Would Paizo Make a Better Steward for Our Hobby?

[JamesonCourage]

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

Based on some of the few quotes from him I've read, there are much worse choices. He seems capable of appreciating systems for what they strive for. I think his views can be a little narrow (if I'm remembering what I read correctly), but all told, there would be much worse individuals.

 

[delericho]

The thing is, though, that you don't need the Basic/Advanced split to have an introductory product - it would have been entirely possible to do an "AD&D Red Box", and there was certainly no need to have the "Red Box" and then the Blue, Green, and Black boxes as well.

The reason TSR maintained the Basic/Advanced split was due to the fallout of the Gygax/Arneson split - Gygax maintained that Arneson wasn't due royalties for AD&D because it was a separate game from D&D, and TSR maintained the two lines separately to prove it. It was only when WotC bought TSR and made rapprochement with Arneson that the split ceased to be necessary, and the game became just D&D again.

 

[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 wouldn't expect they were the only ones. I mean, everyone needs accountants, to say nothing of other managers.

I'm not one of those people, though, so I really appreciate you sharing what you did see.

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 don't think she's arguing there shouldn't have been a Beginner's Box. From what I've heard her say, she's actually very proud of it.

The statement she's making there is more about why they're not going to expand the Beginner's Box into a whole product line that competes with the main Pathfinder line. They want it just to be that gateway.

So I'm not sure if there's actually any disagreement, unless you think making Beginner's Box 2 or a line of BB-specific supplements would be good for Paizo.

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

Welcome aboard

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[N'raac]

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)

first, I'd like to get a definition of "supporting". Clearly, it's not just "making the product available for purchase", which Paizo is clearly doing. I suggest it requires actively producing new material (rules, updates, upgrades, settings, adventures, whatever) for the game on a regular basis. I agree Paizo supports only one game, by that definition. Which companies support more games? Which games are actually supported at present?

I will add two further qualifications for "support". The product must be physical (online .pdf only does not count) and it must be distributed to brick & mortar stores, not just made available for online purchase. Why? Because an online only approach caters to only existing games who are already interested in the product.

Finally, the "steward" must make active efforts to bring new blood to the hobby. That adds two further requirements, a focus on an "entry level" product such as the Basic Box, and actively working to get that product on the shelf at conventional retail stores, not gaming stores, where it will be seen and, hopefully, purchased by non-gamers.

VERY few companies can claim that level of stewardship.

Hmm... Let's see. What can you buy things for from WotC at the moment?

Rules Cyclopaedia D&D (And oD&D - not sure if this is in hardcopy)
AD&D 1e
AD&D 2e (not sure this should be separate from 1e ruleswise)
D&D 3.5 (oddly not 3.0)
D&D 4e
Gamma World (Or possibly that's just warehouse copies)

Are these supported (ie new products) or just offered for sale? I don't think the "Steward of the Hobby" simply reprints old products, nor is that "supporting the game".

Right now Paizo is a narrow company focussing on one game and one playstyle. That's great for them but the only people who want Paizo in charge so far as I can tell are those that happen to like that playstyle. I want a company that does do more than one thing.

Many comments on this thread have cited the need for a company that loves the product. Will one company love all playstyles, or is the hobby better off with designers who focus on the kind of game they themselves are passionate about? What designer, or company, produces and supports games that cater to every playstyle across every major genre (fantasy, science fiction, horror, action/adventure, super heroes, westerns, cyberpunk and I have doubtless missed several)?

The thing is, though, that you don't need the Basic/Advanced split to have an introductory product - it would have been entirely possible to do an "AD&D Red Box", and there was certainly no need to have the "Red Box" and then the Blue, Green, and Black boxes as well.

Exactly. An entry level product can stimulate sales of the more advanced line. A separate game system splits the market.

 

[Wicht]

Indeed. They do what they do well. This is not a problem. It just isn't anything close to the whole hobby - it's a single approach.

You are still contentiously saying things that either don't mesh with reality or are so broad as to be meaningless.

