Would Paizo Make a Better Steward for Our Hobby?

[Hussar]

The Pathfinder Society is one of the largest if not largest OP programs.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ter-Steward-for-Our-Hobby/page8#ixzz2kUrUGCfO

Cite please. Where is the evidence for this. I know, at one time, the RPGA was running in the 100-150 000 members range, but, my data is way out of date. I have no idea how many play in OP programs anymore. I'd be curious to see what people are playing.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Maybe a closer look at the first post is in order. The question really was about Paizo being the steward of D&D, not the whole gaming hobby.

To clarify, I shouldn't have mentioned Paizo at all, because I really don't care one way or the other about it, and all it's done is sidetrack the discussion. (I was simply miming the sentiments I've seen to the effect of "Paizo is such a great company, wouldn't it be peaches and cream if they owned D&D!") I added those two edits to the OP in a further effort to generalize Paizo into 'your ideal game company.' (Not some Messiah of game companies; just the best one you can think of within the confines of practicality.) Obviously, my efforts failed.

As to Steward of D&D vs. Steward of the Industry, I left that intentionally vague. Likewise, I use 'steward' simply because I've seen it used by others; I honestly don't know whether I know what it means in the context of gaming. My interest in this topic is merely whether others think that some hypothetical idealized game company would make us generally happier in the long run, or if such a company would end up as everything that we hate about WotC.

Now, by all means, carry on.

 

[Jester David]

Cite please. Where is the evidence for this. I know, at one time, the RPGA was running in the 100-150 000 members range, but, my data is way out of date. I have no idea how many play in OP programs anymore. I'd be curious to see what people are playing.

Sorry, my bad, I missed the word "current". They're hoping to hit 100,000 players by the end of the year/early 2014. Not quite Living City/Living Greyhawk numbers but they haven't gone international to the same extent. But better than LFR.

 

[GreyLord]

Anyone who gives a damn about balance for starters. Or wants anything other than a tweaked 3.5 experience. Which makes sense because their initial advertising campaign was "3.5 Thrives" - i.e. "We will give you more of the same". They set themselves up in opposition to the changes made by 4e.

I don't blame them for this. They had the opportunity to take and they took it spectacularly successfully. And appealing to those who didn't want certain things was part of that. They built their foundations on the edition war. And as I say, good luck to them and they did well out of it. I certainly don't begrudge people enjoying their game.

And other than a shopfront they've given nothing in their ruleset to anyone who likes rules to encourage roleplaying, narrativist style. There's another chunk they haven't supported. And I know of nothing they've really done for the OSR.

The core fact is Paizo only have a single game, and it's a game that was developed by employees of Wizards of the Coast in the late 90s and tweaked in the early 00s. The only people they support with their games are those who like that game with minor modifications.

Who exactly do you think other than 3.5/PF fans do you think they have been supporting? Other than by providing a shopfront? (And if that's important, turn everything over to Drivethru - after all they sell all editions of D&D and​ Pathfinder)

Believe it or not NeonChameleon, I see your point and I am not disagreeing specifically on questioning whether they would be good stewards over ALL of D&D (inclusive of OD&D, B/X, BECMI/ AD&D and 2e) or not, as I don't know, I am unsure.

The shopfront is ALL they can do in many instances because LEGALLY, if they promote AD&D or other older D&D like you want to see, they may GET SUED. That's a pretty big deterent...don't you think.

However, ON THEIR FRONT PAGE, AT THE VERY TOP, Paizo regularly advertises. Half the time it is for something for Pathfinder, HOWEVER, OTHER TIMES, IT IS FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK OR GAME that they are advertising.

Now, with OSRIC, the final document that I got, I actually got from Paizo. It was NOT from a front page ad, but more directed there by the Paizo staff and conversations with a friend. The friend was interested in it from something they saw on Paizo, downloaded it, and then printed it out and we went over the document with each other to determine whether he would run it or not.

Now my preference is simply to run 1e, since that's what I already own. That's what we ended up running, but that was MY influence. If it was from Paizo, it would have probably been OSRIC, which by the way, is part of the entire OSR movement.

In a nutshell, I'm not disagreeing whether Paizo would or would not be good stewards over the entire namesake of D&D other than to say...they may be, or might not be. I am unsure. However, the idea that they don't support other games or writers or game writers or game systems, I feel is flawed.

