Pathfinder 1E Could Pathfinder take D&D's place...

[Ettin]

I clicked those links and then checked back on the other five, but they still kind of look like exotic hobo courtesans (plus an Inquisitor who wants to be shot in the heart) and nobody I talked to changed their mind and declared they're Puritans now. What am I doing wrong?

EDIT: Seriously though! Straight-up calling someone a Puritan for thinking a bunch of PF characters have weird fanservice outfits is weird, even if your paladin has a proper breastplate!

 

[Darwinism]

"wants to live past a few decades"? You're talking about a hobby that's barely 35 years old; who can tell what another 35 years will bring? I don't know what Paizo should be doing with Pathfinder in a decade or two; let's confine our discussions to the next five years or so.

Paizo's current problem is that they've married themselves to an older system and that's one of their chief aspects. If they want to expand they will have to ditch 3.5 at some point and come out with an improved system. But, in their current model, that will mean that they'll lose people that think 3.5 was Gygax's Dream System Which None Could Supplant.

So they either survive with the market they have, and never expand and slowly dwindle, or they anger some of the more radical aspects of their customers.

I disagree. I think it comes down to the "return on investment," factor. The 4e people who want the Paizo stuff is buying it and translating it to 4e. It's more cost-effective that way than to branch into a realm which their buying core is not interested in. I think it would be professional suicide if they started producing 4e supplements now - I feel they'd lose many of their PF enthusiasts to the point where publishing 4e material wouldn't make up for that loss.

Are they? A single person in my group has the Rise of the Runelords books. That's it. The rest he wings, and we toss suggestions at him from people that are freely translating it. That's not a good investment for Paizo; if they had player guide for 4E I'd buy it, and if they had a 4E setting I'd buy it, but they've got zero money from me when they could easily have more if they'd just annoy a couple angry nerds and go cross-system with very little effort. Most of their stuff is just straight fluff and 4E design is far easier than 3E, what with CR being the mess of broken it's always been.

That can't taken seriously. 3.x lasted 8-ish years and was going strong when the plug was pulled. Pathfinder is putting out a lot of product, yes, but their releases are "tricky" - a lot of modules and setting accessories. Those alone seem to do well enough to pay for their own publication. So it comes to the big, meaty releases that makes the players' wallets take notice - the hardback supplements. Six, seven? In what...2 years? That's a pretty digestable pace, in my opinion. They're not hitting us with one hardback a month (thank goodness) in a endless assault to keep us broke. They're nickel-and-diming us, sure, with the plethora of small releases and the big hardbacks sprinkled in. But it seems to be doing quite well. Well enough to be the best selling rpg on the market. And this is only Pathfinder's "1st Edition," so who's to say how long it'll go.

Here's the thing; 3.X was not going strong. If it had been going strong, 4E wouldn't have been considered. People were playing 3.X, to be sure, but it had run its little splatbooky course. People weren't interested in further splatbooks and, moreso, the OGL had led to things like the BoEF and Black Tokyo, things WotC very understandably did not want associated with D&D.

Oh and please provide actual numbers that PF is the best-selling RPG on the market or stop claiming that, thanks in advance.

I think a fairer question is, how long will Hasbro allow WotC to go with D&D in its current form? Will it last decades? I think "D&D" will, but that's not a fair question, since WotC can label a D&D game how they see fit. No, the question is, how long can 4e last and what will it's lasting effect be on the game of D&D?

You're under the very, very silly assumption that Hasbro concerns itself with WotC dealings. WotC very likely gets a carte blanche. They've got M:tG, anything else they do is icing on the delicious money cake. Hasbro likely won't get involved because WotC is a couple percentage points, at best, of their actual earnings and they have much bigger fish to fry.

EDIT: Seriously though! Straight-up calling someone a Puritan for thinking a bunch of PF characters have weird fanservice outfits is weird, even if your paladin has a proper breastplate!

As much as Seelah is a huge badass and awesome, her boobplate is just stupid. Yeah, she's a chick, awesome, she doesn't need her boobs outlined by full plate.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The problem with that particular niche is that it's analogous to model trains; people who like it now really like it, but there is hardly any new blood being invited. If Paizo wants to live past a few decades they're going to have to anger their more radical customers and branch out to other systems besides 3E.

In the last two years I have introduced 36 people to Pathfinder - half of them who had never played RPGs before, and a quarter who had been playing 4e. Eight were thirteen years old or younger.

The way to bring in new blood, to any game, is to invite people to play. Trust me, new blood is being invited, and the Pathfinder Beginner's Box should help invite even more folks into the fold.

