Pathfinder 1E D&D and Pathfinder tied for first place on ICv2 Q3 RPG sales list

[Nifft]

1st - I agree that a strong D&D game/brand is good for the hobby. However, I also submit that a strong Pathfinder brand is good for the hobby as well.

I'll go further and say that lots of people playing games is good for the hobby, and who cares what in specific they're playing right now.

"(...) Why it's not easy being the 800 lb. gorilla. (...)"

Not if you want to fly Economy it isn't.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Stormonu]

Mercurius, I think you are trying to argue the equivalence of "if there isn't a Coke, then Pepsi (or RC cola or other soft drinks) could never survive," and I would argue that is fundamentally flawed.

 

[Votan]

I agree 100%. Which is why you will see us making a big push to create a better "gateway drug" for Pathfinder next year. Right now, the core rulebook and APG are very intimidating for new players. Heck, I've been playing for almost 30 years, and I am intimidated by the size of the rules. But have no fear, we will be fixing this issue for new players next year.

-Lisa

I think that this will be a highly positive thing.

Pathfinder is a nice product (and the adventures are pure genius) but I must admit that I would make many mistakes at the gaming table (just due to te volume of rules) if I did not have such sharp players!

 

[Mercurius]

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Actually, I don't protest at all. Methinks thou dost misinterpret my tone. Azgulor, no offense but you come across as a Pathfinder fan looking for 4Editionists to pick fights with. First of all, I'm not partisan to either camp; I play 4E, but I like Pathfinder and don't have either an allegiance to WotC or a dislike of Paizo (or vice versa). So if you want to turn me into (another) 4E foe for you to bicker with, I'm not interested.

I just wanted to get that on the table before responding further.

Don't worry, the PFRPG was never released with the intention of "dethroning" 4e. Paizo's RPG was designed to support the APs, modules, & Golarion. The collective whole is designed to (from what I've gleaned from Paizo posts):
A) Make the company as profitable & successful as possible
B) Please, retain, & grow their customers
C) Provide a vehicle for Paizo staff to create the adventures, campaigns, settings, & rules that they enjoy.

Now if, in the pursuit of goals A-C it just so happens that Pathfinder supplants D&D as the world's most popular RPG, that's some big time bonus points.

Yes, I'm sure it would be for some. But how would it impact the hobby as a whole? That's my question, and one I don't have a firm answer to - my above post was mainly an ad hoc contemplation.

My main contention, which I'm happy to be wrong about, is that if D&D tanks it is not good for Pathfinder or the hobby as a whole. Why? Because it becomes isolated from getting new players, it becomes even more ghetto-ified than it already is. The best hope for the hobby to reach out and open its doors to new players, or to regain "retired" players, is through D&D. Imagine a 42-year old man shopping in Target, seeing the new Red Box on display and thinking, "I remember playing that game in junior high. $20? I'll pick that up and play it with the kids!" I don't as much see that same guy stopping to look at the Pathfinder starter set, or at least there is less of a chance.

Final aside: I play Pathfinder, not D&D. If WotC dropped D&D tomorrow, Paizo bought the naming rights & suddenly said that Pathfinder was going to be re-branded D&D, I'd be pissed. Pathfinder as a brand, has far more value to me and my players than D&D at this point.

Why? Why does the name matter so much to you? Or perhaps more to the point, what pisses you off about D&D?

Creating Pathfinder was a risk, and it seems to have paid for itself a hundred fold. While forging new roads into name recognition might have some risk, I think the Paizo entrepreneurs are more than willing to put the risk in place, especially as they get more popular.

Well I honestly hope that they succeed! I have a lot of respect for Paizo as a company and purchase quite a few of their products. That said, I hope that they exercise some caution and don't be too ambitious.

1st - I agree that a strong D&D game/brand is good for the hobby. However, I also submit that a strong Pathfinder brand is good for the hobby as well.

Agreed.

2nd - I'm NOT saying that you're taking the position I'm about to portray below, nor am I saying this reflects the feelings of either publisher towards each other. I'm just stuck with the following mental image & find it funny:

Foghorn Leghorn wearing a WotC t-shirt while the brainy little chick with glasses is wearing a Paizo t-shirt.

