Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Players: What would you be playing/buying if PF didn't exist.

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

When I was laid off in 2001, there were two specific things that I was told directly.

1> Although 3.0 and Star Wars are the most profitable RPGs TSR/WotC ever produced, and are exceeding expectations in sales, their profit margins are not as high as desired. As a result, staff must be laid off (for the second time -- there was a round of layoffs almost exactly 2 months after I was hired) and replaced by freelancers to bring down costs.

2> Sales of the Star Wars RPG (which was what i worked on most of the time) are believed to be based on the popularity of the movies, and the quality of the product is irrelevant. Thus, it is not important to have me on staff.

I confess, I build a lot of my opinion of WotC businesses plans on the thinking that goes behind those conversations.

 

[Kinak]

The results of this thread are pretty interesting. It's unscientific, obviously, but it bears out the thinking (that I've heard from both Paizo and Wizards) that 4e and Pathfinder weren't competing directly.

It'll be interesting to see if 5e, being closer to Pathfinder in some ways and further away in others, will change that equation.

I confess, I build a lot of my opinion of WotC businesses plans on the thinking that goes behind those conversations.

Frankly, that seems pretty reasonable. It'd be stranger to be get a peek behind the curtain like that and not have it color your opinions moving forward.

Thank you for sharing those experiences with us.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[DaveMage]

2> Sales of the Star Wars RPG (which was what i worked on most of the time) are believed to be based on the popularity of the movies, and the quality of the product is irrelevant. Thus, it is not important to have me on staff.

Wow.

 

[billd91]

When I was laid off in 2001, there were two specific things that I was told directly.

1> Although 3.0 and Star Wars are the most profitable RPGs TSR/WotC ever produced, and are exceeding expectations in sales, their profit margins are not as high as desired. As a result, staff must be laid off (for the second time -- there was a round of layoffs almost exactly 2 months after I was hired) and replaced by freelancers to bring down costs.

2> Sales of the Star Wars RPG (which was what i worked on most of the time) are believed to be based on the popularity of the movies, and the quality of the product is irrelevant. Thus, it is not important to have me on staff.

I confess, I build a lot of my opinion of WotC businesses plans on the thinking that goes behind those conversations.

I have to say that really contrasts with the old Peter Adkison view of supporting D&D with WotC's Magic-driven wealth that I read about somewhere here online. Makes me wonder just how much he really intended to follow that idea, how well that desire might have or have not have promulgated through the rest of management, and how much changed with the Hasbro deal and leadership change. I'd love to see an overview and analysis of WotC culture and management throughout the whole period.

 

[Alzrius]

I have to say that really contrasts with the old Peter Adkison view of supporting D&D with WotC's Magic-driven wealth that I read about somewhere here online. Makes me wonder just how much he really intended to follow that idea, how well that desire might have or have not have promulgated through the rest of management, and how much changed with the Hasbro deal and leadership change. I'd love to see an overview and analysis of WotC culture and management throughout the whole period.

Bear in mind that according to Rick Marshall, the top people at WotC thought that Hasbro valued their marketing strategy, and that they (the WotC people) would be the ones to inherit greater responsibilities for Hasbro at large when the current Hasbro people retired.

So rather than Peter Adkison having engaged in some sort of double-speak, it sounds more like they got taken for something of a bait-and-switch by the people at Hasbro.

 

[Kinak]

I have to say that really contrasts with the old Peter Adkison view of supporting D&D with WotC's Magic-driven wealth that I read about somewhere here online. Makes me wonder just how much he really intended to follow that idea, how well that desire might have or have not have promulgated through the rest of management, and how much changed with the Hasbro deal and leadership change. I'd love to see an overview and analysis of WotC culture and management throughout the whole period.

Keep in mind that Peter Adkison stepped down as of January 1st, 2001. The layoffs were later in the year (I want to say August, but it might have been their traditional Christmas layoff).

In my experience with corporate america, one manager's plans never survive the transition to a new manager. Unless they were written into contracts, his promises and plans were basically null after January 1st.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[innerdude]

What would you be buying and playing if PF didn't exist?

If PF didn't exist back in 2009, I'm certain I would have stuck with D&D 3.5 for a while . . . Until I discovered the Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition in early 2010, and picked up a copy of Fantasy Craft in 2011.

Fantasy Craft is basically Pathfinder custom-tailored to my preferred GM-ing style. Reading through Fantasy Craft was just a constant stream of, "Oh my gosh, that's totally how I would have done that!" Right down to the enemy templating system. In Pathfinder, I just stopped caring HOW enemy stats were what they were, as long as they were challenging to the group. I just picked an enemy's BAB, AC, and HP, tacked on a feat or two, and justified the stats after the fact ("Oh, yeah, that really tough rogue had super-nice +3 studded leather!"). Fantasy Craft, on the other hand, basically assumes that's just what smart GMs do, and supports it out of the gate. Basically, if I'm in the mood to GM or play a super-crunchy, fantasy-themed d20 derivative, I'd choose the system that natively supports my style, instead of a loosely-hacked Pathfinder.

 

[innerdude]

When I was laid off in 2001, there were two specific things that I was told directly.

1> Although 3.0 and Star Wars are the most profitable RPGs TSR/WotC ever produced, and are exceeding expectations in sales, their profit margins are not as high as desired. As a result, staff must be laid off (for the second time -- there was a round of layoffs almost exactly 2 months after I was hired) and replaced by freelancers to bring down costs.

2> Sales of the Star Wars RPG (which was what i worked on most of the time) are believed to be based on the popularity of the movies, and the quality of the product is irrelevant. Thus, it is not important to have me on staff.

I confess, I build a lot of my opinion of WotC businesses plans on the thinking that goes behind those conversations.

When viewed through that lens, particularly point #2, it becomes pretty revealing of every WotC decision made since the Hasbro merger. To hit the kind of profits Hasbro wants from the property, D&D must be viewed not as an "RPG," but as a "brand" and an "extensible product line." The total "quality" of the 4e product was irrelevant; what was important was that it fit into the proper "line extension" and "business model."

And if that's your mindset it quickly becomes obvious where the entire 4e game paradigm came from. 4e is an obvious manifestation of this --- "modular" rules sell more, because they can be used everywhere. 4e would become this "evergreen" system, living in its own happy ecosystem all based on the same core design, with the board games, video games, MMOs, licensing, and media extensions (books, movies, cartoons) all playing into that. Based on 4e's basic combat system and its reliance on minis, it also seems somewhat transparent that they expected it to transition at some point into other "skirmish" game modes, maybe even as a "lite" competitor with Warhammer.

To be honest, this, more than anything else, is to this day my primary beef with 4e. It's that the RPG product was clearly and obviously created as something to "sell more units" than because it was the best possible product for its time. The fact that the game feels stilted, overly "dissociative," and not in harmony with my vision of a "core D&D experience" are really secondary to this.

 

[fjw70]

To be honest, this, more than anything else, is to this day my primary beef with 4e. It's that the RPG product was clearly and obviously created as something to "sell more units" than because it was the best possible product for its time. The fact that the game feels stilted, overly "dissociative," and not in harmony with my vision of a "core D&D experience" are really secondary to this.

Well all products released by for-profit companies are released to "sell more units." Not sure how 4e is any different. They created and sold 4e because they thought they could make more money than what they were making on 3.5. Next is being developed because they think they can make more money with it than with 4e. It's how business works.

 

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

I have to say that really contrasts with the old Peter Adkison view of supporting D&D with WotC's Magic-driven wealth that I read about somewhere here online.

To be fair to Peter, he was gone by the time either statement was made to me.