Great City Campaign Setting...not 4e...sucks

[BryonD]

And you think the subscriptions are a better indicator? Can't they be canceled?

Whether you order the subscription or the books, you are saying that you're interested enough to spend some money on it. Of course that can change. 4E mechanics might in the end not be for you. Or Pathfinder adventures are all fine and dandy, but the 3E mechanics tire the DM and players anyway.

But I think there is a linear relation between "general interest" and "long-term" interest. And this tells us that both will probably have their measure of success.

Not my claim.
My claim is that interest in a many years established game is a better indication of long term involvement than interest in the new shiny.

Again, I didn't claim 4e wouldn't have a measure of success. I questioned the presumption that it will gain more long term players than it has lost.

Misrepresenting what I said is not helpful.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Misrepresenting what I said is not helpful.

Misunderstanding what you say isn't either.


But to expand on it:

We also know that there are 3E fans that don't like the Pathfinder changes. Because they make using older material harder. That's of course a very subjective statement. But how many people still used Masters of the Wild after 3.5 appeared. How many after the Complete Divine appeared? The classes were nearly useable as-is, and still I found very few people that "trusted" those books enough to continue using them with 3.5.

One big advantage Paizo has is that their fans are not attracted to the new shiny fad. The fresh spin of the PF rules set is a plus, for certain. But Paizo's fan are in it because they know they love the root 3X game and have for many years now.

One big advantage of WotC is that their fans are attracted to the new shiny. The freshness, clarity and ease of use of 4E rules is a plus. But WotC fans also know they love what the WotC designers have put out in the past, and they have been for many years now.

The big advantage of Paizo is that they have fans.
The big advantage of WotC is that they have fans.

 

[BryonD]

Misunderstanding what you say isn't either.

heh. Obviously, I suck at converying my meaning, at least in this thread.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

heh. Obviously, I suck at converying my meaning, at least in this thread.

To compensate, I made a sneak edit to my post. It took longer then I wanted...

And another sneak edit:
I find it better to assume "incompetence" (misunderstanding) before malice (and misrepresenting looks like "malice" to me.)

We are not all out to get you. I am, but others might not.

 

[BryonD]

Fair enough, but I think the anaolgy is falling apart.

For 4e, the sales of the core are being pointed at as a form of proof that it will grow the number of long term players. The reality that the response from people who have bought it had ranged the sceptrum from Awesome to meh to wtf is being ignored.

Yeah, there are also people who don't like 4e but also don't like the changes they see in PF. But those people are not buying PF, so unlike the 4e core sales, these people are not being counted as false positives. I'm sure you could find some ancedotes. I've seen a few on the PF forums. But it is a whole different realm.

Honestly, the Beta isn't out yet, much less the final product. There is still plenty of chance for Paizo to drop the ball. but again, that is a different argumement.

Here is my point:
There is much more reason to conclude that Paizo's sales are sustainably growing than there is to conclude the same for WotC. It might be true for WotC. But the data right now has much more of a new shiny - bubble effect in play AND the known meh to negative response related to recent actual sales both cast a much larger uncertainty on it.

yeah, a subscription can be canceled. What would you rather have: a subscription from one person who has been playing the same basic game for years and willingly spending money on it every month, or the hope that a randomly selected former non-gamer (and remember the 4e arguement is hanging on growth of new blood) who picked up the 4e core deciding to start buying a book a month? Will there be some? Will there be enough? Maybe, but far from presumably.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

What YOU dont seem to understand, is that in general, market share has almost nothing to do with what is appealing to third parties. You know what is holding back majority of 3pp?

The GSL. Because no one wants to really put their companies flagships and otehr gems in Wotc's whimsical hands. Your seeing more and more not switching. Big or small.

Even Necromancer games, with Orcus, is seeming hesitant at the moment in trusting something like Tomb of Horrors in 4e.


Market share has really, nothing to do with the decisions we're seeing. Not many want to trust their pride and joys into the GSL.

I think what you are trying to say is that the GSL is preventing 3pp from moving to 4e DESPITE the larger market size. Because it would be crazy to think that they don't want to try and tap that larger market. Heck, try to tap both if you can.

As for not wanting to convert Tomb of Horrors or the like, I can understand the apprehension. Then again Tomb of Horrors is such a name brand that you could probably negotiate a seperate contract with WOTC so that you don't loose the option to go back at some point at time. But if you don't, then what do you do with it? I guess you could continue to sell it as 3.5, but how many more copies are you going to sell? I don't think the 3.5 market is growing afterall. The future buyers already have entire walls of stuff, including probably Tomb of Horrors and the like. I guess of course that they can try to add onto it with Return to the Tomb II or something like that but the point is that eventually the market becomes saturated and people just don't need more stuff.