"I'm telling you son, you don't want to be the publisher of the world's most popular RPG. No sir. That's a lot of responsibility, ya hear? Look at me when I'm talking to you, son. Why it's not easy being the 800 lb. gorilla. Now move along son, you're bothering me..."

At the risk of taking this too seriously, I think this illustrates why some folks have a thing against WotC and D&D in general: it is the big bad daddy figure, the Evil Empire, the Corporate Masters, the Aboleth Overlords, etc.

I am not saying this sort of mentality is behind people playing Pathfinder, or that Paizo caters to the victim mentality--not at all--but that the extreme ire that many people feel towards WotC could be related to this kind of thing. It is a form of psychological projection, really. WotC is the 800 lb Gorilla therefore it is the bad guy.

I'll go further and say that lots of people playing games is good for the hobby, and who cares what in specific they're playing right now.

Yes, true. But that's not my point.

Mercurius, I think you are trying to argue the equivalence of "if there isn't a Coke, then Pepsi (or RC cola or other soft drinks) could never survive," and I would argue that is fundamentally flawed.

Actually, that analogy doesn't work at all and misses the point I'm trying to make. Pathfinder isn't Pepsi because people who don't drink cola know what Pepsi is, while people who don't play RPGs think Pathfinder is an SUV. But everyone has heard of D&D*. Maybe not everyone, but tens, maybe hundreds, of millions of non-gamers.

To put it another way, Pathfinder's potential market is mainly already established gamers, and maybe a few lapsed gamers. Narrowing it further, their core market is dissatisfied D&D players that don't like 4E and/or satisfied 3.5E players who want more. It is certainly possible that Pathfinder could create a starter set that they could put in Barnes & Noble and gradually build a larger fan base, but it would be difficult. Heck, WotC has been trying to tap into the non-gamer market for years and hasn't had much success, at least not since 3E came out.

But the potential market for Dungeons & Dragons is much larger. It is not only already established gamers, but the millions of lapsed gamers (mainly 1E and 2E D&D players) and the tens of millions of non-gamers that might enjoy a game of combat tactics, fantasy stories, and imagination. It is not that Pathfinder couldn't offer this -- it could, and quite well -- but that no one knows what it is.

Please understand: This has nothing to do with the merits, or lack thereof, of either D&D or Pathfinder. It has everything to do with name recognition. In other words, I am making no value judgment with regards to either game, which is "better," etc. I play 4E because, as was the case in 1999 when I heard of 3E coming out, I had been on a hiatus from gaming for a few years and, after catching wind of 4E, my interest was perked (in other words, I was one of those lapsed gamers I mentioned).

Anyhow, I picked up the books, liked most of what I saw (and disliked a fair amount too), started a group and have been playing for the last year and a half. I don't play Pathfinder because, for one, the core rulebook came out after my campaign had started--although I do own it, plus the Gamemastery Guide, the world book, and over a dozen Chronicles--and I am generally satisfied with 4E. I had also played 3.x for a few years from 2000 to 2004 and wanted to try something new. (There are other, more specific reasons for why I haven't "converted" but it isn't as relevant to this conversation).

My point being, I have no special allegiance to either game, nor particular ire for either company. I tend to like what I see from Paizo as a company more; they have more of a "company of the people" vibe that I appreciate, and don't have the orporate patina that WotC has (yet). In other words, I'm not a rabid fan of either "team," to go back to someone's sports analogy and, quite frankly, I find the whole Paizo vs. WotC thing rather silly. What I am interested in is discussing the larger picture.

*NOTE: Now if we want to talk about the negative impact of that name brand, that's another issue - and definitely an issue.

 

[BryonD]

But everyone has heard of D&D*. Maybe not everyone, but tens, maybe hundreds, of millions of non-gamers.

I think your * is very important. And, beyond the pluses and minuses, I think you are over-rating the importance of simple brand recognition. I agree it is important, but it is far from a do or die situation. Dominant brands are over-taken all the time.

To put it another way, Pathfinder's potential market is mainly already established gamers, and maybe a few lapsed gamers. Narrowing it further, their core market is dissatisfied D&D players that don't like 4E and/or satisfied 3.5E players who want more. It is certainly possible that Pathfinder could create a starter set that they could put in Barnes & Noble and gradually build a larger fan base, but it would be difficult. Heck, WotC has been trying to tap into the non-gamer market for years and hasn't had much success, at least not since 3E came out.

