Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

[Imaro]

I know anecdotal evidence isn't, but I play in two 4e games (and no Pathfinder games), and have used Essentials material in both of them. In one, all the characters except one use an Essentials build. In the other, one character occasionally uses an Essentials build.

It's probably achieved a deeper penetration with my groups than, say, Martial Power II has. And the players have bought books! And not DDI accounts!

I'm pretty on-record as being an Essentials fan, however. I think the problem came in when some vocal 4e fans decided things like the ADEU power structure was sacrosanct across all classes in all cases (except psionics?), for reasons I still don't clearly understand. Essentials wasn't going to sell to current 4e Trufans very much. And then it was followed with months of little to no product, and people started freaking out...

And, of course, now Mearls's articles aren't putting anyone's fears at ease.

I will say this, I too was an Essentials fan (I even kept my Essentials books when I gave away the rest of my 4e books to my brother)... however I did get a little ticked off at the way the magic item rarity system was never really completed, and that there were no multi-classsing rules (now we have them but they are incomplete and not in the actual books), as well as the way it seemed they purposefully left stuff out (Fall and Winter sentinel druids... I'm talking about you ) in order to supplement it in Dragon (which would have been fine but marketing led me to believe that Essentials was going to be a stand alone evergreen product and some/much of that material to round it out has been glacially slow in coming (Weapon support for the Slayer other than staff).

I think those were some of my biggest beefs with Essentials, it felt unfinished and honestly as time progressed the way the rounding out of the material was handled by WotC soured me on it.

 

[jimmifett]

Ack! And I bet Gary Gygax's cat is a seriously old school cat. How many commoners and sacred cows will it slay in creating 5e?

That depends on whether or not it is being observed...

 

[JoeGKushner]

But when though? Paizo is finishing up its 8th adventure path. They have produced a metric ton of adventures....neither of which seems even remotely reaching saturation point. Their producing a slower rate of books for the actual game which helps alot to stave off saturation.

To me, this seems a no-brainer.

Quit making things for people to make characters and focus on things for people to play the game.

Revising the rules, making expansions and selections and tweaking it ad infinitum, is not going to make people play more and after you're tenth book of Heroes of Twinke, you're probably going to stop somewhere along the road and say, "enough."

But when you're playing? We all know that the conventional wisdom is that adventurers don't sell well, but apparently when you have Paizo's strong arm of talent and freelancers, you can build enough of a fan base to, as the old ST saying goes, "Make it so."

Paizo is not above rule bloat. The initial branch of trules is huge and the two hardcovers that cover Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic, as well as the Advanced Player's Guide and the third party support, prove that any game system can enjoy option bloat.

But at the end of the day, setting support and adventure support seem to be doing wonderings.

 

[Umbran]

Ack! And I bet Gary Gygax's cat is a seriously old school cat. How many commoners and sacred cows will it slay in creating 5e?

Housecats are only dangerous to commoners in 3e, so not many

 

[Ahnehnois]

To me, this seems a no-brainer.

Quit making things for people to make characters and focus on things for people to play the game.

For a small company like Paizo, focusing on adventures and settings makes sense. However, those products only target a niche of the market; they experience modest but consistent and persistent sales.

I don't think Paizo's business model would be successful for a WotC-sized company, because many gamers don't use published settings or adventures (and those that do have a huge variety to choose from beyond Golarion and Paizo's adventures or those of any one company). If Pathfinder were just a revised SRD with attached adventures and setting it would have lost most people's attention very quickly.

When certain people buy an rpg product, all they want is tools (rules). They want to use those tools themselves. Those people who focus on buying rulebooks are still important to the success of the industry. The APG was a huge step forward for the company that sold very well and brought a lot of attention to them (as the company said at their recent convention), increasing all their sales, and the ultimate books have done the same to a lesser degree.