They CREATE specifically for their system, and that's what you are pointing out. They have limited resources. They have something that sells. Rather than divide those resources and have more costs vs. profit, they decide to create specifically for the product they already have. That's more of a business situation rather than anything dealing with what they'd desire to do. We know that they DO promote, and even sell, other 3rd party products. That's a hopeful sign.

On the otherhand, they have focused all their efforts on their primary product for what they themselves produce (though they do have an open call in regards to freelance work and you or others creating gaming items [as long as you have the proper rights to do so] in order for them to sell that type of gaming material on their storefront) in regards to money and profit.

So, I don't know whether they would be better stewards over D&D or not. I see your point, and in fact am not going to say that Paizo would be better for D&D or not, as I don't know. I think they'd be great for the D20 versions, but for anything before that, it's a LARGE question mark.

However, I think when asking and analyzing, one should look at what is already being done by Paizo and give them proper evaluations rather than simply writing it off.

 

[GreyLord]

I'm curious where people are getting this idea that it's easier to update someone else's game than it is to make your own game.

I mean, it's one of those things that seems like common sense, but isn't true at all in my experience. Do other people's experiences differ or are we just running on assumptions?

I get to link one of my favorite Lisa Stevens posts twice in one day! Here you go: Lisa totally agrees with Jester Canuck.

Cheers!
Kinak

I disagree with Lisa, and as opposed to popular knowledge, Lisa and Mr. Dancey are NOT THE ONLY ONES that have seen the balance sheets.

I haven't seen all the account and amounts, but I have seen some. It wasn't the split of the Basic and AD&D line, and such a supposition is the idea of fantasy. In fact, if you look (okay, you can't), or if you use logic, the Basic game for BECMI was at one point, THE set that brought people into the game. It actually propped up sales of the other line (Which is what I also suppose Paizo itself was doing when it created the Beginner Box which also indicates they learned something and perhaps are using that knowledge for Paizo's benefit).

That may go contrary to what she stated, but that's the facts.

I think what she intended to say (and maybe not, but then she probably was lying through everything and anything) was that the line got split into many different fragments. That is to say, instead of simply having Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms, they had Birthright, The Old World, Birthright, Spelljammer, Al Qadim, Maztica, Dragon Dice, The collectible card game, and more. This splintered the support for the lines to the point of dilution (at least for some of those lines, others made money...it's the ones that DID NOT but were still supported that she's discussing) where the money put in did not equal the money that came out of the investment. TSR continued on that line to such a degree that it really wouldn't make sense.

Perhaps the later sets of the D&D introductory sets were meant to be loss leaders, but only were losses, but up until the early 90s...I would say she's wrong in her statements of the division of D&D and AD&D.

Now LATER...I can see her point, but then it really isn't the D&D/AD&D split at all, it's more the dilution of the specific games they are supporting (dozens of campaign settings, several failing game settings they continued to support such as the SAGA, card game, and dragon dice), and other items that were so diluted that they not only did not generate profit, every product produced generated negative income.

So, I could be wrong, but I think she was commenting more on the end of the TSR time, when just about all the dilution affected every product, rather then earlier, because, even without being able to provide profit sheets, I think ANYONE with any iota of common sense can see the parallels between the Basic game (and it was more the basic game as an intro than any of the later sets such as the Expert, Companion, or Masters set) and AD&D and how the D&D game actually contributed and supported the AD&D line.

In fact, I'd even call Paizo in Poker and point out it is this example that specifically paved the way for the Beginner Box, because they KNEW that there was a direct parallel between the Basic Box and the AD&D game.

IMO of course.

It could be they just made the Basic Box because they thought it was a bad idea...and were catering to fans (though that in and of itself is sort of counter intuitive, catering to people who already are playing your game with a set meant to introduce them to your game isn't exactly perfect business sense...but hey, they ARE the current leaders according to some lists).

Personally, I think a LOT of their rise recently has been doublesided, one from their increase in their sales for Pathfinder via creations of new lines such as campaign and companion books, with the second being the BB being utilized for exactly what it was meant to do...bring new blood into Pathfinder and make it an easy transition.

