Paizo To Make Kingmaker Bestiary... For D&D 5E!

Hussar said:

I think the point that [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] was trying to make is that Pathfinder is a pretty small slice of the RPG market. Considering that the RPG market without WotC producing any new books is about 15 million dollars (and that included 3e and 4e at the time), it's not really too much of a stretch to think that Pathfinder's market share isn't really large. I realize that the common wisdom is that WotC is the 600 pound gorilla, but, really, we don't know how the market slices up.

Click to expand...

darjr said:

Paizo could have done a 5e without hitching their ride to WOTC.They just had to follow their original playbook. Take the 5e stuff released under OGL and do their own rulebook. Release pf1.0 books for a while after and then transition to their new book.Imagine a 5e pathfinder society?5e is under the OGL and has an SRD.To me the surprise move WAS pf2e. I still don’t quite understand it.

Click to expand...

GreyLord said:

I personally do not feel the LFQW thing is even a FACTOR with how popular 5e has become. If THAT was the deciding factor, 4e would have won the gambit by a long mile.

5e is successful because it is FAR easier to general people to learn, and when new players are coming to a game, ease of use is a major factor.

Eventually some may want something different, but for new players, 5e currently is one of the easiest games to learn within a short period that fall under the popular name brand of D&D (aka...any type of game that would fall under the D20 mechanic of games).

It has nothing to do with LFQW per se, and more to do with the fact that a LOT OF NEW gamers are coming into RPGs and are actually able to figure out how to play with a minimum amount of trouble and confusion.

That's the real key to 5e's success today. It is attracting NEW gamers, rather than just appealing to old gamers who keep bringing up old thoughts such as LFQW and other relics of a bygone age of angst and discussion about "balance" and other items that seemed so pertinent 10-20 years ago.

This does not mean that you are not correct to some degree, but my personal feeling differs on why 5e is being so successful and what is actually bringing in new gamers (most of who have never even heard of LFQW).

Click to expand...

ShinHakkaider said:

Paizo isn’t a minuscule operation. I want to say at this point that I think that they have more people working in house for them than the RPG dept at WOTC does. WOTC is a huge company but D&D is just one small part of that whole. And I really don’t think that there are as many people working Full Time in D&D than there are at Paizo.

Click to expand...

ShinHakkaider said:

I think that their relative autonomy was/is a prime motivator here.

Click to expand...

Jester David said:

I think it was Zardnaar that pointed out Paizo's profits around their peak in 2013 was around 12.7 million (growing from $4.4 million in 2009) with said RPG market being 15 million.But that includes novels, minis, and some other licences. So at it's peak, Paizo was probably half the RPG market. Now, Paizo has probably shrunk back down to a $4-8 million range, being probably a twelfth of the market. (Opposed to D&D which is likely 3/4ths.) But even if it retained 12 million a year and that number was all RPG, it'd still only be a fifth of the market.

Click to expand...

Jester David said:

There's two big reasons for that.

The first is they want to retain most of their audience. They're hoping a large percentage of their fans will switch from Pathfinder 1 to Pathfinder 2. And the best way to do that is by keeping Pathfinder 2 very similar to Pathfinder 1.
Which seems fairly reasonable. The audience for a potential 5.5 edition is largely theoretical. You're not marketing to your actual consumers, and hoping to sway people away from another game. Now, there probably IS a large audience of established gamers who want something that's more like 5e but has more character complexity and rules options, but the percentage and numbers are unknown, as is the number who are actually running games versus dissatisfied players who won't switch because the rest of their table is happy. You'd still be making a product and gambling that anyone would buy it.

The second option is the big one: the staff at Paizo know eff all about 5e.
They made some comparisons between PF1, PF2, and 5e in the playtest of PF2. And they read like someone who had glanced at the 5e rulebook two years prior and/or based all their knowledge of 5e on forum discussions on Paizo.comIt wasn't particularly accurate. Which makes sense. The staff at Paizo knows Pathfinder, but doesn't really know 5e. Time spent learning and understanding 5e would be detrimental to their actual job, which requires knowing Pathfinder and designing for that game.
They're not the best people to make a Revised 5e, because the understanding of the game isn't there. They probably wouldn't know what to fix and what not to fix, what is required for balance, what are mistakes to be fixed. To say nothing of all those subtle rules.


Honestly, Paizo is in a tough place right now. 5e is ridiculously predominant in the market. AND the new players coming into the hobby via streaming are heavily disinterested in the crunch-heavy play-style they've built their game around, which makes acquiring new players tricky. Which also makes it harder to employ the same methods to bring in new players.
But Paizo's own audience has massive collections of crunch that they have likely barely used. By sticking with 3.X rather than moving to 4e or 5e, most have show a preference for a funky, broken ruleset. Upgrading to something that plays similar feels like a lateral move, especially when many of the improvements (i.e. the action economy) can be slapped onto Pathfinder 1. And the cost is high: players have to give up the massive library of existing crunch; Pathfinder players stick with PF because of the options and customization, but it will be a year or two before PF2 can have an "acceptable" amount of options.
I imagine Paizo is hoping to play a "long game". Sell enough material to keep the company afloat while their audience burns through the content they already own. And then, slowly over the next 2-3 years, let people swap to PF2 when it feels like there's enough material there.

Click to expand...

CapnZapp said:

Myself, I think the only way they could stay big is by staying inside the D&D sphere. They could have made a 5E Advanced game in everything but name and attracted millions of 5E gamers. And maybe some Pathfinder fans too!

Click to expand...

Aldarc said:

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], you seem to be sending mixed messages. On the one hand, you seem to think that Paizo missed their opportunity to make products adapted directly for 5E as is. On the other, you bemoan that Paizo is not making "5E Advanced." But I suspect that if Paizo made either then their profits would fizzle out even faster. Why would the market bother with Paizo if they did either especially when many tables do not allow 3pp materials? By producing materials for 5e, Paizo would be making themselves niche among niche rather than carving out a more unique niche for themselves.

Click to expand...