Necromancer Games-update by Orcus

[carmachu]

Actually I understood that the problem for Paizo was that at the end of the magazine run they did not have the distribution framework in place for selling books in the stores. They are just now getting that in place and are hoping to be in bigger stores.

For what its worth Books-a-Million already carries Paizo books.

I've seen a couple oftheir titles at Barnes and Noble. Creatures revisited and the world book.

 

[dm4hire]

Pretty sure I read on their forums that PF will be in all major US outlets as far as B&N and Borders chains.

 

[jdrakeh]

But for 4e? No Necromancer. No Green Ronin. No Malhavoc. No Paizo. No Privateer Press. No Paradigm Concepts. Hardly any Mongoose. Margaret Weiss's Dragonlance...nope. Arthaus/sword and sorcery? (I have every 3e ravenloft book.) Nope. Fantasy Flight games? Nope.

It's worth pointing out that many of those companies/imprints no longer publish for D&D 3e anymore, either.

 

[Voadam]

I saw the PF carrion king book at Borders. That plus a ton of 4e and NWoD plus some Dark Heresy books. So they were one of four publishers in the RPG section.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Apples and oranges.
Yes. 3.5 put a major hits on 3.0 back stock and put everything in a tailspin.

The truth of that is in no way incompatible with the lack of appeal of 4E 3PP stuff to the overall market.

Eh? Didn't Green Ronin and Mongoose directly state that part of the reason they were doing their own thing away from d20 was so that they wouldn't be shackled to what WoTC did wit hthe D&D game?

After 3.5 came out, new stuff clearly marked as 3.5 still sold.

But with few exceptions, nowhere near the volume of previous products.

The weight of the impact, both to the finances of the 3PPs and the portion of the market that was ticked, both assured that things never went fully back.

So you agree that still solid isn't the same as selling strong?"

Plus, 3.5 was still 3X, so a lot of people were flush with product. Those things hurt. But the 3.5 market was still viable for a few years. The 4E 3PP market was pretty much DOA. Even for those publishers who did dive right in.

Didn't Goodman post that while sales were not at the peak of 3.0 that they were significantly higher than 3.5 materials at the tail end?

If it was the same as 3.5, then sales should be BETTER for a whole new game, not far worse.

Agreed. And as Goodman said, they were better than 3.5 sales. And as WoTC seems to prove on numerous occassions, they've hit best seller lists and sold out of multiple items. Now there is no proof either way to indicate superior or worse sales than 3.5 but charting products and selling out is always better than not doing so no?

I am 100% certain that you personally, Joe, would buy the stuff you are talking about. And I'm 100% a lot of other 4E fans reading this here on ENWorld would. But every one of you added together doesn't make nearly enough. The nature of the game and the nature of the fan base, as a whole, are very different.

Eh? Which part of the fan base are you talking about here? The part that wants 1e reprinted as POD? The fan base that is already playing 4e? The fan base that will only play official WoTC products?

But that does make for an interesting possible fork.

 

[ggroy]

Pretty sure I read on their forums that PF will be in all major US outlets as far as B&N and Borders chains.

Though wishful thinking on my part, it would be great if the Pathfinder core book becomes an "evergreen" title.

None of the "big box" bookstores nearby have much of an rpg secton beyond WotC products, other than some old Everquest rpg books still on the shelves that nobody seems to pay attention to.

 

[coyote6]

So it was such a huge success that they haven't made any other systemless settings?

I see it as entirely reasonable for Freeport to have been successful, but it not to be an easily reproducible success.

I think the biggest thing is that Freeport was an established brand, with a good-size fanbase, lots of previous books, etc.; it seems to me like doing a systemless book describing a setting with an existing fanbase would be less risky than a systemless book describing an entirely new setting. The other settings they published aren't so well-known, AFAIK. You couldn't remember the names of any of 'em, and neither could I -- I had to google to come up with Mindshadows.

The only other widely-recognized GR setting that I can think of is Freedom City, but there seems to be much less call for a systemless superhero setting. Most superhero games have their own settings, or just use a generic "today, with supers, like in Marvel/DC/etc" setting.

Also, the older versions of Freeport were long out of date, and for 3.0. Thus, an update was warranted when it came time to republish, and since GR had a few systems it could conceivably use (3.5, True20, wait for the upcoming 4e), a systemless book made sense. Freedom City is up to date with the current M&M system, so no updates are needed, and GR only has the one superhero system.

If GR wanted to license FC for other RPG versions, they could do that now, without the systemless book. I just don't think there's a big call for it -- Hero has a few Champions setting books, SW's super rules are tied up in a very specific setting/adventure path, and the other superhero RPGs are indie press books that use generic "just like your favorite comics" settings (and aren't likely to be huge sellers to boot).

Also, GR's spending their capital on other books (Song of Ice and Fire, Dragon Age, etc.) that they probably figure are better bets than Generic Setting That Even Internet Fans Can't Remember The Name Of.

That said, systemless books have historically, AFAIK, sold worse than non-systemless books. Which is fairly reasonable -- given the choice between Setting A, which is generic and systemless, and Setting B, which has stats for Your Favorite Game, I think most gamers will go for B, as it's easiest for them to use.

 

[JoeGKushner]

That said, systemless books have historically, AFAIK, sold worse than non-systemless books. Which is fairly reasonable -- given the choice between Setting A, which is generic and systemless, and Setting B, which has stats for Your Favorite Game, I think most gamers will go for B, as it's easiest for them to use.

Which is my point.

Which pretty much shoots in the head any idea that systemless setting books are the way to go.

Don't get me wrong. I love 'em. I have a ton of the ole Grimtooth Traps and Citibooks and even some of those old Gygax Infinitie Productions (Town of Baldemir or something along those lines and Aeshiba, greek Africa), along with several Lenetia books.

Not to mention Freeport systemless (as well as the d20 version.)

Often times, from my own personal experience, it's more work to make some statless monster/spell/character/magic item work in the game you're running unless it's a pure point buy system.

It's seems to suggest systemless is not the way to go, especially if you have any of your own IP to utilize. Systemless is wrong and will sell less against a product designed specifically for a given system.

 

[ggroy]

Didn't Goodman post that while sales were not at the peak of 3.0 that they were significantly higher than 3.5 materials at the tail end?

Present sales being significantly better than at the tail end of 3.5E wouldn't be too surprising. According to my sources, they all mentioned that 3.5E book sales (both WotC and 3pp) literally "fell off a cliff" after 4E was announced in August 2007. The period from Aug 2007 to when the 4E core books were first released in June 2008, were dreadful times with tons of inventory which hardly moved at all without huge discounts (ie. bargain bins).

Comparing present sales figures to the "rock bottom" period isn't exactly saying much.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Present sales being significantly better than at the tail end of 3.5E wouldn't be too surprising. According to my sources, they all mentioned that 3.5E book sales (both WotC and 3pp) literally "fell off a cliff" after 4E was announced in August 2007. The period from Aug 2007 to when the 4E core books were first released in June 2008, were dreadful times with tons of inventory which hardly moved at all without huge discounts (ie. bargain bins).

Comparing present sales figures to the "rock bottom" period isn't exactly saying much.

The 4E 3PP market was pretty much DOA.

Isn't exactly saying much?

When the quote in question is 4E 3PP market was pretty much DOA, it's wrong. And "is saying much". At least in Goodman's case.