NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5658138" data-attributes="member: 42582">Because D&D attracts an irrational degree of brand loyalty, I think it is plausible that PF has "stolen" sales from 4e - in that there are probably some people playing PF who, if it didn't exist, would have migrated to 4e not because it is a better game for their purposes but because they would stick with D&D, in whatever incarnation, rather than shift to a game that would be better for their purposes.(I realise that the analysis in the previous paragraphs is treating PF as an edition of D&D. I take that to go without saying. Heck, it's the whole foundation of PF's marketing and raison d'etre. Also, I don't think the mechanism works the other way - I don't think there are many who transitioned from 3E to 4e out of brand loyalty even though 3E better suits their desired playstyle, precisely because PF has succeeded in capturing many RPGers brand loyalty to D&D.)Another way in which PF may be "stealing" customers is if new recruits, who don't particularly care about system but who are interested in fantasy RPGing, get inducted into PF rather than 4e play. (Of course, 4e may equally be "stealing" customers from PF via the same means.) Was the OGL a mistake? Personally, I feel that on balance the OGL was a commercial error on WotC's part. Indeed, some of the accounts of the origins of the OGL suggest that it was a deliberately non-commercial decision, designed to keep D&D "in the hands of the fans" in perpetuity (although Dancey clearly also thought that it was commercially sound).But Paizo and PF isn't just about the OGL. The OGL is a necessary condition, but not sufficient. The other remarkable thing about Paizo and PF has been its ability to capture the goodwill that WotC enjoyed in respect of the D&D brand. There seem to be a number of factors here - Dragon and Dugneon, Paizo's hosting of the PDFs, Paizo's staff being drawn heavily (almost entirely?) from ex-WotC staff, etc. From Paizo's point of view, this is an extraordinary coup. From WotC's point of view it's a disaster, and I would have thought a significant failure of management.It's easy for me to belief that the online debates have helped Paizo in this coup, but then given that my knowledge of the whole situation is entirely from those online debates, I may be giving them undue weight.I don't know if I count as a 4e avenger (as opposed to a 4e liker) or not.I've got no insight into the market share issue other than what I read online. I gather the figures that are mentioned don't include DDI. But I also gather that they don't include Paizo's subscribers, and I gather Paizo has a large subscriber base.But anyway, given the apparent unpopularity of 4e among many posters, I've got no particular reason to be sceptical of the sales figures. They don't alter the fact that I personally have no interest in playing 3E/PF. I GMed a Rolemaster game through 10 years of stagnation and decline for ICE, and could equally happily GM 4e through a similar sort of period on the part of WotC (were it to occur).What does cause me frustration is the apparent inability of some posters to explain why they don't enjoy 4e in terms other than the impossibility of playing it as a serious RPG. This inability can manifest itself crudely - "4e is a tactical skirmish game" - or subtlely - "4e is rules first rather than fiction first". But it is annoying. And a lot of it seems to be based on ignorance of the trends in RPG design that have fairly obviously shaped 4e's design (like Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel, etc). Whether or not one likes these games, they are pretty clearly RPGs. So is 4e.And then you get stuff like "4e's rulebooks don't discuss roleplaying" even though there are multiple pages of such discussion in the opening sections of the PHB - far more than in Gygax's PHB - and the DMG puts forward as the preferred model of scenario design player-initiated quests. Or "fiction doesn't matter in 4e" despite the obvious indications to the contrary in the DMG's discussion of how powers affect objects.It's very frustrating. Partly because it creates unhelpful noise and distractions in conversation. Partly because it is needlessly hostile. Partly because it gets in the way of serious discussions about genuine differences in playstyles, and the range of mechanical tools and GMing and playing techniquest that can be used to support them.I have a different impression from yours as to the degree and efficacy of quashing, but that may be my bias.But like I said above, I would find the atmosphere less poisonous if there was less of "4e is a tactical skirmish game" or "4e doesn't support roleplaying" and more of "Here's what I want from a game, here's how I like to approach it, here are the tools that have and haven't worked for me, who's got any new ideas?" It's possible to talk about differences - and even differences about which one cares - without using pejorative language. Even if I prefer strawberry to chocolate, I might still be capable of talking about how to turn a tasty chocolate-based desert into a tasty strawberry-based desert without feeling the need to constantly describe the chocolate-based one as a "turd-based desert".</blockquote>

Verification