Scott Thorne, a retailer, comments on recent events

[Steel_Wind]

Not entirely true. Although Paizo may not have an administrative overseer like WotC (i.e.: Hasbro), and can probably respond to and address community feedback more quickly and directly, they still have people they are responsible to. They can't just go and do whatever they want, whenever they want. How much Paizo is beholden in this manner is something only Erik Mona can answer, but I'm sure that some level of approval does exist.

Erik Mona is answerable to Lisa Stevens. That's it. So yes, it IS fair to say that Paizo is closer to their fans and is more nimble, in terms of corporate decision making and the corporate heirarchy, to respond to changes in the marketplace as contrasted to the process of decision making at WotC and its ultimate responsibility to Hasbro's Board of Directors.

As Erik has explained elsewhere (episode 007 of our podcast, for example), for the most part, Erik calls the shots on what products get made or don't get made at Paizo publishing. That's his job as publisher within the company. He gives Green lights and he gives red lights; that's his job.

He's earned that responsibility for the very good reason that Erik Mona happens to have a proven track record that shows that he has an extremely well developed sense of what sorts of products will appeal to a widely divergent marketplace. Erik knows how to guage how a product can be gussied up to appeal to old skool gamers and how *same product* appear fresh and new to others. It's something Erik has a real talent for. He demonstrated it as editor of Dungeon magazine, did the same with Dragon and has done so at Paizo ever since.

I'm sure that he's made mistakes. But from what I can discern - it doesn't appear that he has made too many of them.

I'm sure that Lisa Stevens is heavily involved in many of these decisions and, let's be clear, she does have the final say at Paizo. That authority is not in doubt. It's her company, after all. She was in on the ground floor for White Wolf Publishing, was Wizards of the Coast first employee (and had a $take in the company as well) and Paizo Publishing LLC is her baby.

Last time I checked, that's a singularly KICK-ASS track record in the hobby games business. In fact, if you are looking for a better track record in the business, you simply won't find a better one.

But it is not an insult directed at Lisa Stevens (or Vic Wertz) to suggest that both of them trust and rely upon the recommendations of Paizo's key staff, and in particular, they trust and rely upon the business judgment of Erik Mona on a day-to-day basis. Just as I am sure that she relies upon her own, too.

One of the most undervalued qualities in a CEO is the ability for that CEO to select EXACTLY the right people to make key decisions in the company. If the CEO gets that right? Things generally go as well as they possibly can. That does not necessarily mean that the company will be profitable, but it usually does mean that things go about as well as they could reasonably be expected to, in all of the circumstances.

If you are the CEO of a company that makes fedoras and garters for men's socks, say, then no talented decision maker is going to make that core business the envy of the world. Dead product lines are dead product lines -- no matter who is in charge.

At the same time, if the CEO puts the wrong people in charge of key decision making elements within the company? Well...

Those are the sorts of companies that frequently make poor long-term business decisions. The company's underlying market position may be so advantageous that the company's natural strengths can hide the sins of the key decision makers for a very long time. Eventually, however, the truth wins out over the long-term.

In the case of Paizo, Erik Mona and Lisa Stevens turned an utter and complete DISASTER (when the Dungeon and Dragon magazine license were not renewed) and managed to switch the company's publishing focus and brand -- ALL without skipping a beat or having to fire anybody.

That's remarkable; it really, really is.

From a TOTAL DISASTER to what now appears to be the manufacturer of the currently #1 selling RPG in the hobby games business. In less than four years. That's without coming up with key original IP or leveraging a unique patent or other unique product concept, either.

That success was realized entirely by leveraging the assets that Paizo had and putting them to their best possible advantage.

Seen in that light, Paizo's success is a truly outstanding accomplishment. Over the long-term, that success is clearly not the product of chance, rather, it's the consequence of making the right choices at critical points in time where others could have made very different choices.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm sure that he's made mistakes. But from what I can discern - it doesn't appear that he has made too many of them.

I can think of a few, though they were all relatively minor. To my mind, Erik is at his best when he's working on a setting he personally enjoys (for that matter, who isn't?) such as Greyhawk or Golarion. When it comes to other settings though...not so much.

