days, a dozen players each. (Making thirteen at a table, purely by coincidence....)

Being able to pack my books in a low consumption e-reader would be a boon for gaming at camp. Alas, the Kobo is not well suited, but it could definitely last long enough.

My defense against the bugs will be the same as last time - not tasting as good as a whole lot of people who are wearing fewer clothes than I am.

The Auld Grump, more deist than pagan....

Pentius · Jul 6, 2011

Imaro said:
What exactly is this proof of, concerning the DDI or Paizo? Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence. All this really shows is that you have real financial reasons for supporting 4e as opposed to Pathfinder or 3.x

Dannager parsed the rest of your post fairly well(something I'd have XP'd for instead of said in a post, but I must spread it around more first), so I'll just make this one point.

Morrus pointed out that EN publishing's subscription model sold more EN adventure path material than any other venue, adventure paths, it should be noted, that they are now making for Pathfinder, as well as 4e. All that shows is that when Pathfinder profits, so does Morrus. And yet you accuse him of wanting to support one over the other.

Man.

TheAuldGrump · Jul 6, 2011

Pentius said:
Dannager parsed the rest of your post fairly well(something I'd have XP'd for instead of said in a post, but I must spread it around more first), so I'll just make this one point.

Morrus pointed out that EN publishing's subscription model sold more EN adventure path material than any other venue, adventure paths, it should be noted, that they are now making for Pathfinder, as well as 4e. All that shows is that when Pathfinder profits, so does Morrus. And yet you accuse him of wanting to support one over the other.

Man.

Or at least he is willing to give it a shot.

I think that 4e needs the help more than Pathfinder, since the Pathfinder RPG has the largely excellent Pathfinder Adventure Paths.

But I will admit that I would have been annoyed if Zeitgeist had not been PFRPG compatible, as it also looks excellent. But it is, so I am happy.

The Auld Grump

Aus_Snow · Jul 6, 2011

Congrats, Paizo guys 'n gals.

You've earned this, and more. It'll be fascinating to see what "more" entails...

Your diligence, enthusiasm, openness, honesty, integrity, and clear love for the game (and of fellow gamers), do indeed happen to bring rewards, it would seem.

All as it should be.

Celtavian · Jul 6, 2011

Pour said:
Oh I definitely do, but not on a weekly basis like my online groups. Gaming online has provided me a dedicated and dependable two parties, 7 players in all, who've actually become pretty good friends. We're on session 114 in the one group, and average around 6 hours per session.

Come to think, my first D&D game was via online, and my first DM now plays in mine. Wow, known that dotcomrade since... 2000. Heh, time flies.

There is a decided difference between my table games and my online games, though, and I think a lot of that comes from the different mediums. Online we use mIRC, and we really accentuate plot, description and dialogue, being a bunch of aspiring writers and all. It's wonderful, but way different than my more animated tabletop games, which have a lot of jokes and lightheartedness. I love both styles.

However, table top is the only way I'd think of inducting new players, which I've managed to do quite often. You wouldn't believe how many high school kids eat up table top RPGs, they're just never exposed to it. My games have kind of spread like wildfire to the point I have waiting lists, and better yet, managed to inspire junior DMs! Oh the RPG cycle is a beautiful thing *tear*

I also tried Encounters this past season, but I got a pretty bad DM who kept mixing up 3.5e rules with 4e until I just couldn't take it anymore. It bugged me because the new players were essentially learning a mishmash, but they seemed to be having fun and who was I to rain on that. Still, given how much D&D is a part of my life as it is, I opted out. The other table looked to have an awesome DM though...

Good to know you do both. I met a lot of good friends gaming over the table I've known for going on 20 years plus. Strange how that works out.

It's funny. Once you actually get people at the table with a good DM, a lot of people have fun doing it even if they wouldn't normally be the type you associate with Pen and Paper gaming.

