Prose, Terminology, Fluff, & Presentation: Spreadsheets or Haiku?

Morrus · May 6, 2012

Fallstorm said:
Has pathfinder out selling DnD really been confirmed such as annual sales of DnD for X time period compared to what Paizo earned?

1. I know that for a large amount of time DnD wasn't really producing that many books for DnD for example I think early this year they producted the new DMG screen and then some monthsbefore an actual rules supplement (I think Heroes of Shadow maybe??) dropped but I remember here was a stretch of time when 4E production of rules books was low? So was Pathfinder outselling during this time? If so I can understand why?

2. Does this Pathfinder "out saling" DND include things like he money WOTC makes from DnDI subscriptions, the card packs,etc which are also part of the DnD franchise?
.

Where did I say Pathfinder was outselling D&D? That's not a position I've taken, and certainly not one I feel inclined to try to argue.

That's a long post to argue against something nobody ever said!

Sorry man, I think we're done here. Feel free to continue discussing the topic, but there's some kind of weird communication barrier between us where I can't make myself understood to you, and you think I said things I didn't. Far too much like hard work at this point, I'm afraid! The mutual decomprehend languages spell cast on the two of us was clearly Epic level.

Fallstorm · May 6, 2012

Morrus said:
I certainly believe your girlfriend held that opinion. However, the 4E approach did not work; this is evidenced by the fact that Pathfinder now rivals - maybe exceeds - D&D in sales, and that a new edition has been announced far earlier than one would normally expect. At this point, it's pretty hard to argue that 4E worked commercially.

This quote is from you in post 32. Yet you didn't say pathfidner out sales/rivals DnD sales? You don't see why I put the length of time each edition of DnD has been out with your comment about 4E not working, etc?

If you don't want to discuss thsi anymore that is fine. I really do like your page. Thank you for all that you do in bring news to DnD, but I pay attention to what people say, man and your description of what you really want has polymorhed several times. This quote is yours not mine.

Peace,
Fallstorm

Bedrockgames · May 6, 2012

Fallstorm said:
So DnD 4E will have lasted approximately 5 years exactly as long as DnD 3.5,
and before we say there was little difference between 3rd edition and 3.5 it was enough of difference between the two that unlike 4E and essentials splat books had to be redone, etc to make sense of the classes and prestige classes unlike 4E and essentials which can be played simultaneously.

So, DnD 4E existed for about as long as it was supposed to exist. I think I recall reading somewhere (on Enworld in fact) from one former WOTC game designer that most game companies now release a new edition of their RPG every 4-5 years because the market has shone gamers will buy the product in that time frame. So, in fact, even if DnD Next is phenomenal success I suspect there will be some kind of revamping to it within 5 years or so because that is the market standard it seems.

No one is saying pathfinder outsold D&D, just that it is competing against it and 4e was less of a success than anticipated.

I think this is very wishful thinking. This probably isn't the place to rehash the old 4e sales debate. But saying 3.5 and 5e are at all equivelant just doesn't hold for me. In fact it was clearly given the .5 designation because it was little more than a tune up designed to sell more books. The edition itself was popular and being played, but they wanted to squeeze more profit out of the line (and by all accounts I have seen 3.5 was planned from a very early stage).

You can't ignore pathfinder. It is a huge success. It is arguable challenging D&D's superiority. The last time anything like this occured was when White Wolf emerged in the 90s. You can cut the evidence up however you like. In my mind there is too much evidence at this point to say 4E was a commercial success or that 5e isn't coming early because of 4e's performance and pathfinder's ascendance. I don't have that much inside information (i am sure morrus has more than me) but from my little nook of the world as a small publisher I hear from people all the time that 4e hasn't been doing as well as expected. I also kept hearing that their efforts to stem the bleeding with stuff like essentials just made the problem worse by splitting the customer base further and confusing new potential customers (mostly this was from store owners). I think they they got rid of Slavicsek and Heinsoo, then the pathdfinder numbers came out, and finally the announcement of 5E, it was pretty clear what was going on.

