Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5345917" data-attributes="member: 59082">Actually, I don't protest at all. Methinks thou dost misinterpret my tone. Azgulor, no offense but you come across as a Pathfinder fan looking for 4Editionists to pick fights with. First of all, I'm not partisan to either camp; I play 4E, but I like Pathfinder and don't have either an allegiance to WotC or a dislike of Paizo (or vice versa). So if you want to turn me into (another) 4E foe for you to bicker with, I'm not interested.I just wanted to get that on the table before responding further. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Yes, I'm sure it would be for some. But how would it impact the hobby as a whole? That's my question, and one I don't have a firm answer to - my above post was mainly an ad hoc contemplation.My main contention, which I'm happy to be wrong about, is that if D&D tanks it is not good for Pathfinder or the hobby as a whole. Why? Because it becomes isolated from getting new players, it becomes even more ghetto-ified than it already is. The best hope for the hobby to reach out and open its doors to new players, or to regain "retired" players, is through D&D. Imagine a 42-year old man shopping in Target, seeing the new Red Box on display and thinking, "I remember playing that game in junior high. $20? I'll pick that up and play it with the kids!" I don't as much see that same guy stopping to look at the Pathfinder starter set, or at least there is less of a chance.Why? Why does the name matter so much to you? Or perhaps more to the point, what pisses you off about D&D?Well I honestly hope that they succeed! I have a lot of respect for Paizo as a company and purchase quite a few of their products. That said, I hope that they exercise some caution and don't be too ambitious. Agreed.At the risk of taking this too seriously, I think this illustrates why some folks have a thing against WotC and D&D in general: it is the big bad daddy figure, the Evil Empire, the Corporate Masters, the Aboleth Overlords, etc. I am not saying this sort of mentality is behind people playing Pathfinder, or that Paizo caters to the victim mentality--not at all--but that the extreme ire that many people feel towards WotC could be related to this kind of thing. It is a form of psychological projection, really. WotC is the 800 lb Gorilla therefore it is the bad guy. Yes, true. But that's not my point.Actually, that analogy doesn't work at all and misses the point I'm trying to make. Pathfinder isn't Pepsi because people who don't drink cola know what Pepsi is, while people who don't play RPGs think Pathfinder is an SUV. But everyone has heard of D&D*. Maybe not everyone, but tens, maybe hundreds, of millions of non-gamers. To put it another way, Pathfinder's potential market is mainly already established gamers, and maybe a few lapsed gamers. Narrowing it further, their core market is dissatisfied D&D players that don't like 4E and/or satisfied 3.5E players who want more. It is certainly possible that Pathfinder could create a starter set that they could put in Barnes & Noble and gradually build a larger fan base, but it would be difficult. Heck, WotC has been trying to tap into the non-gamer market for years and hasn't had much success, at least not since 3E came out. But the potential market for Dungeons & Dragons is much larger. It is not only already established gamers, but the millions of lapsed gamers (mainly 1E and 2E D&D players) and the tens of millions of non-gamers that might enjoy a game of combat tactics, fantasy stories, and imagination. It is not that Pathfinder couldn't offer this -- it could, and quite well -- but that no one knows what it is.Please understand: This has nothing to do with the merits, or lack thereof, of either D&D or Pathfinder. It has everything to do with name recognition. In other words, I am making no value judgment with regards to either game, which is "better," etc. I play 4E because, as was the case in 1999 when I heard of 3E coming out, I had been on a hiatus from gaming for a few years and, after catching wind of 4E, my interest was perked (in other words, I was one of those lapsed gamers I mentioned). Anyhow, I picked up the books, liked most of what I saw (and disliked a fair amount too), started a group and have been playing for the last year and a half. I don't play Pathfinder because, for one, the core rulebook came out after my campaign had started--although I do own it, plus the Gamemastery Guide, the world book, and over a dozen Chronicles--and I am generally satisfied with 4E. I had also played 3.x for a few years from 2000 to 2004 and wanted to try something new. (There are other, more specific reasons for why I haven't "converted" but it isn't as relevant to this conversation).My point being, I have no special allegiance to either game, nor particular ire for either company. I tend to like what I see from Paizo as a company more; they have more of a "company of the people" vibe that I appreciate, and don't have the orporate patina that WotC has (yet). In other words, I'm not a rabid fan of either "team," to go back to someone's sports analogy and, quite frankly, I find the whole Paizo vs. WotC thing rather silly. What I am interested in is discussing the larger picture. *NOTE: Now if we want to talk about the negative impact of that name brand, that's another issue - and definitely an issue. </blockquote>

Verification