Pathfinder 1E I get the feeling Paizo isn't worried about Wizards of the Coast.

[Imaro]

The way I see it, find a game edition you like, and don't be fretting what other people like. Your wallet will thank you for not chasing the newest model.

Wise words...

 

[DEFCON 1]

I guess I agree with the first part of this, an established and successful game will (usually) have more books than a brand new edition... Uhm ok sure. Outside of stumbling upon it accidentally... I'm not sure how daunting the numvber of books is for a new player, especially if they are being introduced by an established player or players (especially since this is one of the perks of getting started with an established game as opposed to a new edition). Not to mention other factors such as the fact that the internet pretty much guarantees anyone interested enough in the game can easily find out what they need to start if they want to, Pathfinder has a very good Beginner Box (which also tells one what they need to start the full game) and Pathfinder is pretty clear on what the "core" rulebook is... All IMO of course.

Based on the number of people who were decrying the release of 4E Essentials because it was going to be "too confusing" to new players to have those books on the shelf next to the original 4E books... you are in the minority in thinking that a large bookshelf isn't daunting.

Unless of course the truth is people were decrying Essentials not because it made the game confusing, but because it was a 4E product and they didn't like 4E products, thus using their own distaste for a product as their supposedly "objective" opinions on a particular matter. It couldn't have been that, could it? Naw! Pff! No way!

 

[Imaro]

Based on the number of people who were decrying the release of 4E Essentials because it was going to be "too confusing" to new players to have those books on the shelf next to the original 4E books... you are in the minority in thinking that a large bookshelf isn't daunting.

Unless of course the truth is people were decrying Essentials not because it made the game confusing, but because it was a 4E product and they didn't like 4E products, thus using their own distaste for a product as their supposedly "objective" opinions on a particular matter. It couldn't have been that, could it? Naw! Pff! No way!

Or maybe because the name recognition of Dungeons and Dragons is such that if there is a game most likely to be sought out by a person with no rpg experience (say because they heard about it on Big Bang Theory, or Community, or any of the other numerous places the name Dungeons and Dragons pops up) this is it. that seems alot more likely that someone who has no experience whatsoever with rpg's suddenly deciding to seek out Pathfinder with absolutely no guidance. But... It couldn't have been that, could it? Naw! Pff! No way! ... It has to be part of some conspiracy against 4e...

EDIT: In fact let's look at this in a different light, answer these questions... How many starter sets did 4e have? how many beginner boxes does Pathfinder have? How many products are there to learn the basic rules, run a full game and/or create characters using essentials/4e core books? How many are there for Pathfinder? (Edited for clarity)

 

[Halivar]

How many starter sets did 4e have? how many beginner boxes does Pathfinder have? How many products are there to learn the basic rules, run a full game and/or create characters using essentials/4e core books? How many are there for Pathfinder? (Edited for clarity)

4E has the "red box", and Pathfinder has a Beginner Box, doesn't it?

 

[DaveMage]

I'm still on 3.x. Haven't touched PF or the newer D&D. I am quite happy not spending any money, and unlike cars, my stuff isn't wearing out and in need of replacement with a newer model.

*Men in suits have been dispatched to your home to remove this outdated product. Please remain calm.*

 

[Imaro]

4E has the "red box", and Pathfinder has a Beginner Box, doesn't it?

4e actually had a blue box starter set as well... before the red one.

http://img1.imagesbn.com/p/9780786948208_p0_v2_s260x420.JPG

 

[DEFCON 1]

Or maybe because the name recognition of Dungeons and Dragons is such that if there is a game most likely to be sought out by a person with no rpg experience (say because they heard about it on Big Bang Theory, or Community, or any of the other numerous places the name Dungeons and Dragons pops up) this is it. that seems alot more likely that someone who has no experience whatsoever with rpg's suddenly deciding to seek out Pathfinder with absolutely no guidance. But... It couldn't have been that, could it? Naw! Pff! No way! ... It has to be part of some conspiracy against 4e...

EDIT: In fact let's look at this in a different light, answer these questions... How many starter sets did 4e have? how many beginner boxes does Pathfinder have? How many products are there to learn the basic rules, run a full game and/or create characters using essentials/4e core books? How many are there for Pathfinder? (Edited for clarity)

Hey, I happen to agree with you Imaro, I don't think finding out where to start with any RPG is all that daunting either. You can just look at a bookshelf and find a "starter set" or a "Title #1" or some info on the internet and get a pretty strong idea of where to begin if you actually cared to read, rather than just pull a book of the shelf blindly.

I was just poking fun at those people who insisted way back when that it couldn't possibly be done. LOL.

 

[Janx]

*Men in suits have been dispatched to your home to remove this outdated product. Please remain calm.*

Suits.

That'll make it easier for my auto-turret's AI to differentiate them from regular neighbors.