I will also say I was skeptical of this concusion for a while. It wasn't until they let go of slavicsek that I started to think 4e wasn't a success (i believe morrus was equally cautious up to about the time 5e itself was announced---his posts on the pathfinder sales versus 4e sales certainly seemed to indicate that). I was no fan of 4e but I didn't begrudge it its success. And frankly the fact that it isn't succesful bodes ill for what I want: a return to something more like 2E or 3E. Sure, 4e's failure means they will try to go back to some earlier recipes, but the heavy split also means the next iteration of the game could be equally short lived. So it isn't like I just really want 4e to fail and am trying to push that conclusion on the evidence. I genuined think the evidence is very clear at this stage.

Morrus · May 6, 2012

Fallstorm said:
This quote is from you in post 32. Yet you didn't say pathfidner out sales/rivals DnD sales?

There's a big "maybe" planted in the middle of that quote. Deliberately so. I wouldn't dream of claiming I know either's sales figures.

Fallstorm · May 6, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
No one is saying pathfinder outsold D&D, just that it is competing against it and 4e was less of a success than anticipated.

I think this is very wishful thinking. This probably isn't the place to rehash the old 4e sales debate. But saying 3.5 and 5e are at all equivelant just doesn't hold for me. In fact it was clearly given the .5 designation because it was little more than a tune up designed to sell more books. The edition itself was popular and being played, but they wanted to squeeze more profit out of the line (and by all accounts I have seen 3.5 was planned from a very early stage).

You can't ignore pathfinder. It is a huge success. It is arguable challenging D&D's superiority. The last time anything like this occured was when White Wolf emerged in the 90s. You can cut the evidence up however you like. In my mind there is too much evidence at this point to say 4E was a commercial success or that 5e isn't coming early because of 4e's performance and pathfinder's ascendance. I don't have that much inside information (i am sure morrus has more than me) but from my little nook of the world as a small publisher I hear from people all the time that 4e hasn't been doing as well as expected. I also kept hearing that their efforts to stem the bleeding with stuff like essentials just made the problem worse by splitting the customer base further and confusing new potential customers (mostly this was from store owners). I think they they got rid of Slavicsek and Heinsoo, then the pathdfinder numbers came out, and finally the announcement of 5E, it was pretty clear what was going on.

I will also say I was skeptical of this concusion for a while. It wasn't until they let go of slavicsek that I started to think 4e wasn't a success (i believe morrus was equally cautious up to about the time 5e itself was announced---his posts on the pathfinder sales versus 4e sales certainly seemed to indicate that). I was no fan of 4e but I didn't begrudge it its success. And frankly the fact that it isn't succesful bodes ill for what I want: a return to something more like 2E or 3E. Sure, 4e's failure means they will try to go back to some earlier recipes, but the heavy split also means the next iteration of the game could be equally short lived. So it isn't like I just really want 4e to fail and am trying to push that conclusion on the evidence. I genuined think the evidence is very clear at this stage.

I am in no way ignoring Pathfinders success. Nor do I have a problem with the success of Pathfinder. I think the more successful games there are out there the industry as a whole prospers including DnD. I believe that in Morrus post of the sales figures the people who reported Pathfidner out pacing DnD themselves said this included what they saw of book sales only and not things like DnD Insider subscriptions (which just about every DnD 4E player I know has an Insider account), card sales, board games sales, etc which is all part of the DnD franchise. Likewise I don't believe the report was hard report because if I recall it wasn't inclusive of all retailers which would show total sales of Paizo vs total sales of DnD.

I think DnD 3.5 was not planned. I think it was in response to the unforeseen problems noted via such spells as Haste allowing two spells per round and other mechanical issues. 3.5 touched up all the splat books and so forth, where as Essentials just gave other options and in the games I play some people play E-classes right along side people who play veteran classes, but you couldn't use the 3rd edition psionic class and the 3.5 psion class together so there was a substantive difference between the two.

Also, like I said, it was on this page that some designer said around five years is the market standard. Pathfinder hit around 2009 so in a few years we will see if they put out a new book. Also, the trend with which other very well selling rpgs release editions would seem to indicate this. L5R is on it's fourth edition and it came out in the mid-1990's. Green Ronin's Mutants and Mastermind's which just came out last decade and supposedly sales well is on its 3rd iteration so that does seem to be the norm. The only time DnD deviated from this was with 1st edition and 2E when in all honestly there was no real market for RPGs other than DnD for a long period of those years.

