Would Paizo Make a Better Steward for Our Hobby?

[Olgar Shiverstone]

It would be nice to see Iquander publishing for Greyhawk again.

It would be nice to see anyone talented publishing for Greyhawk again.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Whether it's WotC, Paizo, or anyone else: our hobby isn't unified to any degree, which is a big problem to any publishing company. So what could they publish for "the" game? How to reach sales numbers high enough to support a company? And how to do so for years without selling a new edition?

Stat-less books? Background only? A meta system from which to derive the stats for your favourite incarnation of "the" game?

This is why I think you need a company that takes the long view. Except for TSR at the very beginning, whoever owns D&D is unlikely to see soaring profits and runaway bestsellers. It takes a pretty minimal investment, just a couple of books and some dice, to pick up a TRPG. And people can play the game with just that investment for years.

But over the long term, a company that had a lot of trust from the community could make money. Because churn happens.

Imagine a gaming group that got started with Second Edition. They were very happy with it, so they skipped 3.x. But by the time 4e or maybe D&DN rolled around, they were ready to try something new. Plus they've got more money to burn this time around. The trick for whoever owns D&D is to make sure you own both the original game that got gamers started and the new game they want to try out.

Maybe the above example is a bad one, because it requires the company to wait decades to make money off a gaming group. But in reality churn happens faster than that. Maybe between 2e and D&DN this gaming group tried out Warhammer40K or Vampire or a GURPS game. They don't want a dungeon crawler, they want something different.

If Paizo owned D&D, the key to success would be to offer a lot of different varieties of games so that when customers 'churn' they're still giving you their money.

I honestly think D&DN is kind of the wrong direction for WotC to go. You probably aren't ever going to 'unite' D&D gamers under one edition. So the market is fragmented? Embrace the fragmentation.

A lot of traditional D&D players disliked 4e. I get that, it was pretty different. What if they hadn't called it Fourth Edition? What if they had called it D&D Tactics? Would that have changed gamers perceptions of it? I think it would. People get really bent out of shape when they think WotC is hijacking 'their' game. But if new versions of the game were presented as alternative rule sets, rather than as reinventions of the original game, I think gamers would be willing to give them more of a pass. If someone doesn't like D&D Tactics, well, it's not for them. No big deal. But if they don't like the new edition of the game they're mad because they think WotC is ignoring them.

There's honestly no reason that WotC or Paizo or whoever couldn't support multiple versions of the same game. Because different gamers want different things out of D&D. If you made different versions of D&D for the main gamer demographics, you'd probably wind up with something like this:

- D&D Classic, with cleaned-up versions of the original rules.
- D&D Super-Simulation Edition for gamers who like rules and tables for everything.
- D&D Tactics, as above.
- D&D Storytellers, for the group that really likes to role play.

And yes, the company that made those games would probably need to release some crunch-free books that would work with any of them. Settings books and gazetteers are perfect for that kind of thing. In addition, each version of the game would get a couple books a year that were specific to it to keep it alive. Of course when a new version of the game rolled out, it would get lots of books for a while.

Another bonus to this approach would that the company would virtually always be rolling out a new 'edition' of one of the versions of the game. And we all know that new editions tend to make a lot of money at first. But since there would be several simultaneously-supported versions of the rules, they would sidestep the problem of alienating old gamers with new editions. That's my idea, anyway.

The point is a company can absolutely make money off D&D (IMHO), but it's going to be a gradual process. A corporation that posts quarterly profits is a bad fit for the D&D 'brand'. A company run by people who love the game is a better one.

 

[MJS]

We are the Stewards
Paizo, WotC, TLG, Palladium... they all have awesome stuff but they are not Stewards, they are in business.

 

[Jester David]

There's an awful lot of competition play in both tabletop wargames and CCGs. If anything, they're the games where regular play is essential if you want to be competitive. Certainly more so than with RPGs.

To be competitive maybe, but you can just show up and play. Or be a casual player. A set played with friends. $30 will get you all the Magic cards to just play.
But if you don't regularly go to your D&D group you miss the story and - in theory - miss out on XP needed to advance.

I've played Twilight Imperium twice. I know long board games. But I certainly wouldn't consider that "normal" or "average".

And the miniature painting in war games is nice but technically optional. Just like buying and painting miniatures in D&D, which can be just as expensive and time consuming.
And not all wargames require painting (and some don't require miniatures). The (potentially collectible) miniature wargame is a subset of that hobby, and one I would concede is equally niche to D&D / Pathfinder.

However, miniature games are much easier to explain than RPGs. "This army is trying to beat that army" is pretty simple if the nuances of the story and rules are complex. Pathfinder and RPGs have that extra level of storytelling mixed with open ended action.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I honestly think D&DN is kind of the wrong direction for WotC to go. You probably aren't ever going to 'unite' D&D gamers under one edition. So the market is fragmented? Embrace the fragmentation.

A company can only embrace fragmentation so far. Each product - whether printed or offered digitally only - incurs a base cost, regardless of the number sold.

There's honestly no reason that WotC or Paizo or whoever couldn't support multiple versions of the same game. Because different gamers want different things out of D&D. If you made different versions of D&D for the main gamer demographics, you'd probably wind up with something like this:

- D&D Classic, with cleaned-up versions of the original rules.
- D&D Super-Simulation Edition for gamers who like rules and tables for everything.
- D&D Tactics, as above.
- D&D Storytellers, for the group that really likes to role play.