Knowing that the system will do its job makes me feel even calmer.

 

[Janx]

Hey, I happen to agree with you Imaro, I don't think finding out where to start with any RPG is all that daunting either. You can just look at a bookshelf and find a "starter set" or a "Title #1" or some info on the internet and get a pretty strong idea of where to begin if you actually cared to read, rather than just pull a book of the shelf blindly.

I was just poking fun at those people who insisted way back when that it couldn't possibly be done. LOL.

Who buys a starter set? With the internet, it's even easier to get a sense of what product is what before you buy and to get the right ones. I would never want to be saddled with cripple-ware, when I can buy the full version and figure it out.

Back when I started, I mail ordered the PH, the DMG and a set of dice. I chose those products because it seemed pretty obvious from the titles they were needed, and the the rest of the D&D books was obviously just add-on material. My group got into D&D cold, nobody knew what was what. We did fine.

Now an outsider buying an RPG for their grand-kid is probably going to screw up. But people buying a hobby item for another person ALWAYS screw up and get the wrong thing. it's why I have a rule about not buying hobby items for somebody else if I don't know the hobby and I don't know what they have/need.

I reckon an outsider walking into a book store and seeing an entire book case filled with books for a game might get some eye-glazing over to figure out where to begin. Versus seeing 3 books on the shelf and that's it (ex the PH, DMG, MM).

However, both scenarios have their side effect. Do I want to get into a game that has so little expansion to it that 3 books covers everything I need? That might be considered a negative by some. Or do I want a product that is so concise, that 3 books is all I ever need (like any other board game is just the one box).

I'm betting the sweet spot is that you get started into the RPG when it is new, so there's a very small set of books to get. And then, as the game matures, a new book comes out, just in time to satisfy your own advancing interest in more products. it both suckers you into spending more, but also eases you into product change/growth rather than shock and aweing you with more material than you can afford/handle.

 

[Mistwell]

Paizo has said they actually feel obligated to do so -- and I think they are. A lot of people use the Adventure Paths because they haven't got the time for anyone in the group having the resources to create their own world and scenarios. So if I buy Bestiary 3 and Paizo never draws from it, if I'm running an AP Bestiary 3 is just useless paper to me. As has been pointed out, the material is available without purchase. Paizo realizes that making an adventure inaccessible is cutting their own throat every bit as much as letting their supplements lay useless is. I'd say they've found the perfect compromise point.

Again, this point has nothing to do with whether it is or is not available for free.

These three facts are, I think, correct:

1) The quantity of non-adventure content from Paizo for Pathfinder is high now, whereas before they focused almost exclusively on adventure content;
2) People ARE buying that non-adventure content, despite it being free;
3) The non-adventure content is being intentionally linked to the adventure content.

Here are my points, which are mere opinion:

1) People can no longer claim Pathfinder has succeeded just on producing non-rules content. That hasn't been the case for a couple years now. In fact, they've just cut their independent adventures (though left their adventure paths), all while increasing their non-adventure content. A fair portion of their non-adventure content is rules content, and another fair portion is non-rules stuff. Things like the Mythic stuff, Paths of Prestige, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Equipment, and Ultimate Magic are all new rules, for example. This was my initial point in response to people claiming that the way to grow is through adventure content - even Pathfinder isn't really following that model anymore, and I think that's pretty good proof you cannot go for 20 years just on that model. Eventually, it changes to include new rules as well.

2) When you introduce that many new rules to the game, and link them to the adventure paths, the DMs need to be familiar with that new stuff if they want to run those APs. It doesn't matter if it's free or paid-for content (though most are paying for it), they need to know it to be able to safely introduce it to their games, and that is an increased burden on them. The players need to learn some of it as well if they want to use it. This slowly creates rules bloat. It's not happening as fast as it did for WOTC, but it is slowly happening and eventually will reach a tipping point for SOME current users of the game. They can try and stop it by not adopting the new content in their games - but since the APs are linked to it, that would mean they'd stop using the APs, and that is not a good thing for Paizo if it starts happening a lot.

3) When you put that much stuff on a bookshelf at a game store, it can be daunting to a new player. It's the number one complaint you hear from a non-player about the D&D books - the sheer vast quantity of rules. And it doesn't matter if you tell them it's free online, or that they don't "need" to know all that. They'll still want to know all that to "catch up" if they are going to play that game, and it's sometimes an overwhelming task to do that when faced with other choices that do not have that much content.

Now I am not saying Paizo needs to be worried about WOTC. They have an existing user base that will last them years, and the bulk of that user base is currently OK with this model. I am not predicting impending doom for Paizo or Pathfinder.

But what I am saying that Pathfinder is not immune to the effects of rules-bloat, and eventually it can have an impact on it's existing user base, and on new potential players. It won't destroy their user base or ability to get new players, but I think it will have a slow and somewhat meaningful impact over time.