For example, back when he was in charge of Polyhedron, he published the ill-received Spelljammer (mini-)setting "Shadow of the Spider Moon" (Polyhedron #151/Dungeon #92). In fact, the troubles with that began in the preceding issue, where his editorial dissed the "silly" nature of the original Spelljammer setting (I believe he called the giff "goofy hippo-men").

Now, before everyone jumps in to point out how the setting was silly and the giff are goofy, that's not the point. The point is that, when you're making a niche product to appeal to a certain set of fans - in this case fans of Spelljammer - you don't start out by telling them how stupid the previous iteration of the product was and how yours makes it better now. That just insults and upsets the very people you're trying to market to. It was shades of the same thing that WotC did to 3.X players when they began marketing 4E years later.

Then there was an editorial in Dragon where he talked about how the arrangement of the planes didn't make sense (I can't find the specific issue number, apologies). It wasn't anything such as the alignment-based structure of the Great Wheel - rather, he talked about how the planes were largely wasted space (e.g. "can you fly into the sky in an Outer Plane for an infinite distance?"), how being able to go to Heaven made adventuring superfluous (a variant of the old "why not just stay at home instead of adventuring?" argument), and other pokes at the setting.

I posted a response here on EN World, and to be fair I remember receiving a very nice reply from Erik himself. My basic point was that none of the issues he raised were specific to the planes themselves - the universe around a given campaign world is also wasted space, but nobody worried about that too much (except for those silly fans of SJ ).

But the big one was the debacle with Dark Sun in Dragon #319 and Polyhedron #169/Dungeon #110. Now, I certainly didn't agree with a lot of the complaints people had (mostly those regarding the setting and timeline), but many of the mechanical issues were rightly disliked - paladins just don't belong on Athas, and sorcerers are a very ill-fit. It got to the point where Dave Noonan publicly outlined how his manuscript had been different, and that the changes in the final product were due to editing.

From what I remember, Erik was rather bitter about that one, saying something to the effect of "some fans just can't be pleased." Again, he's not entirely wrong - some fans of that setting really seem to hate everything after the first boxed set - but his editor's pen clearly took him in the wrong direction where Dark Sun was concerned.

Now, to be fair, all of these are minor problems over the course of what's been a truly distinguished career with D&D/Pathfinder. Erik is one of the modern-day giants in the industry, and deservedly so. But nobody does everything perfect all the time, especially where the varied nature of campaign settings are concerned. It's an object lesson, I think, that settings are best written and published by the people who love them the most; anything less than that has a very hard time living up to the fans' expectations.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

how being able to go to Heaven made adventuring superfluous (a variant of the old "why not just stay at home instead of adventuring?" argument), and other pokes at the setting.

I never got this one. That is to say, I never got the arguments against this one.

Once a wizard learns to travel the planes, why would they ever not run straight for the literal planes of eternal bliss and just chill there forever? I mean, it's heaven.

 

[Bacris]

Planetar bouncers.

 

[El Mahdi]

Erik Mona is...

I agree with everything you said. I was just responding to Belen's statement characterising Paizo as not having to account to anyone, and therefore is better able to give the community what they want. Although Erik Mona seems quite brilliant, and I'm truly impressed by everything Paizo has accomplished, everyone is accountable to somebody (or in someway). If Erik did start making serious mistakes, and continued to make them without attempting to rectify them or listen to his shareholders, I highly doubt he'd remain in the position he is for very long.

A more accurate statement by Belen would have been that Paizo's leadership is much more streamlined and flexible than WotC's, and therefore better able to give the community what they want.

But a blanket statement that they don't need approval...? That's not entirely accurate.

 

[Tuft]

I never got this one. That is to say, I never got the arguments against this one.

Once a wizard learns to travel the planes, why would they ever not run straight for the literal planes of eternal bliss and just chill there forever? I mean, it's heaven.

You don't need planar travel to ask that question:

Once you collect a few astral diamonds worth of loot, why don't you buy a small country, employ all the nubile dancing girls or boys you want, and settle for earthly bliss?

Or, for that matter, pay for enough food to end hunger and starvation in the Beggar's Quarter?

 

[Alzrius]

I never got this one. That is to say, I never got the arguments against this one.

Once a wizard learns to travel the planes, why would they ever not run straight for the literal planes of eternal bliss and just chill there forever? I mean, it's heaven.

