Pathfinder 1E This is why pathfinder has been successful.

[Evenglare]

Vic Wertz (Technical Director) Dec 13, 2011, 09:18 PM

The real value of Paizo as a company is not in our rulebooks. Heck, we give the rules away for free, and anybody can drop them into their own book and sell them without even needing to consult us, much less pay us. We make money selling them, but as an actual asset, the rules themselves don't significantly add to the company's value.

As actual potential value goes, our setting and our stories are a far more important asset. Some of you have been around long enough to remember that the only reason we created the Pathfinder RPG in the first place is because Wizards stopped printing 3rd edition books, and we needed to have a rulebook in print to support our Adventure Path line.

The Adventure Path line is our bread and butter, and if I could get everyone to subscribe to one line, that would be the one. We want to sell more AP volumes, and we don't want to do anything that makes it less likely for players to buy one.

The APs need to be written for the full RPG. We need that broad range of characters, monsters, and player options to tell those stories. And that means that we need people to play the full RPG.

To be frank, the point of the Beginner Box is to bring new players to the full RPG, and to our Adventure Paths. So once people are comfortable with the basic concepts from the Beginner Box, we want them to move to the full RPG as soon as possible; anything we do that keeps them from migrating to the full RPG is therefore counterproductive to our goals, and a "Beginner Box II", whether that's adding options for Levels 1–5 or adding levels 6 and higher, works against that goal. The goal is teaching you the full game, not giving you a reason not to learn it, or a substitute for it.

Now, we *do* need to provide you tools that ease your migration to the full RPG, and that's where our focus will go with future efforts involving the Beginner Box.

The real value of Paizo as a company is not in our rulebooks. Heck, we give the rules away for free, and anybody can drop them into their own book and sell them without even needing to consult us, much less pay us. We make money selling them, but as an actual asset, the rules themselves don't significantly add to the company's value.

This is why wizards has not had much success. They focus on the rules and not the worlds, settings, and story lines that make this type of hobby great. D&D used to have all kinds of cool adventures, my personal favorite was the Dragonlance Modules. If they want to win back people they need to get back to the story elements of the game.

It pains me greatly that a 4th edition of Dragonlance didn't surface in any way other than a smattering of stats for some noteworthy dragons. They had a good idea with their Scales of War path. They kind of dropped the ball after that though. There was much wasted potential with the magazines. They could have detailed several campaign worlds, or stories but they just... didn't.

I'm happy with D&D 4 as a rule set, but the way it is implemented seems like they started retrofitting campaigns around this new rules set. It reminds me of... trying to drink from a fire hydrant. Forgotten Realms and Eberron were not done the justice they deserved. So many things felt forced by the rule set. They did a fantastic job with Dark Sun, disallowing divine power source and other things like that.

I dont know, I may be the only person who thinks this. Maybe not. Just my opinion of where things have gone, where we are now, and a way to imagine a future for our hobby.

 

[Crothian]

3e was a very successful game and it didn't focus on adventure or much on setting.

 

[haakon1]

If you're a Greyhawk fan, 3e had soul

I think 3e had some core WOTC adventures that are true classics, worthy succcessors to the TSR/AD&D era modules, in my view -- "The Sunless Citadel" and "The Standing Stones" are at the top of my list.

Initially, 3e also had a fair amount of Greyhawk setting built in.

And Paizo, of course, did some excellent adventures, including the first three adventure paths, all set in Greyhawk, until WOTC took Greyhawk back from Paizo (and the fans, IMHO).

 

[Reynard]

3e was a very successful game and it didn't focus on adventure or much on setting.

That seems a strange thing to say between the masses of support both Forgotten Realms and Eberron got, as well the extremely popular Paizo dragon magazine APs.

 

[JoeGKushner]

3e was a very successful game and it didn't focus on adventure or much on setting.

No, 3e was a very successful game because it allowed OTHER people to focus on adventure and setting. There are many settings, ranging from Arcanis to Iron Kingdoms to Arcana Evolved to Scarred Lands, to ones offs like Call of Cthulhu, Dragonlords of Melnibone, and dozens of others like Nymae, that it allowed WoTC to make rules.

Now mind you, I don't think that with all the material they put out for Eberron or the Forgotten Realms, or licensing out Gamma World, Dragonlance or Ravenloft, that we can honestly say that they didn't have some focus on the setting. Throw in the novels and well, we've got even more focus.

 

[The Human Target]

Kissing butt?


Kidding!


Also its pretty easy to give your game away for free when someone else already gave it to you for free.

 

[Crothian]

That seems a strange thing to say between the masses of support both Forgotten Realms and Eberron got, as well the extremely popular Paizo dragon magazine APs.

Are we talking about Piazo or are we talking about Wizards?

Two supported settings that was down form like a dozen one edition before is a huge cut back in settings.

 

[Crothian]

No, 3e was a very successful game because it allowed OTHER people to focus on adventure and setting. There are many settings, ranging from Arcanis to Iron Kingdoms to Arcana Evolved to Scarred Lands, to ones offs like Call of Cthulhu, Dragonlords of Melnibone, and dozens of others like Nymae, that it allowed WoTC to make rules.

Right, which is a completely different strategy then the one Pathfinder is currently using and the one true way according to the first post.

 

[Reynard]

Are we talking about Piazo or are we talking about Wizards?

Two supported settings that was down form like a dozen one edition before is a huge cut back in settings.

But that wasn't the supposition, nor was it the stated subject of your post. 3.x did in fact have a strong setting/story/adventure element as an aspect of its success.

Now, whether a less "story focused" nature of 4E can be counted as one of 4E's weaknesses, I don't know, but I think it is pretty clear that 3.x embraced both the rules and the "story" aspects of D&D.

 

[SteveC]

I'd say pretty much this: large numbers of high-quality adventures that fans pick up consistently to the tune of multiple purchases a month, that's a formula for success.

One of my good friends is a big Pathfinder fan, and he had me over the other weekend. He has pretty much everything that's out since the beta days. In looking at the pile of product I was amazed at how much stuff they've put out. The idea that you don't make money on adventures is ... misguided.