Celtavian · Jul 6, 2011

re

Firebeetle said:
Obviously I touched on some sore spots there. People are very loudly telling me they are not afraid and putting on a bold face. I've seen it before.

I'm an educator, and as you may have heard we've been going through a lot of change in the last 10 years. In three years we have to have every child proficient in reading and math. This has led to many attempts to change and reform. Schools that embrace changes successfully often do quite well. However, many of my fellow teachers balk at the idea of doing something differently than before, even if it is for the best for everyone, especially the students. I hear many familiar statements, let's see if you can recognize them:

There was nothing wrong with what we were doing

This doesn't work (when it does, they just don't understand)

The old way worked (when it didn't)

We just need to do what we were doing better

We've never done it that way before

The issues the new way addresses don't really matter

We don't need to worry about meeting the needs other stakeholders, only ourselves (in so many words)

(For those of you that added "in the bedroom" after each item list, shame on you)

Just as I've seen many good programs fail because teachers refused to "buy-in", I fear we will see the same for 4e. For the first time in it's nearly 40 year history, D&D is back on the cutting edge of RPG design just to be held back by traditionalists for refuse to accept change. For those educators in the know, it's like choosing basal readers over balanced literacy because that's what people know. Even if 4e fails, we will see more games like it in the future.

To be fair:

I'm sure many people tried it and didn't like it. On multiple occasions early on I encountered players who were verbally abusive to the game before they had ever come to the table. Extremely unpleasant episodes which clearly showed some had already made their choice. If this was not you and your choice was perfectly rational without pre-judgement I understand and apologize if I have offended you.

I have looked at Pathfinder extensively while not purchasing it and agree with many of the "uber-tweaks" to 3.5 they have made. If I was still playing 3.5 I would be enthusiastic about Pathfinder but I would still be fixing some things (there is no difference between the first level bards, for example, they both still suck.) However, 4e is the way RPGs will survive into the future. Our type of gaming is waning in the face of computer gaming and simple reality. Nearly all my old gaming comrades (I live far away now) substitute WoW or the like for gaming these days. 4e is appealing, understandable, and versatile. There's nothing in earlier editions I can't do in 4e, we roleplay now more than ever. Pathfinder represents the pinnacle of evolution for the old game system, but it doesn't overcome the flaws and problems like 4e does.

Pathfinder adventures are absolutely gorgeous and I am told they are well crafted. If they made 4e versions I would probably buy them. I will look into converted modules, I did not know they exist.

I do feel 4e has a major, major flaw and that is the GSL. Under the OGL we saw a bloom of 3rd party support, although a time limit would have been smart. Anytime I conceive of a 3rd party project under 4e I run into the restrictions of the GSL. If they would open their rule system up more I think they would have better success. As it currently stands, what have they to lose?

4E is certainly not cutting edge. Why would you even make that statement? Are you totally unaware of how many game systems are out there? 3.5 wasn't cutting edge game design, but it was a step in the right direction.

I very much wanted 4E to be cutting edge. I wanted them to continue to evolve the systems they had built in 3E, especially the skill and feat systems. You have no idea how long I have been waiting for D&D to have a proper martial arts system. But 4E took a totally different direction and set D&D back 10 years or more with a system that tossed out not only the advances in 3E, but the advances made with the 2nd Edition Combat and Tactics.

You want to see cutting edge game design, you go to games like GURPs and Hero System with highly detailed rules and settings that are a dream for the simulationist. GURPS products were often designed after extensive study on an actual subject, usually by an expert on that subject who took what they knew and designed a subsystem to integrate that particular item into the rules.

Problem with GURPS is that they have way too much detail. But they are definitely cutting edge. You can read their products and learn real world information about any subject they cover be it guns, vehicles, military history modern and medieval, and the like.

That is what I consider cutting edge game design.