I think a company that really wants to succeed in the rpg market has to do fluff and crunch. Paizo has been pretty successful in both, where WotC hasn't really made an effort to produce adventures and made a sketch of a setting for their game. That's the difference between the two companies (or a difference, depending on what you think of the respective rulesets and marketing strategies).

 

[JoeGKushner]

And yet this thread is an indication that Pathfinder as a RPG is outselling D&D.

And were it not, places like iCV2 indicate that it's almost always #2.

This seems a pretty sound business model.

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

I believe that adventures play a much bigger role beyond revenue; good adventures also create a shared experience, nostaligia, and act as a unifying force for the community. Good memories can be a powerful thing.

 

[carmachu]

I don't think Paizo's business model would be successful for a WotC-sized company, because many gamers don't use published settings or adventures (and those that do have a huge variety to choose from beyond Golarion and Paizo's adventures or those of any one company). If Pathfinder were just a revised SRD with attached adventures and setting it would have lost most people's attention very quickly.

I think that would depend though. Much of WotC's adventures were subpar in the 3.x era, or not nearly up to the quality of Paizos(something like red hand of doom, and perhaps the return to the temple of elemental evil in 3.5 as exceptions), so no I dont think wotc could survive.

But recall that TSR put out in its days tons of adventures, and did fairly well(their fall wasnt because of putting out adventures), many of which I think we can agree were classics.

So I dont think its so cut and dry as you might think. It would take serious work and effort, but it might be actually possible. Especially in 4e, which seems to have a void of really good adventures(but I'll admit that I dont have much experience with 4e advetures beyond the very beginning).

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I believe that adventures play a much bigger role beyond revenue; good adventures also create a shared experience, nostaligia, and act as a unifying force for the community. Good memories can be a powerful thing.

I can't XP you right now (maybe someone can cover me?)...



... but yes!

I remember adventures and worlds from earlier editions moreso than rules....

...the rules might matter, but the nostalgia comes from the experience - however crazy, imbalanced, wonderful or horrible it might have been.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But recall that TSR put out in its days tons of adventures, and did fairly well(their fall wasnt because of putting out adventures), many of which I think we can agree were classics.

As far as TSR, you have exceeded my knowledge; I'm a 3e player. I suppose I'm mildly curious as to how their business model compared wit the current examples.

I believe that adventures play a much bigger role beyond revenue; good adventures also create a shared experience, nostaligia, and act as a unifying force for the community. Good memories can be a powerful thing.

I have no doubt that is true for many people, nor that this is a good thing.

To provide a counterpoint, this is my experience. I've played/DMed for roughly 12 years. During that time, I've briefly played in just one published adventure. I suspect it was of decent quality, but trying to run a game based on someone else's ideas was a debacle. We've never gone back. When I started DMing, I never considered using any kind of published adventures or even published settings.

My campaigns were completely original. They started poor in quality, but I took feedback and did my own revisions very carefully. I started to plot for the gaming group, using their personal interests and what they wrote in their character backgrounds to generate story. We sat down to watch movies and TV shows together that I later based parts of my game on. My recently completed campaign was written specifically for my group, with one of my players sacrificing his character to save his wife's to help another character begin a n apocalypticquest that was concluded in a campaign set in the far future I ran years ago, all amid a sea of references and symbolism that no one else could ever get (and they didn't get half the time). There's no way my style of DMing could work with published adventures, and if I'd tried, I'm sure the depth and richness of some of our games would be lost. Moreso, I would not likely have kept playing, as D&D's most important function for me is as a creative outlet.

I suspect there are others like me.

All this goes to say that while I like Paizo as a company, the APG, Game Mastery Guide, and the Ultimate books are the only things I'd ever even consider buying from them. If they want business from my side of the community, they have to focus on regularly producing high-quality, original, playtested rules supplements. I don't begrudge them for spending money on producing adventures as well, that aspect of the company is simply irrelevant to me. Fortunately, Paizo is continuing to produce strong rules books.