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

[billd91]

I resisted changing cars simply because I had in my mind what I wanted to do. I didn't owe my son a car or anything like that, but it was what I wanted and was practical. I love my new car and I also still think fondly of my old one. Neither one is bad.

That's... not usually what people mean when they say that someone is being resistant to change. That's making a decision to delay change, though since you now have a new car, it's clear that you decided specifically to change in the end.

More often, saying someone is resistant to change means they are refusing to adapt to the changes going on around them. And it usually has a negative connotation.

Now, with respect to playing particular RPGs, there's no need to adapt to changes in editions and the benefits of the changes can usually only be weight subjectively so the argument tends to fall flat.

 

[pawsplay]

Then how do you think it should have played out? What products did you not see that could carry the line another even year or two at the current release schedule?

Yes, I am curious, this isn't a snark.

- Junglescape, Mountainscape
- Complete Psionic Revised to Not Cause Migraines
- Arms & Equipment Revised
- Monster Manual Companion I, a bunch of worked out examples of advanced and variant monsters of each level, similar to the format used in later Monster Manuals and the 4e books
- Feynomicon, Giantnomicon
- Dark Sun, Mystara, Greyhawk
- Strongholds, massed combat, and rulership
- Revised Epic Handbook
- Alternate campaign builder: Camelot, The Mighty Fortress, Heroic Greece, and Legendary Nippon as worked out examples, with suggetions for dialing magic up and down, modifying or replacing classes, and redefining game elements (like races, special materials, enhancement bonuses etc).
- A couple of mega-modules for characters in the 8-14 level range
- Unearthed Arcana 2, with more class variations (like beefed up fighters), alternate grappling rules, alternate magic item crafting rules, critical hits by location, etc.
- A series of Complete books based on the party's rationale: Complete Retainer, Complete Mercenary, Complete Band of Heroes, Complete Soldier, etc.
- Book of immortal play, a la gold box Immortals, The Primal Order, etc.

That oughta hold the line for a couple of years.

 

[Ariosto]

Why must the D&D division have so much overhead that it needs to get the same people to buy a whole new "edition" every four years or so? People on salary and offices on lease should be versatile enough to produce all sorts of products for a Game Company.

I think it's very well proven in the hobby-game business (and others) that freelancers can be at least as good as in-house writers and artists -- and they allow one to get a return on a finite, per-project investment.

Once all the creative work is done and paid for, it's gravy time. You've got to look at the cost of warehousing (versus small production runs), but it can be profitable to sell a "back list" catalog over the years. The key question is whether that's profit you would otherwise not make, and I think that's what Pathfinder sales constitute for WotC.

In its heyday, TSR published at any time several RPGs, as well as board games and miniatures rules sets. That's a way not only to sell new things to established patrons but to attract new customers for older products.

I suspect that the current status quo with distributors (if the plural is even not ludicrous) is to blame for some problems in the industry -- but certainly not all of them.

 

[Jack99]

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Pathfinder is houseruled 3.5 - that's an opinion, sure, but it sure seems to the opinion of Paizo - the very people who designed the game.

Check out their own add for Pathfinder:

That's basically equating Pathfinder with 3.5.

 

[Korgoth]

Korgoth, it is not sufficient to say, "That is bad". Your argument isn't very strong unless you can give an alternative that deals with the following:

1) The known size of the market is not large (There is as yet no evidence that tabletop roleplaying can ever be made "mainstream" - at this time an effort to do so would be high risk, and thus a questionable business model)

2) Small markets saturate quickly.

3) Businesses require a continuing revenue stream in order to remain viable.

I probably should have avoided judging the Rent Model, since it's basically two separate issues: is the Rent Model the only possible model (I'm saying "no"), and is it actually a good model in and of itself (I also said "no", but only as an aside).

However, to answer your reasonable request for an alternative, I'd say that a content model is another possible model. In a content model, a solid core system is brought to a larger audience, and further material is sold to the audience you already have, by the expansion of content for the core system you already have. In other words (that was a needlessly complex sentence), let's say we have a solid core system... it's not perfect (what is?), but it works fine and people like it. So we expand it with new setting material, new adventures, new options, new ancillary products, and most of all new material (boxed sets, a full line of specifically-tailored starter adventures, etc.) aimed directly at expanding the current customer base.