I really wish that the 4e starter box had done better, locally at least. I may not like 4e, but I do want to see the hobby grow. If both beginners boxes were bringing in tons of new players then I would be more than happy. There is plenty of room for both PF and that other game there, you know the one....

The Auld Grump

 

[Darwinism]

In the last two years I have introduced 36 people to Pathfinder - half of them who had never played RPGs before, and a quarter who had been playing 4e. Eight were thirteen years old or younger.

Anecdotal evidence: Truly the most incontrovertible variety of evidence. Even if you're 100% honest and 100% of those people have stayed with Pathfinder, you're not the standard.

The way to bring in new blood, to any game, is to invite people to play. Trust me, new blood is being invited, and the Pathfinder Beginner's Box should help invite even more folks into the fold.

I do not see much "new blood" in any Pathfinder Society group; it's nearly always older guys and maybe some of their kids. This has to change, and a Beginner's Box to 3E isn't the way; RPGs have to try to become more accessible to more people as they progress. This isn't bad. This is the opposite of bad, but just like people who grew up on NES you have naysayers lamenting the woes of this newer generation that just doesn't appreciate system mastery for the true artform it is.

I really wish that the 4e starter box had done better, locally at least. I may not like 4e, but I do want to see the hobby grow. If both beginners boxes were bringing in tons of new players then I would be more than happy. There is plenty of room for both PF and that other game there, you know the one....

The thing is that D&D is trying to get new people into the game via Encounters and Essentials. Even though I dislike some previous seasons of Encounters and I think Essentials characters are boring in the long run, they're doing something Paizo is ignoring and actively trying to get people into the hobby via sponsored play. Even though 3E is far from my favorite system I would prefer to see Paizo trying to make it more accessible to beginners with less of an emphasis on system mastery and caster supremacy. Sadly, this does not appear to be the route they are taking.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Paizo's current problem is that they've married themselves to an older system and that's one of their chief aspects. If they want to expand they will have to ditch 3.5 at some point and come out with an improved system. But, in their current model, that will mean that they'll lose people that think 3.5 was Gygax's Dream System Which None Could Supplant.

So they either survive with the market they have, and never expand and slowly dwindle, or they anger some of the more radical aspects of their customers.

You are assuming that WotC is not losing marketshare - a dangerous assumption.

Are they? A single person in my group has the Rise of the Runelords books. That's it. The rest he wings, and we toss suggestions at him from people that are freely translating it. That's not a good investment for Paizo; if they had player guide for 4E I'd buy it, and if they had a 4E setting I'd buy it, but they've got zero money from me when they could easily have more if they'd just annoy a couple angry nerds and go cross-system with very little effort. Most of their stuff is just straight fluff and 4E design is far easier than 3E, what with CR being the mess of broken it's always been.

That is among the people that you know - what gets shouted down as anecdotal evidence when brought up about Pathfinder.

My experience is exactly the opposite, and, guess what? We both can be right. We live in different places, and game with different people.

In my opinion writing 4e material would be wasting resources, perhaps doubling the amount of time spent on mechanics without a like increase of sales. Not a productive direction.

Here's the thing; 3.X was not going strong. If it had been going strong, 4E wouldn't have been considered. People were playing 3.X, to be sure, but it had run its little splatbooky course. People weren't interested in further splatbooks and, moreso, the OGL had led to things like the BoEF and Black Tokyo, things WotC very understandably did not want associated with D&D.

Unknown - it is more likely that the sales had dropped below a 'magic number', but that the sales of 4e have crested much faster than planned.

And if PF is outselling 4e, as seems to be the case in many areas, then WotC has made a poor choice. If we fold Pathfinder in with 3.X then 3.X is going stronger than 4e. Partly because rather than letting 3PP saturate the market WotC went and glutted it themselves.

Oh and please provide actual numbers that PF is the best-selling RPG on the market or stop claiming that, thanks in advance.

Or just let you look it up yourself in the two or three threads on the subject, thank you in turn. Places to look include Amazon and Icv2, Ingram agrees, as does B&N.... Do your own digging, now that you have a map.

You're under the very, very silly assumption that Hasbro concerns itself with WotC dealings. WotC very likely gets a carte blanche. They've got M:tG, anything else they do is icing on the delicious money cake. Hasbro likely won't get involved because WotC is a couple percentage points, at best, of their actual earnings and they have much bigger fish to fry.