I know that's exactly how they hooked, line, and sinkered me in. It was with the beginner box and friends who played PF.

 

[GreyLord]

To clarify, I shouldn't have mentioned Paizo at all, because I really don't care one way or the other about it, and all it's done is sidetrack the discussion. (I was simply miming the sentiments I've seen to the effect of "Paizo is such a great company, wouldn't it be peaches and cream if they owned D&D!") I added those two edits to the OP in a further effort to generalize Paizo into 'your ideal game company.' (Not some Messiah of game companies; just the best one you can think of within the confines of practicality.) Obviously, my efforts failed.

As to Steward of D&D vs. Steward of the Industry, I left that intentionally vague. Likewise, I use 'steward' simply because I've seen it used by others; I honestly don't know whether I know what it means in the context of gaming. My interest in this topic is merely whether others think that some hypothetical idealized game company would make us generally happier in the long run, or if such a company would end up as everything that we hate about WotC.

Now, by all means, carry on.

If we get serious, right now I'm happy with Paizo doing Pathfinder and what they are doing. I think they are doing a nigh perfect job with what they have.

Leave D&D to Hasbro.

Give Pathfinder enough time and Paizo may become the default leaders of the hobby for a while...who knows, however I'd rather Paizo do it on the back of PF where I think they have a more free hand, than with the weight of D&D on their shoulders.

 

[Jester David]

Pelgrane[/URL] (13th Age, Hillfolk, Gumshoe, more) or possibly Burning Wheel/Luke Crane if I wanted one person as opposed to a company. Or possibly Cubicle 7 if I wanted a caretaking and filtering role - but they aren't up to the job yet.

I didn't want to comment on this earlier because, well, I had nothing to say.
But after seeing the front page of ENWorld and Cubicle 7's latest Kickstarter it occurs to me that we might want to entrust the future of the hobby to a company whose successful product delivery is not tied to crowd-sourcing. When Kickstarter inevitably explodes and there's a big enough scandal it would really hurt the industry.
Just a thought.

 

[Jester David]

I disagree with Lisa, and as opposed to popular knowledge, Lisa and Mr. Dancey are NOT THE ONLY ONES that have seen the balance sheets.

Well... Mrs. Stevens isn't just someone who saw the balance sheets, she combined them. She was the one that pulled together the figures. Dancey knows because he tasked her with finding out.

I haven't seen all the account and amounts, but I have seen some. It wasn't the split of the Basic and AD&D line, and such a supposition is the idea of fantasy. In fact, if you look (okay, you can't), or if you use logic, the Basic game for BECMI was at one point, THE set that brought people into the game. It actually propped up sales of the other line (Which is what I also suppose Paizo itself was doing when it created the Beginner Box which also indicates they learned something and perhaps are using that knowledge for Paizo's benefit).

That may go contrary to what she stated, but that's the facts.

Possible. But the counter argument is if people hadn't been buying Basic they would have been buying the PHB and the other line wouldn't have need propping up. Or, as Paizo is doing, the Basic set could have been compatible with all the other products and fuelled sales of AD&D.

The fact that Basic and AD&D survived for so long while competing against each other is really a testament to the popularity of D&D during the '80s.

I think what she intended to say (and maybe not, but then she probably was lying through everything and anything) was that the line got split into many different fragments. That is to say, instead of simply having Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms, they had Birthright, The Old World, Birthright, Spelljammer, Al Qadim, Maztica, Dragon Dice, The collectible card game, and more. This splintered the support for the lines to the point of dilution (at least for some of those lines, others made money...it's the ones that DID NOT but were still supported that she's discussing) where the money put in did not equal the money that came out of the investment. TSR continued on that line to such a degree that it really wouldn't make sense.

Perhaps the later sets of the D&D introductory sets were meant to be loss leaders, but only were losses, but up until the early 90s...I would say she's wrong in her statements of the division of D&D and AD&D.

Now LATER...I can see her point, but then it really isn't the D&D/AD&D split at all, it's more the dilution of the specific games they are supporting (dozens of campaign settings, several failing game settings they continued to support such as the SAGA, card game, and dragon dice), and other items that were so diluted that they not only did not generate profit, every product produced generated negative income.