In other words, don't just re-sell a new version of the rules to your same audience over and over. Instead, sell more and more people a set of rules which is excellent and exciting. Grow the market. Grow your player base. You do this by an aggressive entry-level product strategy. You keep your established audience buying by selling them new adventures and setting material.

Now Umbran, in your 3 points you loaded the question. You're a pessimist about whether the market can actually be grown to any significant degree (you used the term "mainstream", which may or may not even be a meaningful term these days...)... which I think suggests that you're already convinced that the Rent Model is the only model.

I'm not a pessimist about the possibility of market growth. I don't think that everyone who is ever going to play D&D already is, and so the goal is to milk every last dime out them that you can. I think that the market can and should be grown. Not growing it, and basing your business model on the notion that it can't be done, means the industry (not the hobby, though) is doomed.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

So what you guys are saying is 3.5 was really a houseruled 3.0 right? and 4e? really it's a bunch of houserules they just called D&D, and ya know Gurpes 5e really just houseruled 4e, same with shadowrun 3e ..silly us it was just a houseruled shadowrun 2e


Guy's "It's just a houseruled 3.5" Is a very silly argument . Every single rule for any game was made up by someone. A house rule is an unoffical House rule of someones game. Not a published official rule


It's the evolution of 3.5 by someone else, same as Mutants and master minds, conan d20, or anything of the like. 'Oh it's just a houseruled 3.5 " is a troll edition war shot and nothing more

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

However, to answer your reasonable request for an alternative, I'd say that a content model is another possible model. In a content model, a solid core system is brought to a larger audience, and further material is sold to the audience you already have, by the expansion of content for the core system you already have. In other words (that was a needlessly complex sentence), let's say we have a solid core system... it's not perfect (what is?), but it works fine and people like it. So we expand it with new setting material, new adventures, new options, new ancillary products, and most of all new material (boxed sets, a full line of specifically-tailored starter adventures, etc.) aimed directly at expanding the current customer base.

Isn't that exactly what WotC has done for about 8 years?

It seems they "stopped" doing that when it no longer resulted in the numbers they wanted or needed.

And now they have a new edition, and do the same again. Who knows, maybe 4E can do this even longer than 8 years?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

This was what I was hopping SW SAGA is a fine system, it would have made a killer 4e. Frankly if they had went that route chance are I would still be buying books with the D&D logo

I've never quite understood this. Having run SW Saga for some time, I'm not sure what the difference between it and 3.5e is other than a couple of small, unimportant details.

 

[pawsplay]

Isn't that exactly what WotC has done for about 8 years?

It seems they "stopped" doing that when it no longer resulted in the numbers they wanted or needed.

I can't speak for the whole market, but for myself, those sales slipped because of the quality of some of those releases. I was looking forward to Complete Psionic, but didn't buy it because I didn't like it (I haven't even bought it used yet). I enjoyed Stormwreck... I eventually unloaded all of my Races of... books, despite being theoretically useful in any game involving that race, because I ultimately just did not find the material to my liking.

It may be that the WotC design team was burned out on 3.5, but that is not the same thing as 3.5 being played out.

And now they have a new edition, and do the same again. Who knows, maybe 4E can do this even longer than 8 years?

Indeed.

 

[Jack99]

So what you guys are saying is 3.5 was really a houseruled 3.0 right? and 4e? really it's a bunch of houserules they just called D&D, and ya know Gurpes 5e really just houseruled 4e, same with shadowrun 3e ..silly us it was just a houseruled shadowrun 2e


Guy's "It's just a houseruled 3.5" Is a very silly argument . Every single rule for any game was made up by someone. A house rule is an unoffical House rule of someones game. Not a published official rule


It's the evolution of 3.5 by someone else, same as Mutants and master minds, conan d20, or anything of the like. 'Oh it's just a houseruled 3.5 " is a troll edition war shot and nothing more

I think you are putting too much stock in the word "houserule". It's not an attack on Paizo and Pathfinder to claim they are not professional. Of course it is official. Houserule merely implies that Pathfinder is fairly close to 3.5, something which btw was stated from the beginning as being Paizo's intention. I fail to see your problem with this. And did you look at the ad? They are basically equating Pathfinder with 3.5. I realize this is to capitalize on the brand of D&D, but it's also to stress that they want to give the impression that Pathfinder is compatible with the 345 books in your OGL library.

Oh and stop accusing people of trolling and starting edition wars. That will only start something worse, if people pay attention to you. Instead, report people if you have a problem with what they say.