D&D General What if Critical Role had stuck with Pathfinder? Or 4E?

[teitan]

You do realize that 5e's calendar was always way less full than 3e and 4e calendars ? For me that is a very weak excuse, again, I'm not judging the pure quality of the editions, it depends way too much on taste, but just on the target audience, and the audience for 4e was always passionate but it was just not what the market wanted.

That being said, where PF always had it right, it was about releasing adventures rather than / on top of sourcebooks. For me, a good adventure (path) - and PF created a lot of good ones - is worth at least 5 sourcebooks full of options that I will never use. I might not play all the adventures published, but I will get lots of ideas and pleasure from reading them even if I don't play them.

Again, you’re comparing a dying game to a newly launched hotness. It’s not the same thing.

let’s take an example from comic books. John Byrne was working for DC in the mid 00s and launching new series with high sales for issue 1s but rumors were alway the series was being cancelled by issue 12 so the series would yank out and be cancelled around issue 18 anyway while other series that had lower sales first issue order continued, eclipsing Byrne’s titles. People stopped buying, because they thought the series were cancelled, Byrne’s new books because why support it when it was already cancelled even if it had good word of mouth? Why continue to buy 4e products when 1. They were cancelling books left and right and 2. Shifting to a more edition neutral format? New edition on the horizon signals. Sales always tank when a new edition looms. Pathfinder is the game that can and is quality product with the right focus, WOTC used their adventure focus after all as part of their game plan for 5e and seems to be playing catch up with some aspects of PF2 design like ancestries and lineages. Paizo knows what they are doing for sure but don’t overestimate the “Pathfinder takes top spot from D&D” when it was months when D&D had no products and D&D was STILL number 2 on the list with no new products. That 5e succeeded on a 3 releases a month schedule is all the more insane when you think about it.

 

[Lyxen]

Again, you’re comparing a dying game to a newly launched hotness. It’s not the same thing.

It was dying because of lack of interest from its customer base, it was not dying from lack of publication (the lack of later publication came because it was dying, not the other way around). 5e has always had a publication schedule way less full than 4e, is it dying ? Certainly not. So no, I'm comparing exactly the same thing. Pushing tons of books out into a market that does not want them (Essentials, I'm looking at you in particular) indeed killed the product.

 

[teitan]

So you’re not understanding me and I’m done explaining it to you as it isn’t worth continuing the discussion with you at this point. I will point out I didn’t say anything about it dying from lack of publication. I didn’t even hint at that. Have a great day.

 

[Lyxen]

So you’re not understanding me and I’m done explaining it to you as it isn’t worth continuing the discussion with you at this point. I will point out I didn’t say anything about it dying from lack of publication. I didn’t even hint at that. Have a great day.

What I'm seeing is that you don't even want to address the core of the problem, which is why it was dying in the first place. Of course, when it's dying, it snowballs as people don't want to invest, obviously.

 

[teitan]

What I'm seeing is that you don't even want to address the core of the problem, which is why it was dying in the first place. Of course, when it's dying, it snowballs as people don't want to invest, obviously.

have a good day.

 

[HammerMan]

According to Wikipedia, Pathfinder first outsold D&D in Spring 2011, while 4E was still being actively supported. To be fair, some commentary at the time (like this ENWorld post) similarly attributed this to a slower release schedule... but it seems that reduced release schedule was close to the one in the earliest years of 5E, which easily trounced Pathfinder. Also of note: according to citations in that linked ENWorld post, Pathfinder and D&D were neck-and-neck even earlier than that, in fall 2010.

that slow down of products is when WotC stopped pushing 4e, and Pathfinder was relaseing 2-3x the products....

yes if an olympic runner and a high school track star run 100 fair races, the olympian will most likely win them all... but if the High School Track star gets a minute head start that isn't 'out running'

 

[HammerMan]

You do realize that 5e's calendar was always way less full than 3e and 4e calendars ? For me that is a very weak excuse

I hate that people twist things...