So, I could be wrong, but I think she was commenting more on the end of the TSR time, when just about all the dilution affected every product, rather then earlier, because, even without being able to provide profit sheets, I think ANYONE with any iota of common sense can see the parallels between the Basic game (and it was more the basic game as an intro than any of the later sets such as the Expert, Companion, or Masters set) and AD&D and how the D&D game actually contributed and supported the AD&D line.

I doubt she had access to the figures as far back as the early '80s and agree that she was likely only looking at the late TSR era when it was dying. But she's said pretty plainly that it was the result of fragmentation in the D&D brand with Basic and AD&D being increasingly incompatible, but also the settings being incompatible as Greyhawk fans were not buying Dark Sun or Forgotten Realms products. This alone really killed D&D but it was accelerated by mispriced boxed sets, bad investments (Dragon Dice, Spellfire), and side games (SAGA)

She goes into it quite often in her regular Auntie Lisa's Story Hour at GenCon (and now PaizoCon). The past 2 or 3 years can be heard on the 3.5 Private Sanctuary podcast.

I imagine if Basic and AD&D hadn't drifted so far apart it might have been easier. If there wasn't the Basic campaign setting and the AD&D campaign settings for example. Or if monsters were compatible. Or, during second edition, if things like kits or many accessories had a shared audience.

In fact, I'd even call Paizo in Poker and point out it is this example that specifically paved the way for the Beginner Box, because they KNEW that there was a direct parallel between the Basic Box and the AD&D game.

In an interview I heard a Paizo staff member going into the details of how they made the Beginner Box affordable. They were sneaky and did things like only using recycled art and having it written by staff rather than freelancers so they didn't need to pay them (as they were salaried). They worked hard to get it into Big Box stores so they could have a larger print run.

They knew the starter box was important for bringing new people into the game. That's why they worked so hard to make one and adjust the presentation. Because they knew how many people were introduced to D&D via the Red Box. And, as the industry leader, it was their job to introduce people into the hobby. (They often said that exactly. Not just the game, but the hobby. They truly felt it was their responsibility.)

But they also didn't want to make a second Pathfinder line that sucks sales away from the Core Rulebook. They didn't want to make a Basic Bestiary when people could just buy any of their other Bestiary books.

It could be they just made the Basic Box because they thought it was a bad idea...and were catering to fans (though that in and of itself is sort of counter intuitive, catering to people who already are playing your game with a set meant to introduce them to your game isn't exactly perfect business sense...but hey, they ARE the current leaders according to some lists).

As said, they really view it as their responsibility to make it easy on new players to start the game. They can't make a new version of the Core Rulebook (although I wish they would) they are doing what they can. And while they're not making a Beginner Box 2 or Pathfinder Basic, they are doing products like the Strategy Guide.

 

[pemerton]

Given my choice I'd go with Pelgrane (13th Age, Hillfolk, Gumshoe, more) or possibly Burning Wheel/Luke Crane if I wanted one person as opposed to a company.

I couldn't XP the Luke Crane endorsement, but I think he'd make a good custodian of fantasy RPGing.

 

[GreyLord]

Well, in regards to the Red Box, many of those who were introduced WOULD NOT have gotten the PHB. I think that's a flub and a mistake that many make. Introductory products are wonderful specifically because they draw in those who would not be drawn in otherwise. IT is most definite that the Red Box brought many into the D&D fold and to AD&D who would not have been brought in without it.

I think a similar modern idea would be the Playstation 3 and Blu-Rays. While you could try to claim that those who got a PS3 and then started buying blu-rays would have gotten blu-rays anyways, that's not necessarily true. It was because they had the PS3 that they got the Blu-rays, but they would not necessarily have gotten blu-rays if the ability to play them was not already available on the PS3 they already had.

Not the best example, but I'm hardpressed to think of examples at this time of the night that would do justice to how successful the Red Box was in introducing people to D&D, and thence to AD&D.

IF she only saw the late figures right around when TSR was going bankrupt...Perhaps she has a good point. Then, I don't think D&D as such was really a prominent item at that point anyways, in sales or figures. It was more prominent earlier in the decade and in the 80s I think (that's an opinion on my part). During it's hey day though, D&D and AD&D really sort of fed each other...sort of like Popcorn and Movies (theaters) help each other out.