It also doesnt mean that Wotc is retaining 80% either. Or gaining new players. Most likely the ones buying wotc are edition proof- minitures for example.

It was the players handbook that was on the best sellers list.

Right now Gleemax and DDI is a disaster. Its not ready, their site is a mess many times. I wouldnt rely on it too much.

This is true, but I wouldn't totally discount it yet. I think they now have a better understanding of what the potential is for this side of the buisness and want to take advantage of it. I think they will put much more effort into it this time around then they have in the past.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

There is much more reason to conclude that Paizo's sales are sustainably growing than there is to conclude the same for WotC. It might be true for WotC. But the data right now has much more of a new shiny - bubble effect in play AND the known meh to negative response related to recent actual sales both cast a much larger uncertainty on it.

yeah, a subscription can be canceled. What would you rather have: a subscription from one person who has been playing the same basic game for years and willingly spending money on it every month, or the hope that a randomly selected former non-gamer (and remember the 4e arguement is hanging on growth of new blood) who picked up the 4e core deciding to start buying a book a month? Will there be some? Will there be enough? Maybe, but far from presumably.

The problem with tried and true player playing the tried and true game, from the publishers view, is that they have already invested alot of money in it. I have hundreds of dollars worth of 3.x material on my shelves. More then I ever need. I haven't bought anything for it in probably a year or more. If I do stick with OGL I have absolutely no need to buy anything new for it in order to continue playing it. You are discounting the new shinny, but it is that new shinny that keeps people buying product even in the same system. Oh look the PHB II! Wow..BO9S! Eventually however it all reaches the point where people say that I have more then I can ever use, why do I need more?

That is why I also think Paizo is taking the right approach. They aren't trying to put out the same product either. Pathfinder is its own new shinny suped up 3.75e (or whatever its being called) and can continue to sell you stuff that fits with their system, even though you probably already have it in 3.5e version.

In either case, I think its way to early to speculate which way the wind is blowing with any reasonable accuracy. I tend to think that the D&D brand will eventually win out with its traditional dominant market share and that most will eventually move over as time passes. Then again, I really don't care if it doesn't. I will play the version that gives me the best opportunity to play a game and is fun. If thats 4e fine. If its 3e, thats cool as well. But if it is 3e I won't be buying anything else. I already find myself limiting classes, races, feats, prestige, I certainly don't need anymore.

 

[Desdichado]

Yep, you cannot use "Beholders" or "Mind Flayers (Illithids)".

Oddly enough, Heroes of Might and Magic has beholders. That doesn't have anything to do with the OGL (other than that they're not in there) but with trademark law (not copyright law.)

I daresay that you can use them as long as you stay within the guidelines of trademark law.

A lot of what can or can't be done under the OGL or the GSL either one is as much a product of unwillingness to challenge the assertions of WotC in court as it is on actual interpretation of the law and the precedents of fair use doctrine.

It seems like at least a few guys are starting to sit up and challenge some of the strictures of the GSL using fair use doctrine and what you can or can't copyright, if I'm interpreting correctly some of Kenzerco's announcements.

 

[Tervin]

Hey all,

Since we're working out a pretty cool series of adventures, I'm also curious to find out what people think would think about the possibilities of systems neutral adventures. It winds up being a little more effort on the part of a GM to be sure, but I'm growing pretty partial to the idea. Thoughts, comments, and suggestions welcome...

Even if I will not be using the system that you create the adventure for, I still think there is advantage in seeing the stats. That way I can tell the relative power of various people, creatures and things and it will be easier to translate. For adventures that focuses more on social encounters and less on dungeon crawling this is less of an issue.

 

[Xyxox]

This is true, but I wouldn't totally discount it yet. I think they now have a better understanding of what the potential is for this side of the buisness and want to take advantage of it. I think they will put much more effort into it this time around then they have in the past.

Sucessfully launching DDI with the features they've been touting for the past year would be a compelling reason for me to consider a switch to 4E. It wouldn't mean I'd switch, but there would be a compelling reason to consider it.

In either case, I think its way to early to speculate which way the wind is blowing with any reasonable accuracy. I tend to think that the D&D brand will eventually win out with its traditional dominant market share and that most will eventually move over as time passes. Then again, I really don't care if it doesn't. I will play the version that gives me the best opportunity to play a game and is fun. If thats 4e fine. If its 3e, thats cool as well. But if it is 3e I won't be buying anything else. I already find myself limiting classes, races, feats, prestige, I certainly don't need anymore.

As I've said before, D&D has forked. One fork will be predominant, but I see both forks surviving. The only question will be which fork will be the predominant? Best guess is 4E because of brand recognition, but don't sell the open gaming fork short. There's a lot of potential there and even though 4E may be predominant for several years, the OGL fork will always be there and could even outlast WotC in the long run.