Actually, you are exchanging 'silly' for 'dangerous'. If WotC is slipping, and it possibly is, then Hasbro is likely to reorganize them. Fire people, replace managers, trim lines.... On the flip, WotC has been trimming its own lines and moving its own management around or replacing them.... Hopefully WotC can avoid a hammer from above them in the chain of command.

As much as Seelah is a huge badass and awesome, her boobplate is just stupid. Yeah, she's a chick, awesome, she doesn't need her boobs outlined by full plate.

Common to fantasy gaming since 1975, and fantasy magazines since the 1920s at least....

The Auld Grump

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Anecdotal evidence: Truly the most incontrovertible variety of evidence. Even if you're 100% honest and 100% of those people have stayed with Pathfinder, you're not the standard.

Not the standard, no. The reason I have brought that many people in has been to go and run games. It is simple, really. I have run games in shops, both book and game, summer programs, birthday parties, and twice at pagan retreats - in spite of not particularly being a pagan.

There really are people out there who can be introduced to gaming. I ask you not to take my word for it, but go and do it yourself. Prove me wrong by bringing in more 4e players, I really won't mind. Hell, I'll applaud.

*EDIT* It would not surprise me if some of the more successful Encounters groups have introduced a like or greater number of people to the hobby - the big thing is to be out there, in public, running the games. I have less fun running games in stores, but I still do it, exactly for that reason.

I do not see much "new blood" in any Pathfinder Society group; it's nearly always older guys and maybe some of their kids. This has to change, and a Beginner's Box to 3E isn't the way; RPGs have to try to become more accessible to more people as they progress. This isn't bad. This is the opposite of bad, but just like people who grew up on NES you have naysayers lamenting the woes of this newer generation that just doesn't appreciate system mastery for the true artform it is.

Also anecdotal evidence - even if I were to believe that you were 100% honest....

I on the other hand can tell you about two shops that kicked out a local 4e Encounters group - for reasons including making messes and shoplifting.

Should I judge 4e by that? That 4e attracts a bunch of spoiled brats and thieves? I don't think so - I think that group had been floating around and had latched on to Encounters like a tick on a dog. They took something that could have brought in new people and turned it into crap.

The thing is that D&D is trying to get new people into the game via Encounters and Essentials. Even though I dislike some previous seasons of Encounters and I think Essentials characters are boring in the long run, they're doing something Paizo is ignoring and actively trying to get people into the hobby via sponsored play. Even though 3E is far from my favorite system I would prefer to see Paizo trying to make it more accessible to beginners with less of an emphasis on system mastery and caster supremacy. Sadly, this does not appear to be the route they are taking.

Whereas WotC seems to want the removal of the campaign from the game and is running Encounters as a semi-competitive snippet. I would much prefer to see small campaigns, or at least adventures, being run than seeing a single encounter or a pair of unconnected, or loosely connected, encounters.

I can tell you which game and company I have had more fun with.... I intend to run The Haunting of Harrowstone on Hallowe'en for a group from the now closing Borders bookstore.

The Auld Grump

 

[Darwinism]

You are assuming that WotC is not losing marketshare - a dangerous assumption.

Hahahaha, no, it isn't. D&D makes up a pretty insignificant portion of WotC's marketshare; it would have to tank entirely to impact WotC much at all. MtG is what WotC makes money off of. Everything else is tertiary at best.

In my opinion writing 4e material would be wasting resources, perhaps doubling the amount of time spent on mechanics without a like increase of sales. Not a productive direction.

How? Being familiar with both 3E and 4E on the DM's side I will tell you that 4E is far, far easier to design for. And yet Paizo is completely unwilling to even try. That indicates, to me, that they recognize that some of their current consumers would be terribly offended by Paizo daring to act smartly and explore a market. The most vocal of Paizo's adherents, by their forums, seem to long to return ye days of yore when TSR would only publish quality material and never sully itself with unwanted and unneeded splatbooks. Except those people are ignorant to what caused TSR to die and what caused 3E to end.

Unknown - it is more likely that the sales had dropped below a 'magic number', but that the sales of 4e have crested much faster than planned.

Source it or it's just wishful thinking.

And if PF is outselling 4e, as seems to be the case in many areas, then WotC has made a poor choice. If we fold Pathfinder in with 3.X then 3.X is going stronger than 4e. Partly because rather than letting 3PP saturate the market WotC went and glutted it themselves.

Source it.

Oh right there are no actual sources with any methodology worth quoting that say that. Right, so even indicating that you want one game to doing better than the others is no more than projecting.

Or just let you look it up yourself in the two or three threads on the subject, thank you in turn. Places to look include Amazon and Icv2, Ingram agrees, as does B&N.... Do your own digging, now that you have a map.