I don't like something it's an excuse... I do like it then it is just a reason. Little turn of phrases.

again, canclations and going for 1or more a month to 1 every 4 months... compared to something putting out 2+ a month. Yes over all in a point where you need to compare 1 4e book (that isn't as pushed or supported) compared to 7-10 pathfinders books being pushed hard, the 7-10 books out sold the 1... what a race to win...

the audience for 4e was always passionate but it was just not what the market wanted.

you have no more proof then anyone else...

That being said, where PF always had it right, it was about releasing adventures rather than / on top of sourcebooks. For me, a good adventure (path) - and PF created a lot of good ones - is worth at least 5 sourcebooks full of options that I will never use. I might not play all the adventures published, but I will get lots of ideas and pleasure from reading them even if I don't play them.

I agree mostly... I think IF you are going to put out a book everymonth you should be putting out more adventures.

 

[HammerMan]

let’s take an example from comic books. John Byrne was working for DC in the mid 00s and launching new series with high sales for issue 1s but rumors were alway the series was being cancelled by issue 12 so the series would yank out and be cancelled around issue 18 anyway while other series that had lower sales first issue order continued, eclipsing Byrne’s titles.

this is another case of internet information bias.

in the 80's (and 70's and even before) no one had a clue what the sales numbers where, and even the (few that there were) comic shops knew more then a month or two out that a series was being ended unless it had a set number in it's concept.

in the mid to late 90's that started to change but in the last 15 years it has BOOMed. I have seen (and I have freinds that own a comic shop that makes good money so this isn't one or two people) that there is a decent number of people that complain as they drop books that they like because sales have fallen and they 'know it will be canceled' (having said that there are also completionism that buy books they hate because they have every issue for 20 years)

Back when DC launched Nu52 there was a JLI book that sold goodish for first 3 issues, but each issue had a small drop. (The fact that this is when the buddy bought the store helps that I know this one) and there was a rumor it was being 'on the bubble'. I liked it Okay, so I still bought it but at least 7 people cancled... and everyone of those 7 claimed to enjoy it, some more then me, because 'I don't have the money to spend if it is going to be canceled, I'ld rather buy something that will last'

by the time issue 7 came out the store was ordering almost 20 (I want to say 17ish) less issues and more then half of them said they stopped due to sales... and remeber not everyone gives a reason (although 'this sucks' normally IS said)

the sereies made it 13 issues (12+annual) with each issue have a small drop off until issue 6 that took a huge dive... then issue 9 got a small boost from a cross over.

the fact that something MIGHT fail or MIGHT end is enough to get many who enjoy it to switch support.

 

[HammerMan]

It was dying because of lack of interest from its customer base, it was not dying from lack of publication (the lack of later publication came because it was dying, not the other way around).

citetion needed...
all we know is 4e outsold 3e, then pathfinder split the fandom and 4e droped as pathfinder rose. at no point prior to the 'dying from lack of publication' did it look like pathfinder would take #1... it just looked like a strong #2.

everything I see shows that WotC (or someone at corrpret, or some group between them) decided that they MIGHT win back some of the #2 going forward... not a fear of looseing #1, just wanting to make it a blow out instead of a mostly race...

5e has always had a publication schedule way less full than 4e, is it dying ? Certainly not. So no, I'm comparing exactly the same thing. Pushing tons of books out into a market that does not want them (Essentials, I'm looking at you in particular) indeed killed the product.

no fan memes and being the only edition in history to have to deal with an OGL for it's most resent predecessor (and the growth of a retro clone there of) lead to the 800lbs gorilla becoming a 600lbs gorilla in the room and they wanted those 200lbs back

 

[Oofta]

Good grief. Yet another thread war? I get that some people liked 4E. I liked, and miss, certain aspects of it. But it simply didn't meet sales expectations. I think there were a lot of issues with that, including sales strategy of flooding the market and things like only including half the dragon types in MM 1 so people would feel like they needed to buy MM2, the fact that they simply needed a bit more time before initial release.

It just wasn't a mass market hit like 5E. That says nothing about the quality of the game, whether it was a good design for some people or not. While 5E has issues like every game it simply has broader appeal and more staying power. Part of 5E's success is a happy confluence of events including streaming, general public acceptance, better sales and publishing strategy. This edition simply has greater sustainability and growth potential, it's always greatly exceeded expectations from the very beginning.