Bedrockgames · May 6, 2012

Fallstorm said:
Morrus, has been clear, but he has not defined the length that should be given to each spell and in fact it has been somewhat of a moving goal post, and I say that respectfully. Also looking back through the posts it seems some post may have been added to/edited since initially posting (but not sure on this). Still, I think the questions being asked are more than fair and non-acerbic, and some perceptions just don't seem to hold true (like the amount of space given to powers in the 4E PHB vs. what is given to spell descriptions in the 3.5 PHB).

He was very explicit when you asked him to be. He even said, perhaps jokingly, 3.75 paragraphs as the ideal length of a spell description.

I don't have an issue with you raising questions about the number of spells and their length due to page count considerations ( obviously i disagree with your conclusions but the question is fair). But insisting that Morrus is being at all unclear or moving goal posts seems a bit odd to me.

I don't know what you are implying about edits. The only time I have edited my posts was moments after making them to add points of clarification (largely because there is a pattern of holding people to every single word they type on this thread).

You claiim I don't pay attention to what the anti-4e camp wants? Do you pay attention to what the anti 3.5/Pathfinder camp wants? Klaus, gave an example of what a spell description should read like in DnD Next and I stated that I would be satisfied with that and thought it was an excellent example (overall) of what I consider to be enought fluff and mechancis mixed together. So you should have a clear gauge of what I consider to be the standard.

I never accused you of failing to pay attention. I said if one pays attention then their critique of the game is clear.

I do listen to the other side. in fact I think I make a point of telling them they have every right to their preference and simply say where I disagree. I understand what you want and think what you want is fair. But it isn't what I want.

Your standard seems to the the 3.5 3 paragraphs for fricking fireball or else standard. I am compromising. It is the 3.5/Pathfinder crowd that I have found in my experience to be the most dogmatic on ideals.

Then you haven't been paying attention to my posts. i am a 2e fan. Have made a point of using 2e as a model multiple times here. 3e I can live with am not in love with. I want prose that reads like the 2e books.

Witness Monte Cook's insistence than Vancian be the only spell casting option available in DnD next. Then a Legends & Lore poll showed an equal number of people wanted a power system for spell casters, so they release another poll stating something along the lines of "Well we seem to have an unclear response so if you had to choose one casting model which one (paraphrasing) and guess what the poll came back not that different, and they released something about the polls be shocking and showing them that they needed to include a power style caster or something that mimics it in the core module options, but the fact that Monte even found this shockign shocks me. YOu can go on Youtube and watch when 4E was announced at Gen Con years ago, and watch the reaction of the crowd when Chris Perkins said they are doing away with Vancian magic. There was applause and cheers throughout the room so why should this be shocking to someone? It is shocking only if you are locked into a "3.5 or else" view of gaming.

There is a lot in here and I am not going to touch the cook comment or legends and lore. But on the subject of vancian. I get that some people don't like it. I don't think you an use a wotc forum poll as a good gauge because most of the members probably play 4e. If i had to guess I would say it is probably 30 % against vancian 70% for right now. Bt that is just a guess. That does mean to keep the thirty percent you need an alternative. But it also means vancian is quite popular and regarded by many as a D&D staple. Personally I would like to see the old vancian spell entries back in the book. Bt I don't know the best solution around the split. Seems pretty challenging to me to satisfy both camps so I won't hold WOTC's decision against them. All I can do is say what the game needs to look like for me to be interested in buying it.

Bedrockgames · May 6, 2012

Fallstorm said:
I
. The only time DnD deviated from this was with 1st edition and 2E when in all honestly there was no real market for RPGs other than DnD for a long period of those years.

1e and 2e cover twenty years together. The deviation arguably begins with 3.5 (at least for the major D&D line). But that was still an update.

And there is lots of evidence 3.5 was planned. Monte cook argued that it was planned form almost the beginning. Whether it was or not, i just don't think there is much of a comparison between the shift from 3.0 to 3.5 and 4E to Next.

