Pathfinder 1E Ryan Dancey Predicts Pathfinder RPG in '06

[Glyfair]

Now I haven't seen these polls and no link was provided, so going now hat I read right here, it sounds like 2/3 like 4E and 1/3 don't. The other poll says 2/3 of the people are attached enough to the name to not switch if they called it something else (ex. "Killing Stuff and Taking Its Loot' by WotC). I can understand being atatched to the name, and really, if it wasn't called D&D it would NOT be D&D anymore

And don't underestimate the factor of a poorly worded poll. I'm aware of several polls that I didn't vote on because I felt they were poorly constructed, not allowing me to accurately portray my opinion.

There are a lot of polls people tend to post that have two extreme options (often just "Yes" or "No") when a majority of gamers fall in the middle ("it depends on how it meets these criteria"). At least one regular poster here was notorious for refusing to give a middle ground option. Some will vote closest to their opinion, but a lot won't vote at all.

 

[GAAAHHH]

We should have a new poll. One option is for people who vote in polls, and the other option is for people who don't...

 

[BryonD]

3/3-2/3=1/3 NOT livestock. That certainly appears to be calling everyone moving to 4E livestock, which I find offensive.

You got the wrong math.

He was responding to this:

We have had one poll stating that roughly 2/3 of the people participating are going to 4e. We have also had a poll in which roughly 2/3 of the people participating said that they would not switch if the new game was not named DND.

There is no telling exactly how those two groups overlap. But if a full 2/3 of the 2/3 switching would change their mind and not switch for no reason other than the name, then 44% would be sheep. I think it is safe to assume that less than 100% of these groups match and roll it back to a 1/3 ballpark.

You are getting offended over your own assessment, not anything anyone else said.

 

[hong]

My comment was more a general observation than a specific one. The origin was the reference to 2/3rds of a poll saying the name D&D mattered so much that if you gave a completely different system the name D&D they would play it just because of that name. And a similar percentage would not play D&D if you renamed it to give the name D&D to another game.

I was just remarking that it reinforced my observation that relatively few people act like humans rather than livestock with thumbs.

... you're the furry, right?

 

[SSquirrel]

How can I getting the math wrong when he said only 1/3 are not livestock? Conveniently, 1/3 is the amount not going to 4E or following the D&D brand if it went on top of a completely different system. I don't know any other way I should be able to take the comment.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

We're all missing the point. Pathfinder won't be 4E's major competition. PF is a bandaged version of an older edition. WotC needs to worry about a wholly new, vibrant and different game. I don't know the name of it yet, but I bet it's something similar to WoW and, perhaps, 4E.

I don't think so. It may not be Pathfinder, it may be True 20, or some other D20 derived game like SpyCraft or Mutants & Masterminds repackaged into a more generic or FRPG friendly form, or all of the above plus more, but 4Ed's stiffest competition will be some form of the D20/3.X/OGL installed base.

The #1 correlation between a product's success (any product) is being first to market. If you're the first person or company to tap into satisfying a need or desire, you have a significant advantage.

Not that you don't have to do other things to ensure continued success...

Here, we may be seeing a competition between #1s.

D&D is the established brand name, the King Kong/Godzilla/Robin Hood/Superman/Dolomite/Samuel L. Jackson of RPG brand names. That's a good part of why it was able to rebound after its decline between the end of 2Ed and the advent of 3.X. Its kind of like how Coke lost market share to Pepsi, but never quite lost its grip on the market as a whole.

WotC's 3.X revision, clever marketing and their OGL tactic made the brand even stronger in some ways than ever before. D&D 3.X is unquestionably the most popular pencil & paper RPG out there.

And now they've created a new version of the game that, in all honesty, isn't to the liking of everyone in their established base. To continue the soft drink analogy- they may have just created New Coke.

New Coke had its upsides and fierce fans...but not as many as Coke had hoped. Eventually, Coke Classic (the original formula) was released...and then they dropped "Classic" and New Coke- while still available- is nearly extinct, and is now sold as Coke 2.

In the war between Coke and New Coke, the market worked to prove that the original was what most people wanted.

Just like that, in time, the market will tell us whether the name "D&D" attached to 4Ed will supplant the popularity of 3.X in the marketplace.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

The OGL is gone, to be replaced by the GSL. I don't even need to know what the GSL will entail to observe that they have walked away from the OGL. They've actually very specifically reversed their position on it.

However, it's still available as a license. It's not the license applicable to the current ruleset.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My comment was more a general observation than a specific one. The origin was the reference to 2/3rds of a poll saying the name D&D mattered so much that if you gave a completely different system the name D&D they would play it just because of that name. And a similar percentage would not play D&D if you renamed it to give the name D&D to another game.

I was just remarking that it reinforced my observation that relatively few people act like humans rather than livestock with thumbs.

But did you also look at the details? I remember some people saying they probably wouldn't have picked it up without the brand name since it would probably not as well advertised on these boards or anywhere else, so even if it was a great system, they'd miss it due to practical reasons. That doesn't make them "sheep". At worst, it means they are "vision-impaired", since they're unable to notice all of the games out there.

I didn't pick up any of the Storyteller games, because I hear very little about it here, and otherwise, the few negative comments I heard about it make me less interested in it. If all I knew about a game it was "hack & slash" and "dungeon crawling all the time", I suppose I wouldn't be that interested in it, if I already got 3E D&D.

 

[Jackelope King]

The part that makes even less sense about all this is that, assuming this was correct, around the time they would be releasing the Pathfinder RPG in August 2009 they would maybe be switching to 4E. So the development of the PFRPG would just be something to keep people busy really, which doesn't make sense. If they go thru w/the PFRPG, we likely won't see Paizo 4E Adventure Paths until at least GenCon 2010. This doesn't count Necromancer Games 4E APs as Paizo is the publisher not the designer in that case.

Re-checking the dates Paizo has released so far, I think you're correct. However, I honestly do expect them to be supporting 4e as soon as it's feasable for them to do so. Right now? I understand that Paizo can't commit, and will make significant short-term gains by appealing to 3.5 fans. However, I don't think it's a good long-term strategy, for the reasons I noted above.

 

[King of Old School]

I am really excited about Pathfinder. I have been hoping for a Pathfinder-type RPG from Paizo for years. I will certainly be buying it when it hits the shelves (something that is not true of 4e, although I will buy the 3 cores eventually). That said...

When Pathfinder completely and utterly fails to capture more than a small fraction of 4e's sales, can we all finally accept that Ryan Dancey's industry prognostications have been almost unanimously wrong and therefore stop talking about them as though they have any credibility? Thanks.

KoOS