Pathfinder 1E Business models from TSR, WotC and Paizo

[Erekose]

Just musing late on a Bank Holiday Monday . . .

I seem to remember that for OD&D and 1E D&D that there were a few rulebooks and a plethora of different adventures, i.e. TSR was predominantly making money off the adventures rather than rulebooks.

No idea what happened with 2E as I left playing until 3E arrived but from what I've heard it seems like an initial mix of adventures and rulebook before becoming predominantly rulebooks.

With 3.xE WotC focussed mainly on rulebooks rather than adventures.

From what I can tell 4E has carried on from where 3.xE left.

However, Paizo with Pathfinder appears to be going back to the original TSR model; i.e. the rulebooks are only appearing to keep the adventures based on a living system rather than a money making enterprise.

Just wanted to ponder the question of why certain companies go in a predominantly rulebook or adventure direction? (Beyond the fact that all players can buy rulebooks whereas adventures are just for DMs.)

 

[hewligan]

Paizo's adventure paths obviously sprung from the success of their work in Dungeon Magazine, and almost incidental to the success of the first Pathfinder adventure path they have branched out into campaign gazetteers and the likes. The problem with adventures, as you suggest, is that they are bought only by the DM, but that does not need to be an insurmountable problem as the DM is generally the one that spends the most on game books anyway. The main problem is going to be, just how many adventure paths does one DM actually need? I have 4 (the 3 from Dungeon, plus Burnt Offerings). I bought the first 3 of the next Pathfinder AP, but realised I would never have enough time in my life to play them all so stopped. I do, however, but a lot of the supporting Pathfinder material, probably a half dozen books so far, with another 4 or 5 on my wish list.

2e branched out into settings in a BIG way (FR, Maztica, Dragonlance, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, and on ...)

3e seemed to be attempting to get players to buy books, but to do so you need to allow power-creep in add on books (after all, those players need a reason to splash the cash, and what better reason than a more powerful character).

4e ... too early to tell. Subscription basis, incremental core books ..?

 

[Henrix]

I seem to remember that for OD&D and 1E D&D that there were a few rulebooks and a plethora of different adventures, i.e. TSR was predominantly making money off the adventures rather than rulebooks.

TSR was, especially in it's early days, working on a random business method.
(Management by rolling on a gygaxian table?)

They published whatever they felt like and had at hand, without much regard or knowledge about what they made money on.
There seems to have been, even towards the end, very little, if any, feedback from what they sold passed on to those who wrote the stuff.

So I don't really think it's true to say that they made the most money on adventures. We don't know. Nobody knows for certain. But probably not.

But in the early days and in the eighties money was easy for them, roleplaying grew almost exponentially. You could sell almost anything (and people did, an amazing amount of crap, and a good deal of weird good stuff, was produced).

Likewise, in 2e, we know that several of the settings, including, sadly, Planescape, never earned back the money they made.

The best sellers have always been the core books for TSR/WotC. And some of the supplements.
Therefore, WotC wants to make more 'core' books, and less extraneous stuff.

They've also, inspired by White Wolf, realized that if they make a book that's mostly useful to DMs, then they can sell one book per gaming group.
If they make a book interesting to players they might sell one book per player.

Paizo has much smaller expectations, I suppose we're talking about at most a couple of percent of WotC sales, and that influences how they do it.

 

[xechnao]

Just wanted to ponder the question of why certain companies go in a predominantly rulebook or adventure direction? (Beyond the fact that all players can buy rulebooks whereas adventures are just for DMs.)

It has to do with the level your market is saturate and your competition. If you compete with other rules you may want to offer more comprehensive rules -you can do this to the point of glut. If you do not compete with either rules or adventures but you need to expand you build aids such as the adventures of 1e.

Generally you need both - the rate you produce them depend on your business plan. So it is a matter of custom balance. But both are necessary and they support each other -rules are theory modules are application: you need to entertain with new ideas on both sides.

Setting development can also sell and become a source of creating another interesting product -storytelling product: novels, comics, films.

 

[Bumbles]

You may want to check your data and have some numbers, like:

Official TSR Product List

It seems to be complete, but I can't find any non-doc versions on the site. and they don't have one with everything?

TSR Archive

Is in HTML, but has a lot of nestings

And yes, one of the most difficult parts of the question is knowing what made money and what lost it. Can't just guess form what they produced. Sadly, TSR wasn't all that good at business...

 

[roguerouge]

The main problem is going to be, just how many adventure paths does one DM actually need? I have 4 (the 3 from Dungeon, plus Burnt Offerings). I bought the first 3 of the next Pathfinder AP, but realised I would never have enough time in my life to play them all so stopped. I do, however, but a lot of the supporting Pathfinder material, probably a half dozen books so far, with another 4 or 5 on my wish list.

Three things: Many DMs are collectors at heart, so want ends up driving behavior more than need.

Second, just because you don't need it now, doesn't mean you don't want the option to run it later.

Finally, I buy a lot of adventures simply to cannibalize the parts for my campaigns. I don't need the APs, but I will use Rise of the Runelords 1, part of Runelords 3, The Gold Goblin from Second Darkness, and much of the plot of Curse of the Crimson Throne... all in one or two campaigns.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Personally I didn't like the 3E model of putting out rule book after rule book. All the splat books had the power creep issue others have mentioned, but it also intimidated people who started late (imagine coming into 3E after all those books were released...a little overwhelming). I still play 3e and haven't really made the switch to 4E. But if they went back to the module driven approach, i might make the switch.

 

[Morrus]

Was Dragonlance the first real adventure path? There were certainly sequential adventures before that, but was that the first full campaign series (level 1 - max) linked by a single plot?

 

[Keefe the Thief]

However, Paizo with Pathfinder appears to be going back to the original TSR model; i.e. the rulebooks are only appearing to keep the adventures based on a living system rather than a money making enterprise.

The best way to guarantee a living system is by being a money making enterprise. Paizo does it smart and makes money with what they do best: adventures. Ditto Wizards.
Comparing that to TSR is simplifying complicated realties quite a bit.

 

[amethal]

As I understand it, Paizo want to sell D&D 3.5 adventures.

All the rest of it - the Golarion campaign setting, the Pathfinder RPG - is designed to support the adventures.

On the face of it, selling only to DMs is bad business.

However, I think plenty of people are like me; they have a gaming budget and they are going to spend it, come what may. Paizo, with their subscription model, are looking to get first call on that money.