Sunseeker · May 6, 2012

I honestly don't care which way they go provided
A: The rules are clear.
B: The text is concise.
C: The language is modern.

I have no interest in spending my gaming sessions attempting to interpret every rule, or having to read a novel to understand my spells, nor read it written in Olde English.

Morrus · May 6, 2012

Fallstorm said:
I believe that in Morrus post of the sales figures.

I didn't post any sales figures. I don't have any.

And I agree that, for you, stat blocks are the way forward.

Fallstorm · May 6, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
He was very explicit when you asked him to be. He even said, perhaps jokingly, 3.75 paragraphs as the ideal length of a spell description.

I don't have an issue with you raising questions about the number of spells and their length due to page count considerations ( obviously i disagree with your conclusions but the question is fair). But insisting that Morrus is being at all unclear or moving goal posts seems a bit odd to me.

I don't know what you are implying about edits. The only time I have edited my posts was moments after making them to add points of clarification (largely because there is a pattern of holding people to every single word they type on this thread).

I never accused you of failing to pay attention. I said if one pays attention then their critique of the game is clear.

I do listen to the other side. in fact I think I make a point of telling them they have every right to their preference and simply say where I disagree. I understand what you want and think what you want is fair. But it isn't what I want.

Then you haven't been paying attention to my posts. i am a 2e fan. Have made a point of using 2e as a model multiple times here. 3e I can live with am not in love with. I want prose that reads like the 2e books.

There is a lot in here and I am not going to touch the cook comment or legends and lore. But on the subject of vancian. I get that some people don't like it. I don't think you an use a wotc forum poll as a good gauge because most of the members probably play 4e. If i had to guess I would say it is probably 30 % against vancian 70% for right now. Bt that is just a guess. That does mean to keep the thirty percent you need an alternative. But it also means vancian is quite popular and regarded by many as a D&D staple. Personally I would like to see the old vancian spell entries back in the book. Bt I don't know the best solution around the split. Seems pretty challenging to me to satisfy both camps so I won't hold WOTC's decision against them. All I can do is say what the game needs to look like for me to be interested in buying it.

Bedrock,

Morrus, has not stated how long a spell description should be. Is it a few sentences plus some mechanics like he originally told me or is it the 3 paragraphs for a fireball that he agreed with you on? Would he be happy with a 3 paragraph hard cap on spells? I get he prefers prose to stat blocks. I understand that, but that is hardly specific.

On the success of 3.5 vs. 4E and DnD Next….Well, WOTC (I believe specifically Andy Collin and Mike Mearls) when 3.5 was released talking about why it was needed and how certain spells like Haste had to be revamped because casting two spells in a round had a much bigger impact than a fighter getting an extra swing so that doesn’t sound too planned to me, but as you stated this you are not a WOTC insider and neither am I, so this is turning into a who killed Jimmy Hoffa argument, and as with all those arguments only the people in the know know and since we are not in the know the argument is fruitless.

That being said, and to turn the discussion fruitful I am a long time gamer who is firmly in the 4E camp and you are a long time gamer firmly in the 1E/2E camp. Klaus gave an example of what he felt a spell description in DnD Next should be like. Myself as a 4E fans was satisfied with it. How about you? As a 1E/2E fan if you opened DnD Next and saw spells laid out as Klaus did his version of Sleep would it be enough for you to give the game a chance?

Now, as far as Vancian magic, I will actually concede with you that a poll on WOTC website is biased because it contains a majority of 4E players but even on teh Enworld poll running recently on Vancian magic while statistically the number of people wanting Vancian appears to be the highest at 36.5 percent. That number is deceiving 9% hate Vancian and think it is old school, 24% think it should not be the baseline of the game but included at as option for those want to play it, and 25 % think it should be the baseline but with feats included to make it more flexible so so while 37% is for Vancian, 34% are against Vancian (the 9% and 24% who don't want it as the baseline) and 25% want it modiifed so actually the majority do not want Vancian as the baseline mechanic and I would say on this page most people who play here are PF fans. Like I said, people complained about Vancian long before 4E and if you watch the full release of 4E on sites Youtube when Chris Perkins stated Vancian magic would not be a part of 4E the response was overwhelming positive from the audience.