4E was a backward step in game design in my opinion. Dumbed down skills and powers. Pure gamist class design without any attempt at realism whatsoever. Completely removing the veil for monsters and turning them into a block of stats rather than a monster that feels like an actual race. I'm not quite sure why you consider that cutting edge game design.

Pathfinder/3E was a forward step for D&D game design. Which is why I stuck with Pathfinder. A more developed skill system. A feat system that simulated fighting styles. Classes that attempted to simulate what they were trying to be by tying powers to concept. More developed combat rules for handling combat options that a real world person would be able to undertake like grappling, disarm, sundering, and the like. Pathfinder/3E was a forward step in game design for D&D and closer to the cutting edge of game design than anything I saw in 4E.

We have very different ideas of what cutting edge is. I've played a lot of different systems and two of the best are GURPS and Hero System with GURPS being number one overall from my experience.

I play Pathfinder/3E because it is the closest D&D system to GURPS. And it is far more well-supported than GURPS ever was.

That is the biggest problem with systems like GURPS. Their rules system is rich, detailed, and interesting. But they don't support their system with adventures. They know their target market is the gamer that really wants a realistic simulation and won't mind putting a huge amount of work into building and running a campaign. So they supply that GM with a massive amount of rules and information for him to use and say go ahead.

Whereas D&D has always catered to gamers wanting a simpler experience. They provide a great deal of adventure support to make it much easier to run and enjoy their game. Their monster books are highly detailed. And their rules systems are usually much simpler and more streamlined. Not to say there aren't plenty of DMs that invest huge amounts of time to run a campaign, but nowhere near what a GURPS or Hero System GM has to do.

You really need to check out more game systems if you consider D&D 4E cutting edge. Cutting edge is advancing to the edge of new technology. Not taking backward steps, simplifying, and using system rules based on video game design (and no the entire game isn't video gamish, just parts of it). That's not cutting edge to me.

prosfilaes · Jul 6, 2011

Dannager said:
I'll hazard a guess (and I could be wrong) that it's because the tabletop gaming hobby is small enough that a group of people who band together and refuse to move forward with the hobby can have an impact on the success of that forward movement.

It's not linear; there are many directions, not just forward and backward. And if enough people don't like something that it hurts its success in the market, obviously there's a place in the market for alternatives.

Celtavian · Jul 6, 2011

Dannager said:
The model introduced first with 4e (highly expandable rules system, heavy digital support, treating a system like software that can be updated, etc.) will be the model we see going forward. This is how things will be done from now on. There is no going back. Those who do not adopt this model will not be considered forerunners in the RPG pack.

Pathfinder is not lacking in these areas. There are plenty of digital tools for designing adventures, characters, and using the rules out there.

But what you don't acknowledge in the above is that RPGs are a creative endeavor. Which means that one size does not fit all. What do you do if you're using these online tools and you want to customize everything yourself? What if you want to have your own set of house rules incorporated into the system and they don't work well with the software? What then?

DMs by their very nature love to modify. Love to toy with rules, worlds, and adventures. What do they do when the rules are hard-coded by the company and offer few options for deviation that works with their software?

So far Pathfinder has provided me as a DM with the digitial tools I need to do what I want. They provide a searchable rules data base, yet they don't impose it on me. They provide PDF versions of adventures. I can modify all stats blocks and rules as I see fit.

Their rules are very modular including types for their monsters, which make encounter design easy including modifying a power or anything else I want on the fly. I can modify in whatever manner I want and don't have to worry about the current update. If I write it down, it is the new rule to follow. I don't have to worry about my players using an online design tool that won't incorporate my house rule.

Until people start playing RPGs like they do video games, I don't see your view of the online model as being the most preferred. In fact, Pen and Paper RPGs are attractive to many of us geek gamers precisely because they aren't video games or set in stone or follow exacting rules. They allow us creative types, the guys that usually like to DM, to play with the rules and guidelines in the game as we see fit. And I think that is better accomplished using a system of information delivery that offers, but doesn't impose, the digital model on us.