I don't think this assessment is accurate. I agree that converting non-gamers to gamers is very difficult. Hell, I've made the point before that not everyone is a potential gamer. Some who has never heard of gaming can be a potential gamer or no-chance whatsoever, just based on their personality.

But, that aside, the idea that only lapsed D&D players are prospective PF players is just way off base.

In my game alone I've picked up three new players this year. They are all gamers, but none of them were D&D fans, but all three are now raving about Pathfinder. Sure, it is a personal anecdote, but three in one group seems like a wild statistical anomaly. Or, perhaps your presumption is just way off.


Your are basing your position on the presumption that one unchanging name brand beacon is of critical importance. That is just wrong.

 

[billd91]

Given that the dominant gaming group is Generation X (born in the 60s and 70s), this core should remain relatively stable for the next ten, maybe twenty, years. Beyond that, who knows. But the next largest generation, "Gen Y" (born in the 80s and 90s) is not nearly as big, and the third, the Boomers (born in the 40s and 50s) isn't getting any younger.

I think your generational analysis here is fatally flawed. Generation Y is much larger than Gen X, also known as the Baby Busters, the generation born in the trough between the booms.

 

[Mercurius]

I think your * is very important. And, beyond the pluses and minuses, I think you are over-rating the importance of simple brand recognition. I agree it is important, but it is far from a do or die situation. Dominant brands are over-taken all the time.

Yes, true. But again, I think my point is being missed. Pathfinder could conceivably over-take D&D within the industry, but barring decades of time and/or something so out of the usual realm of possibility as to be inconceivable (couldn't resist) it will never have the name-brand recognition of D&D outside of the industry. Does this matter? Yes, I think it does.

I don't think this assessment is accurate. I agree that converting non-gamers to gamers is very difficult. Hell, I've made the point before that not everyone is a potential gamer. Some who has never heard of gaming can be a potential gamer or no-chance whatsoever, just based on their personality.

But, that aside, the idea that only lapsed D&D players are prospective PF players is just way off base.

In my game alone I've picked up three new players this year. They are all gamers, but none of them were D&D fans, but all three are now raving about Pathfinder. Sure, it is a personal anecdote, but three in one group seems like a wild statistical anomaly. Or, perhaps your presumption is just way off.

Your are basing your position on the presumption that one unchanging name brand beacon is of critical importance. That is just wrong.

I didn't say "only" lapsed D&D players but "mainly already established gamers, and maybe a few lapsed gamers." It is my view that D&D--because of its name--simply has more potential to re-gather the "flock", so to speak. As far as finding new "converts," that may be a different thing. I don't see anyone, WotC or Paizo, doing what it takes to truly make a game that is marketable to the masses.

But to be honest, I don't think D&D will succeed at greatly expanding the industry because, even with the Red Box, they have not managed to create a truly good intro game. The Red Box is a big improvement but it is, like many WotC D&D products, deeply flawed. It is a trailer of D&D, really, rather than a primer. It needs to be both. It needs to be complete in and of itself for at least five levels.

What I feel WotC just doesn't get--even after almost four decades of RPG history--is just how difficult it is for non-gamers to even get to the point of trying a game like D&D, not to mention penetrating the rules. This is why most new players are brought in by others; RPGs are a ghetto and require a steep learning curve.

I am reminded of the problem of a techy type trying to talk about computers with a non-techy type; they almost always don't get that the non-techy type will not understand 99% of what they are saying. The same goes for not only gamers trying to communicate D&D, but the way the books are presented and, perhaps even more so, the complexity of the rules.

I work at a private high school and when I explain what D&D/RPGs are about, most kids--many of whom you would never think would be interested--are quite curious. But most of them are, or would be, turned off by the density of the rules, the corniness of much of the art, and the general "in-speak" that dominates geek culture as a whole (not everyone thinks Monty Python is the height of comedy).

I could be wrong, but I think roleplaying games have much vaster potential than anyone has seriously dreamed of. If we open up what a "roleplaying game" is to something broader and look at what it is in essence: an interactive story and a means by which imagination is exercised. The latter is what it has that World of Warcraft doesn't, can't simply by virtue of its nature. Think of the educational possibilities! (e.g. I am actually going to be teaching a World Building course to juniors and seniors in the Winter).