Oooh, do I get to pull up the Amazon numbers that show Pathfinder in two-three places in the top twenty and D&D in the rest again? Do I get to remind people that those rankings are absolutely worthless because no numbers are attached? Do I get to inform people that IcV2 is anathema to any intellectual because their methodology amounts to, "We call some people and ask their opinions, nevermind actual numbers or anything like that," again? Hot dog!

Actually, you are exchanging 'silly' for 'dangerous'. If WotC is slipping, and it possibly is, then Hasbro is likely to reorganize them. Fire people, replace managers, trim lines.... On the flip, WotC has been trimming its own lines and moving its own management around or replacing them.... Hopefully WotC can avoid a hammer from above them in the chain of command.

Hasbro doesn't care about WotC unless MtG dies a sudden, unexpected death. That's all there is to it.

 

[Darwinism]

There really are people out there who can be introduced to gaming. I ask you not to take my word for it, but go and do it yourself. Prove me wrong by bringing in more 4e players, I really won't mind. Hell, I'll applaud.

Oh, I see people new to RPGs in general every new season of Encounters. See, it's broadcast to people in the stores we run in, and since we generally have a fun time people broadcast that. Thusly...

*EDIT* It would not surprise me if some of the more successful Encounters groups have introduced a like or greater number of people to the hobby - the big thing is to be out there, in public, running the games. I have less fun running games in stores, but I still do it, exactly for that reason.

And that's why Pathfinder should try and emulate something like Encounters. The hobby has to have new blood and it can't rely on random outgoing players for it; the producers must encourage it.

Whereas WotC seems to want the removal of the campaign from the game and is running Encounters as a semi-competitive snippet. I would much prefer to see small campaigns, or at least adventures, being run than seeing a single encounter or a pair of unconnected, or loosely connected, encounters.

Encounters is purposefully campaign light because it's meant to allow people to jump in at any point without ten minutes of, "And so it came to pass that Bill the Dragonslayer seduced the Lord of the Swamp's third cousin twice removed and there was loads of drama," because that's a turnoff to a lot of people. You don't want to be told that cool has happened, you want to do cool . Also, have you ever actually played Encounters? There is always an overarching story, the encounters are always very solidly related, and expecting the intricacies of a dedicated story path from what amounts to, "This is sort of what D&D is," to beginners is just silly. Do you expect first level organized play to actually mimic the intricacies a good DM can come up with at higher levels, or something?

Mod Edit: Folks, if you're getting strident enough to invoke the language filter, you've gone too far, and we'll take it as a sign that you are no longer going to control yourself. Take this as an example that you, too should tone it down, or you'll get removed from the thread like Darwinism here. ~Umbran

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Do your own digging for numbers.

You are coming across as shrill and defensive, deriding instead of productive. Tone it down. Try producing your own numbers rather than demanding that others show theirs.

As an example with Amazon... isn't it funny that all of Pathfinder's hardcover books are on the list, and how many of WotC's aren't? Yes, Pathfinder has only a few of the top slots - but they run out of books before Amazon runs out of slots.... Hard to cover the 25 top spots when you only have eight books.... 4e has the books, but does not cover the slots.

You may deride the numbers people give, but you offer nothing in their place. You hear rough numbers, then answer them with anecdote, you hear anecdotes and demand numbers, but do not ever offer your own. Your argument should be taken seriously... why? Support your claims, counter those of others with supported argument. Do not answer debate with polemic. You will feel better.

Laughing that D&D is trivial in the eyes of Hasbro... how is that good for D&D? Hasbro has killed properties that were more profitable, GI Joe was gone for a decade before being brought back, less than half the original scale. Saying that D&D doesn't matter to Hasbro is not something that should make you feel safe....

Encounters - Not everyone loves the format of Encounters - some in fact loathe it. It removes what I consider the backbone of the game. That said - I do applaud the fact that it exists at all, it is not what I consider fun, but it is getting noticed, and that is good.

The local example was bad - but I blame the people involved, not the idea behind Encounters. I just don't like Encounters, which is not the same as saying that it is bad. I would have more fun playing Master of Orion II. Or Clue, for that matter. But probably not Hi Ho Cherry-O.

You look at Encounters and see that cool **** is happening, and sure enough, I look at Encounters and I see a pile of, well, you get the picture. I like campaigns and adventures, I do not like Encounter McNuggets.

Given that Pathfinder does focus on the campaign, trying to emulate that model would be foolish. It looks at the long game while WotC is trying to catch the attention of the Wii generation. Neither is wrong. Trying to demand that either should try to emulate the other is silly.

