Pathfinder 1E Lisa Stevens, CEO of Paizo, commenting about ENWorld

[Mistwell]

If Lisa Stevens could have kept things on a more neutral ground, providing an environment where pro-3e and pro-4e folks could have felt equally loved, Paizo's sales would be even better. But by pitching their tent so firmly in the 3e camp, Paizo drove away some of the folks who would have bought their 4e-compatible products and tools in the last year.

I am personally disappointed that the CEO of Paizo would make such a comment. It's not whether or not it's accurate, it's that it's not an appropriate thing for a CEO to say about the most popular site in her company's industry.

 

[Wicht]

Something unclear about my post?

Jason, a primary designer over at Paizo, began work on the Pathfinder RPG in October 2007. After seven months of work, they released his first alpha in March 2008.

As to my interpretation of the timeline and what it says about Paizo's decision and when it was made... Putting one of your primary in-house talents to developing the core of a new system strikes me as leaning towards that project from the outset, especially in an industry with profit margins as thin as the RPG industry (and especially with Paizo's reliance on traditional book distribution with longer lead-in times, as noted by Erik as a concern).

Your post was not unclear. It just doesn't match the history I remember living.

I never thought of Jason Bulhman as a 'primary designer' until his change of job titles in March.

I remember the first alpha being a little,... unfinished, and Jason saying he had been working on it only in his spare time.

I remember the Paizo bosses saying they weren't sure which way they would go. They had some concerns about the rules changing the stories they would be able to tell but they also trusted the WotC designers to come up with a solid set of rules.

I remember the irritation of some of the Paizo guys growing as they continued to wait and wait and wait for the GSL to be released so they could make an informed decision about which way to take their company.

Still, its all water under the bridge now.

 

[occam]

So why did other sites, Paizo being one of them, experience a spike in 3e sales?

I don't know about other sites (Do we even know about other sites?), but I think the reason for Paizo's spike in sales is obvious: They went through a very successful product transition at the time 4e was announced, moving a lot of their loyal Dragon and Dungeon fans to the more expensive and profitable Pathfinder and GameMastery products. I don't see how Paizo's specific experience in this regard says anything about the larger D&D market.

 

[occam]

That's the revisionism Wicht was referring to, though, Caliber. I didn't get that sense from Paizo until it became clear that the GSL and it's terms were not going to be released until after 4E was. You need to remember, and not revise, that WotC basically screwed everyone around on this for ages, constantly delaying and chopping and changing it's plans.

If you felt Paizo had a "negative vibe" towards 4E before WotC started messing them around, I'd love to see a link or hear some specific info about why you felt that.

Paizo was studiedly neutral about 4e until the PFRPG announcement. The Paizo fanbase (as represented by the majority of their active board members) were not. Although, I don't think that's the main reason they saw a surge in 3e product sales.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I think Lisa was not writing about the forums, but about the main page and EN products.

Imagine you wanted to buy a 3E PDF product by EN Publishing. You went to www.enworld.org, and what did you find? "Latest news about 4E! We can confirm the warlock is in the PHB! Scoop about the combat rules!". This way the web drove away many potential buyers.

Such short memories. There was a time when what was to become ENWorld was literally only a page with that sort of information on it.

It's surreal that people would complain about ENWorld being too much like ENWorld.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If Lisa Stevens could have kept things on a more neutral ground, providing an environment where pro-3e and pro-4e folks could have felt equally loved, Paizo's sales would be even better. But by pitching their tent so firmly in the 3e camp, Paizo drove away some of the folks who would have bought their 4e-compatible products and tools in the last year.

It was also open season on anyone saying anything even remotely neutral about 4E after the Pathfinder announcement was made, and with only token moderation at best.

If anything, I think ENWorld is and has been much more neutral than Paizo's echo chamber has been.

 

[Agamon]

I am personally disappointed that the CEO of Paizo would make such a comment. It's not whether or not it's accurate, it's that it's not an appropriate thing for a CEO to say about the most popular site in her company's industry.

I was just about to post this exactly, thanks Mistwell. Very unprofessional.

As an ex-Paizo fanboy, I was pretty interested in Golarion when it was looking to be system neutral, but when Paizo started waving the 3E/PF flag, I went elsewhere. I had a hard time learning anything about it without slogging through the mire that was the Paizo MB over the past year and lost interest.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Something unclear about my post?

Not unclear, just misleading.

Jason, a primary designer over at Paizo, began work on the Pathfinder RPG in October 2007. After seven months of work, they released his first alpha in March 2008.

From the first release:

Back in October 2007, I began a small side project. Since
4th Edition had recently been announced, I began to
wonder how many people would stick with the 3.5 rules
set. Everyone could agree that 3.5 needed some work, but
the system itself was mostly sound. I thought that those
folks might want some updated rules, since support was
beginning to wane. What started out as a simple side
project soon turned into an obsession as the rules document
got longer every day. When Paizo started looking
for alternatives, my side project was a natural fit, leading
us to where we are today.

So basically in October, Jason, being a gamer and a designer (who like most probably thinks d20 24/7), started compiling his list of house rules to patch the same observed problems everybody else was having.

Basically, if he was running a 3e game in his spare time, he was doing Pathfinder design.

As to my interpretation of the timeline and what it says about Paizo's decision and when it was made... Putting one of your primary in-house talents to developing the core of a new system strikes me as leaning towards that project from the outset, especially in an industry with profit margins as thin as the RPG industry (and especially with Paizo's reliance on traditional book distribution with longer lead-in times, as noted by Erik as a concern).

That there is the part that is misleading, a misunderstanding of the way the design process works, or both.

 

[Kelanen]

Such short memories. There was a time when what was to become ENWorld was literally only a page with that sort of information on it.

It's surreal that people would complain about ENWorld being too much like ENWorld.

If Lisa Stevens could have kept things on a more neutral ground, providing an environment where pro-3e and pro-4e folks could have felt equally loved, Paizo's sales would be even better. But by pitching their tent so firmly in the 3e camp, Paizo drove away some of the folks who would have bought their 4e-compatible products and tools in the last year.

I am personally disappointed that the CEO of Paizo would make such a comment. It's not whether or not it's accurate, it's that it's not an appropriate thing for a CEO to say about the most popular site in her company's industry.

Very True.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If anything, I think ENWorld is and has been much more neutral than Paizo's echo chamber has been.

I don't think anybody could disagree with that.