Because Heaven is wherever you find it. Yes, it's also a literal place in D&D, but the idea of being able to put down roots and remain happy somewhere can easily be found in your character's hometown.

People go adventuring because they want to leave their idyllic home life behind (and oftentimes find some sort of calamity that needs to be stopped, to boot), whether it's their small-town life or Heaven itself.

 

[Shemeska]

I never got this one. That is to say, I never got the arguments against this one.

Once a wizard learns to travel the planes, why would they ever not run straight for the literal planes of eternal bliss and just chill there forever? I mean, it's heaven.

Because to a degree, it's like looking into the face of God. You're still alive, and as a mortal being you simply cannot fathom it, it's not meant for a consciousness constrained and limited by the conceits of flesh and neurochemicals. It's not for you, not yet, if ever, and if you ever have to go back, you may go back in despair at what you witnessed, what you couldn't understand, and what you can't acheive while still being alive. It damages you if you wash yourself in it, because everything else is dimished by comparison.

The planes are not normal. They're not just another planet with funny colored and funny shaped people. They're beautiful and terrible to behold.

 

[Kafen]

For example, back when he was in charge of Polyhedron, he published the ill-received Spelljammer (mini-)setting "Shadow of the Spider Moon" (Polyhedron #151/Dungeon #92). In fact, the troubles with that began in the preceding issue, where his editorial dissed the "silly" nature of the original Spelljammer setting (I believe he called the giff "goofy hippo-men").

Now, before everyone jumps in to point out how the setting was silly and the giff are goofy, that's not the point. The point is that, when you're making a niche product to appeal to a certain set of fans - in this case fans of Spelljammer - you don't start out by telling them how stupid the previous iteration of the product was and how yours makes it better now. That just insults and upsets the very people you're trying to market to. It was shades of the same thing that WotC did to 3.X players when they began marketing 4E years later.

I speak for three of four Spelljammer fans that know the material when I say - he did not offend three of us. The fourth player of my group is still sulking over the article as a 'lost chance to reclaim the glory', however. Overall, the article is a decent take on bringing goofy setting concepts into d20 rules for the happy ones. So, I would label that potential mistake as a darn good effort which is why three aging SJ fans have it in the binder.

Not arguing, I am just giving my account of the article in a living SJ game.

*clears throat and goes back to observing before giant space rodents appear with 4e stats*

 

[13garth13]

Not entirely true. Although Paizo may not have an administrative overseer like WotC (i.e.: Hasbro), and can probably respond to and address community feedback more quickly and directly, they still have people they are responsible to. They can't just go and do whatever they want, whenever they want. How much Paizo is beholden in this manner is something only Erik Mona can answer, but I'm sure that some level of approval does exist. For example: if Paizo insisted on selling a predominant amount of DM material even if their customer base had changed or no longer desired that material, I'm sure Paizo's stakeholders would have something to say about that. Now I don't know exactly what Paizo's corporate structure looks like, or what level of control Erik Mona has (such as, I don't know if his stockholders can have him replaced or not), but I'm sure the shareholder's (also "Suits") do have a voice in the course of the company.

And, so I can't be accused of stating my own opinion only, or pulling this out of thin air, here's some of Erik's own words on the subject from the Question for the Paizo folks regarding D&D's state of today thread:

Just to correct something that you've now repeated twice.....I'm pretty darned sure that the statement that Erik made about publicly traded companies needing to be more cautious about their bottom line etc was directed at the decision making process at WOTC, not Paizo. Paizo certainly has stakeholders because they are a business (Lisa Stevens and Vic Wertz would be the only people "higher" than Erik on the Paizo totem pole who therefore might have a say in his decision making, but obviously every employee there is also a stakeholder, in so far as they have an interest in seeing the company do well, given as it keeps them employed doing something they love)!

Paizo has NO shareholders, at least not in any typical sense of the word as they are NOT a publicly traded company.

So, yeah, while there is some vetting that could go on, the whole milieu of big-business coporate shenanigans doesn't really come into play, which absolutely gives them more creative freedom to take chances and not have to worry about whether their shareholders are pleased with the return on investment.

Cheers,
Colin

P.S. This is to the best of my knowledge only, and I could be dead wrong....but I'm absolutely positive that Paizo is not a publicly traded company, and can happily avoid all the b.s. that comes along with that burden....