Bringing it back to D&D, I think one approach that might work is to bifurcate the game between a simple, "basic" game and a more complex "advanced" game. But not like the old BECMI/AD&D streams that were essentially mutually exclusive, but two versions of the same game, fully compatible and modular. The "Red Box" should be all basic - just a very simple game without all the complexities that we game nerds love. No feats, no complex power or spell structures, only a few skills, etc. Just a bare-bones game that anyone can quickly learn over the course of an evening. Then from there you have endless possible options - advanced rules options, genre and theme options, setting books, etc. But that basic, core game could be played by just about anyone; it could be pulled out for family board game night instead of Monopoly.

Now WotC seems to be trying to market more to the mainstream, not just with the Essentials (which doesn't go nearly far enough, imo) but also these new D&D board games. We'll see how they do but I imagine it won't be anything awe-inspiring. I really think that they need to go simpler; they need a new basic core game, which would, yes, form the basis of 5ed. And if it were simple enough, it could provide a solid foundation, or stepping stone, to just about anything.


But I've gotten way off topic!

 

[Mercurius]

I think your generational analysis here is fatally flawed. Generation Y is much larger than Gen X, also known as the Baby Busters, the generation born in the trough between the booms.

"Fatally flawed?" Holy hyperbole, Batman!

But you misunderstand. I'm not talking about the size of the generations, but the number of gamers within those generations. I could be wrong, but my guess is that more Gen Xers are, or have been, RPGers than Gen Yers. Maybe this has changed, I don't know. But it is a known fact that the height of popularity for D&D was in the early-to-mid 80s when Gen Y wasn't yet in grade school, so I think if we broaden our view to say "all human beings who have ever played a roleplaying game," then Gen X is by far the most prominent.

 

[Azgulor]

Actually, I don't protest at all. Methinks thou dost misinterpret my tone. Azgulor, no offense but you come across as a Pathfinder fan looking for 4Editionists to pick fights with. First of all, I'm not partisan to either camp; I play 4E, but I like Pathfinder and don't have either an allegiance to WotC or a dislike of Paizo (or vice versa). So if you want to turn me into (another) 4E foe for you to bicker with, I'm not interested.

I just wanted to get that on the table before responding further.

Then you're not reading my posts.

This thread started out as a "Wow that surprised me" & "congrats to Paizo" post. It quickly devolved into "If PF wins, 4e must lose" & "any data that suggests PF is doing well must be suspect". I've long advocated that both sides of the Edition Wars won by having in-print games available to play.

I also find it highly hypocritical that you can say the D&D brand is the best way for the hobby to thrive & that Paizo should think carefully before "risking" going for market share on par with WotC & then call me a fanboy while claiming neutrality. I seem to recall a large # of pro-4e threads a few weeks back all initiated by you. Guess I missed all the pro-PF threads you initiated.

And honestly, even if you are a 4e fanboy, I don't care. Enjoy your game. I'm enjoying mine. I just get tired of the double-standard. If I'd jumped in with a post saying WotC was doing something questionable (like say, making unsubtantiated claims about sales numbers as was levied at Lisa Stevens), you can bet your backside I'd have a ton of people crying foul and throwing digs my way.

If you'd said, "a prosperous D&D game & prosperous PF game is healthy for the hobby" I'd have had ZERO issue with your post. Apply your indignation equally or save it.

 

[gamerprinter]

Though I have no idea on level cut-off, Paizo is currently (just started) working on their own 'red box' - don't know if it will be boxed edition or not, a kind of Pathfinder Basic. Talk is something like 5th or 6th level, limited spell list, limited feat list, removal of odd feats, and a starter adventure all in a single book.

The point is Paizo might just produce what WotC's 'red box' should have been, targetting the same potential customers at the same box stores. Paizo has announced this will be a product for next year.

Also note this has been in the plans for a long time, it not a knee jerk reaction to compete with Essentials, but curiously follows a similar path.

Again not with D&D brand recognition, but doing the right kind of entry game could do wonders with taking Pathfinder out of the 'known only to the 3x generation' and make it larger known RPG brand.

GP