You do like Encounters, and that is fine. But do not expect everyone who watches or plays Encounters to agree with either one of us - the ones who agree with you will come back next week while the ones who agree with me will wander off, muttering about finding a 'real game'. And, again, neither group will be wrong. And some folks will play whatever is running, and look at the folks who are arguing, shake their heads, and go back to rolling dice, whether they are battling through a forsaken temple or are sending a horde of Orks against a hill of entrenched Space Marines.

There is room for both models - those who play Pathfinder do not need or want Paizo to imitate WotC. WotC trying to recover the gamers that they have lost when they unveiled 4e would be equally unproductive as Paizo producing material under a license that can be revoked at the other party's leisure. There is a reason that 3PP stay away from the GSL in droves....

4e has its own fans - I may think that playing 4e is only slightly less fun than nailing my other foot to the floor, but I am not the audience for the game. There are folks who like it, and there are folks who don't.

I prefer using the same mechanics for the design of monsters and NPCs as those used for PCs. I do not mind taking the extra time. I have more fun writing an adventure for Pathfinder than I did playing 4e.

As for Pathfinder doing 4e material - 4e may well be easier to design for, but the pacing and styles of the two games is very different - it will not just be a matter of dropping in like 4e critters and calling it good - a battle that might take fifteen minutes in Pathfinder may take over an hour in 4e.

Skills, encounters, traps, all are handled differently - it would not be a matter of translation but rather one of interpretation.

Time spent doing so could be used producing material under their own license, one that cannot be yanked by WotC because the line manager sneezed.

It is easier to let DMs reinterpret Pathfinder adventures to fit their own styles than to have Paizo writers wasting time doing so. In the end the DMs will be happier with their own conversions, while I do not think many WotC adventures are being translated to Pathfinder, at all.

The last and only conversion I did of a WotC product was Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, when I converted it to Spycraft and set it during WWII.

I am pretty much done arguing with you - there are better people to disagree with, who are more fun to argue with. I do not agree with them, they do not agree with me, and both of us are happy with it, so why make it personal?

The Auld Grump

 

[prosfilaes]

Paizo's current problem is that they've married themselves to an older system and that's one of their chief aspects.

When WotC bought TSR, TSR was married to a 20-year old system. Rifts is 20 years old, as is GURPS. You've provided no evidence that 3.x won't last 20 years.

Older systems are not inherently bad. They're just older and more experienced.

If they want to expand they will have to ditch 3.5 at some point and come out with an improved system. But, in their current model, that will mean that they'll lose people that think 3.5 was Gygax's Dream System Which None Could Supplant.

So what? You think D&D 5E is going to keep everyone happy? Every edition change loses some people. There's no reason to think they'll have to do this anytime soon.

if they had player guide for 4E I'd buy it

The Player's Guide they're giving away for free in PDF? I'm sure they're crying about losing those sales.

Oh and please provide actual numbers that PF is the best-selling RPG on the market or stop claiming that, thanks in advance.

Numbers have been provided. If you don't like them, then provide better ones. If you can't, the best you say is that it's not proven to your standards; you can't demand that others adapt to your standards.

Hahahaha, no, it isn't. D&D makes up a pretty insignificant portion of WotC's marketshare; it would have to tank entirely to impact WotC much at all. MtG is what WotC makes money off of. Everything else is tertiary at best.

All that means is that if D&D isn't selling well, Hasbro isn't going to start throwing money at the problem; it's going to let it die. Possibly to bring it back after a decade or two, like GI Joe.

And yet Paizo is completely unwilling to even try. That indicates, to me, that they recognize that some of their current consumers would be terribly offended by Paizo daring to act smartly and explore a market.

While we're demanding sources, let me point out that the insight of an industry outsider with strong brand loyalty as to internal motivations is less reliable than a Magic 8-ball. My opinion is that major companies rarely sell for their opponent's systems, but I just told you what that's worth.

Oooh, do I get to pull up the Amazon numbers that show Pathfinder in two-three places in the top twenty and D&D in the rest again? Do I get to remind people that those rankings are absolutely worthless because no numbers are attached? Do I get to inform people that IcV2 is anathema to any intellectual because their methodology amounts to, "We call some people and ask their opinions, nevermind actual numbers or anything like that," again? Hot dog!

Good job dismissing all the evidence. After you've got rid of all the evidence, we're left with pure mathematical probability, which gives us a 50/50 chance Pathfinder is beating D&D4, and a relatively miniscule chance that D&D 4e is the best selling RPG on the market.