Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder: Is it evidence that new editions don't need to be that different?

[Stalker0]

This mentions pathfinder, but it really deals with DND as a whole so I thought it was better for the general forum.

Whether you like it or not, Pathfinder has had a good run out of the box with solid sales. Not the kind of sales WOTC gets, aka sorry diehards its not taking over dnd anytime soon, but its had a solid start.

When 4e came out, it was a radical departure from 3rd edition. Many people, including myself, thought that radical changes would be necessary in order to launch a new edition. The wisdom was that people simply wouldn't pay new money for a line that was similar to the game they were already playing.

Some of this thought was as a result of 3.5. On the boards at least, there was a long list of threads bemoaning the idea of paying new money for only "small changes" to the system. Many said they would never buy a 3.5 when they already had a perfectly good 3.0.

Fast forward ahead, and we found that people may have been complaining with their mouths, but they were agreeing with WOTC with their wallets. 3.5 was a huge success, not just in dollars, but in revamping the edition and correcting some of the key issues with 3.0.

Now we have Pathfinder, which as far I can tell, is a much smaller change than 3.5 was (though much better artwork!). And the thing I've noticed this time is there isn't a lot of complaint about how little was changed. People that like the changes are buying the books.

I figure its one of two reasons. Pathfinder may have been spared the same retioric as 3.5 simply because its not core, its not WOTC, so its not held to the same standard. Or perhaps its a sign that large changes aren't necessary to launch a new line.

Which brings me back to 4e. Do you think Pathfinder is a sign WOTC could have been less radical in a new edition and still done extrememly well?

 

[Victim]

Actually, most new editions aren't that different. Champions/HERO has made fairly incremental changes over 6 editions. CoC new editions are more like reprints with errata AFAIK. GURPS changes aren't that big either, IIRC (but they're not insignificant). Etc.

 

[Crothian]

Do you think Pathfinder is a sign WOTC could have been less radical in a new edition and still done extrememly well?

No, I think Pathfinder is a sign that a company with a solid reputation and great marketing can take advantage of an edition change.

And since the title of the thread is something different all together: new editions never need to be that different. Look at Call of Cthulhu and Hero and Gurps, neither of which seem to change all that much edition to edition.

 

[Henry]

Which brings me back to 4e. Do you think Pathfinder is a sign WOTC could have been less radical in a new edition and still done extrememly well?

I think it's a totally separate case, and that Paizo is held to a different standard than WotC (yet a harder standard than smaller 3rd poarty publishers). Had WotC turned out something like Pathfinder, I think they would have had a more stagnant customer base than they do now, and faced similar problems to what TSR did in the mid-90's, with a dwindling hard-core who enjoyed the greater mechanical depth and system mastery required. For Pathfinder, that's the audience that responded greatest, I think, those that find the mechanical and spiritual heritage was more present with 3E than 4E.

 

[Umbran]

In a word, no.

Do remember that, "doing well" means different things to different people. WotC and Paizo really have different scales of sales they are looking for - the changes that'll get you sales sufficient for Paizo's needs may well not be enough to get WotC-scale sales. Doubly so after already having one "point release" edition in the not-too-distant past.

Case in point - the only reason I have a Pathfinder Core rulebook is that someone gave it to me as a gift. I listened closely to the scope of changes, and felt they were not worth $50 of my money at this time. I could continue to play with my 3.x books just fine. Now owning it, and reading it, I feel it is a quality game, but I still would not have bought for games I'd be running.

 

[pawsplay]

Things that are new are exciting because they are new, but something old and refined tends to be better at what it does. D&D 3e and 4e do different things, so it's not a given one is preferable to the other based on quality. But I think it's fair to say 4e is very similar to 3.0 in that it broke new ground, and consequently discovered a fair amount of ironing out to do.

Provided the customer is already satisfied with an existing edition, then, yes, a new edition does not need to be all that different. Obviously, though, a market was found for a 4e-type game.

Personally, I feel RPGs are so design intensive I am inclined to say, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Even when people have very strong complaints, it is often easy to mollify them with incremental fixes. For instance, people thought 3.5 fighters were a little weak. After the PHBII and the Book of Nine Swords, there were numerous options for bringing them up to speed. Monsters too complex? The last run of 3.5 monsters looked very much like 4e monsters; clear focus, a handful of signature abilities, and ready-to-use.

Are Pathfinder monsters still too complex to build on the fly? It is a simple matter for Paizo or a 3PP to whip up a book of intentionally simple monsters with worked out advancement schemes.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

In my own case, the switch between 3 and 3.5 was not nearly enough. As a result, I went back to 1e for the 3.5 era. WOTC had to radically change things for me to pick up 4e and in my case (and much to my surprise) they succeeded. I finally saw a copy of Pathfinder at the FLGS yesterday, but I didn't look through it.

A 3rd 3e would have just been rearranging chairs on a very slowly sinking ship. WOTC decided to take a risk and burn down a lot of bridges in pursuit of new players. Was it worth it? In a financial sense, only those authorized to look at the bottom line at WOTC and Hasbro know for sure.

 

[malraux]

The big issue for a company like WotC is that they need to not only have good sales of the main book, but also each subsequent book. I am less sure that a small change, on the order of pathfinder, would be enough to justify making a new Complete Divine. In fact, one of the goals of Pathfinder, as I understood it, was to sell a new product that kept past crunch books like CD still usable.

 

[pawsplay]

The big issue for a company like WotC is that they need to not only have good sales of the main book, but also each subsequent book. I am less sure that a small change, on the order of pathfinder, would be enough to justify making a new Complete Divine. In fact, one of the goals of Pathfinder, as I understood it, was to sell a new product that kept past crunch books like CD still usable.

I'm pretty sure CD knocked the pants off the 3e cleric book. What sells supplements is not difference, but usefulness, attractiveness, and quality. Although a new CD is not needed, if it were good enough, it would be purchased. Simply being updated to the new rules would be sufficient value; it would be appealing enough if it were not 100% recycled.

It isn't necessary to have planned obsolescence if you feel you will be able to sell upgrades.

 

[Minicol]

The last run of 3.5 monsters looked very much like 4e monsters; clear focus, a handful of signature abilities, and ready-to-use.
.

Which was why I found them extremely boring and uninteresting.

Different tatses for different people.

Now, back in 1e, monsters were often exactly as you describe them, and it was just fine for me back at the time.

Tastes change over time also.

I remember seeing no changes from 1e to 2e, while some of my friends loudly objected to it. And I loved 3.X (still love), even though I sweared "2e forever once"