WotC management would have to find some creative answers to Hasbro's question why the profit per item is so low.

The point is a company can absolutely make money off D&D (IMHO), but it's going to be a gradual process. A corporation that posts quarterly profits is a bad fit for the D&D 'brand'. A company run by people who love the game is a better one.

The point of making money is where we differ from each other. And as for "people who love the game": you outlined four games with apparently incompatible 'lovers'.

But hey, I'm a German and as such do see doom, gloom, and catastrophy bedhind each corner! I'd be happy to be proven wrong!

 

[Mark CMG]

"Would Paizo Make a Better Steward for Our Hobby?"

I don't think I know of a single person who only plays D&D. I know of many people who don't all play the same tabletop games, some might play D&D and other RPGs, some D&D and board games of one type or another, some board games and card games, etc. Our "hobby" is decidedly *not* D&D and even if it were RPGs, the owners of D&D would not be the "stewards" no matter who they were.

All that said, I don't think Hasbro is likely to sell D&D rather than just mothball it if it under-performs. I certainly don't think they would attempt to sell it until they get all of the licencing of it back under their control (movie rights, video games, etc.).

 

[Neonchameleon]

My answer is very simple.

Paizo as far as I know has never developed an RPG of its own - Pathfinder is tweaked 3.5.
Paizo has based much of its appeal on a deliberate rejection of other parts of the hobby.
Paizo has little care for mechanics.
The closest thing to their own RPG Paizo has (the excellent Pathfinder Beginner Box) they adamantly refuse to support (they claim there isn't a market); Paizo have made a play for one large subset of customers and utterly ignore the rest. Which is the exact opposite to the position a steward needs to take.

Paizo therefore rank somewhere around Palladium in terms of companies I really don't want to see in that position. They do what they do and do it well but what they do is almost diametrically opposed to being stewards. (Not that Hasbro is going to sell D&D).

 

[Crispy Critter]

My answer is very simple.

Paizo as far as I know has never developed an RPG of its own - Pathfinder is tweaked 3.5.
Paizo has based much of its appeal on a deliberate rejection of other parts of the hobby.
Paizo has little care for mechanics.
The closest thing to their own RPG Paizo has (the excellent Pathfinder Beginner Box) they adamantly refuse to support (they claim there isn't a market); Paizo have made a play for one large subset of customers and utterly ignore the rest. Which is the exact opposite to the position a steward needs to take.

Paizo therefore rank somewhere around Palladium in terms of companies I really don't want to see in that position. They do what they do and do it well but what they do is almost diametrically opposed to being stewards. (Not that Hasbro is going to sell D&D).

Man does this reek of sour grapes.
You know when Paizo first announced its plans for Pathfinder, there was a segment with a vested interest in it failing to happily predict that the game would be the iceberg to Paizo’s Titanic. How could they essentially continue support for 3.5?!? A dead game that no one likes to play anymore!
Three years and significant market share later, the narrative has changed. Now it’s that they really haven’t accomplished anything except house ruling 3.5, and they don’t even understand their own mechanics. Both statements are at best disingenuous as they have innovated within D20’s design space in a variety of ways including archetypes, traits, new base classes, kingdom building rules, mythic rules and smaller sub-systems introduced within their APs which show not only further development of the game but a clear understand of the rules.
I’ve never heard of their comparison to Palladium before but considering that while they owe their existence to the OGL they have continued to keep most of their content free and accessible via their PRD while championing all the publishers who develop products for Pathfinder. This clearly makes them the opposite of Palladium. I’d mention Rifts here in this space but I’m afraid EnWorld would get a cease and desist request from Kevin Siembieda.

 

[gamerprinter]

My answer is very simple.

Paizo as far as I know has never developed an RPG of its own - Pathfinder is tweaked 3.5.
Paizo has based much of its appeal on a deliberate rejection of other parts of the hobby.
Paizo has little care for mechanics.
The closest thing to their own RPG Paizo has (the excellent Pathfinder Beginner Box) they adamantly refuse to support (they claim there isn't a market); Paizo have made a play for one large subset of customers and utterly ignore the rest. Which is the exact opposite to the position a steward needs to take.

Paizo therefore rank somewhere around Palladium in terms of companies I really don't want to see in that position. They do what they do and do it well but what they do is almost diametrically opposed to being stewards. (Not that Hasbro is going to sell D&D).

Why should Paizo or any RPG publisher be required to make their own game? Obviously Paizo didn't think they needed to that (and they didn't), as it was most financially viable to continue to produce a 3.5 extension. To many (like me) Pathfinder is different enough that I don't even want to be reminded of 3.5, Pathfinder is all I need (right now.) If Paizo made their own game, depending on the game, I might not be interested at all.

Many Paizo detractors regularly state that they didn't make their own game. So what, why should they? It's not necessary, riffing off 3.5 seems a lot smarter. Doing so made me their customer. I don't need a new game, I don't want to play.

 

[Jason Bulmahn]

Paizo as far as I know has never developed an RPG of its own - Pathfinder is tweaked 3.5.
...
Paizo has little care for mechanics.

Some days the internet just makes me want to drink...

(not to pick on you NeonChameleon.. you are entitled to your opinions)