If you mean that Paizo as a company is not selling to every gamer out there, I suppose that you are likely right. However, WotC is most certainly not selling to every gamer out there either, and made a decision with 4e to purposefully cut off a segment of the base in an effort of increasing their brand. They failed to achieve their goal. So if this is a valid area of concern, there is no such company selling to everyone. Now, on the other hand, I will point out, and I made this observation publically several times a few years back, that it struck me that while WotC was selling gaming products to primarily the 4e crowd, Paizo was selling products that appealed to both the 3e and the 4e crowd with their map-packs, stories, and the like. That is, there were more, it seemed to me, 4e players utilizing Pathfinder material than there was Pathfinder players utilizing 4e material. I think this is part of WotC problem with 4e, the appeal of the material was far narrower than the appeal of the Pathfinder material in the sensibilities being served.

If you mean that Paizo does not make products for other parts of the gaming hobby (miniatures, board games, card games, etc.), then you are just factually wrong.

 

[Wicht]

As for stewards of the hobby, let me just put in my 2 cents.

The "steward" of the hobby is going to be the company or companies who, through the market, successfully capture the imagination of the customer base and, by virtue of their success, keep the hobby going.

WotC was, at one time, the undisputed steward of the hobby. Personally, I think they flubbed it in a rather big way. But the market answered and others (one of which was Paizo) moved in to help keep things going in a rather big way. The rpg gaming community is not dying. But we do not currently have a single "steward." We have two primary companies vying for market leadership and both are, in their own way, "stewards." This encourages me, because it means the gaming hobby is healthier than to require a single steward or company to keep it going and there are some talented people out there who love the hobby, love the history of the game(s), and who have the wherewithal to put out good products.

I'm not sure I want a single "steward" of the hobby. I think it far better for a robust market to, through competition, continue to promote excellence in gaming.

Now, on the other hand, I will like it better when the older dungeons and dragons products become public domain, and, if WotC wanted to really show their appreciation for the history and legacy of the game, in my opinion, they would take more steps to preserve the classic modules and make them available once more to the public. Though their recent return to selling them as PDFs was a very encouraging sign.

 

[delericho]

Now, on the other hand, I will point out, and I made this observation publically several times a few years back, that it struck me that while WotC was selling gaming products to primarily the 4e crowd, Paizo was selling products that appealed to both the 3e and the 4e crowd with their map-packs, stories, and the like. That is, there were more, it seemed to me, 4e players utilizing Pathfinder material than there was Pathfinder players utilizing 4e material.

I think that's a little unfair - WotC were also selling dungeon tiles, miniatures, and the like that could be used by players of any edition. They had more of some things (minis) and less of others (map packs) than did Paizo, but they both had both. And WotC aren't responsible if the market chooses to use the Paizo 'generics' and not the WotC ones.

 

[Wicht]

I think that's a little unfair - WotC were also selling dungeon tiles, miniatures, and the like that could be used by players of any edition. They had more of some things (minis) and less of others (map packs) than did Paizo, but they both had both. And WotC aren't responsible if the market chooses to use the Paizo 'generics' and not the WotC ones.

By "stories" I meant the Adventure Path stories and modules. There was no reporting of any Pathfinder player using 4e modules. There was whole conversions of the adventure paths.

I concede the dungeon tiles, though WotC dropped the minis, and the crossover was always anecdotally favoring Paizo in this regard. But point taken.

 

[delericho]

By "stories" I meant the adventure Path stories and modules. There was no reporting of any Pathfinder player using 4e modules. There was whole conversions of the adventure paths.

Ah, I see. I thought you were instead referring to the fiction lines. Given your clarification, you're right.

 

[Umbran]

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.

The thread title and the body of the post are at odds on that.

If you look closely, the question in the body of the post was about Paizo *or the company of your choice* having D&D *or whatever ruleset you, personally, feel is perfect*.

So, I think it is okay for folks to be answering a number of different questions in here - thought we do need to make some effort to keep them straight.