D&D 5E Intended for Competition with Pathfinder?

[DMZ2112]

Today appears to be speculative question day, so I'm going to throw my hat in the ring.

Looking at the whole of what we know about D&D5, do you think that the Wizards design team is trying to develop a system that will compete with Pathfinder for individual campaigns?

Specifically, I am asking if you think they are trying to design a system that will have dungeon masters weighing its pros and cons against the pros and cons of Pathfinder before deciding which system to use for their next campaign.

For my part, I am leaning toward, "No, they are not," and I base that largely on my own view that I can see myself running campaigns in Pathfinder in 2015 and I can see myself running campaigns in D&D5 in 2015, but these campaigns will be very different in scope and theme. I can't imagine myself thinking, "i have this great idea for a campaign, but I can't decide whether D&D5 or Pathfinder would be the better system for it."

Whichever side of the fence you come down on, I'd be further interested in hearing whether you think Wizards is succeeding at their goal.

 

[Umbran]

Specifically, I am asking if you think they are trying to design a system that will have dungeon masters weighing its pros and cons against the pros and cons of Pathfinder before deciding which system to use for their next campaign.

If the question is really, "Are they designing 5e so that folks who normally use Pathfinder will find it better on points X, Y, and Z?", then I say no. I don't think "steal Pathfinder players" is a specific design goal. I think that's borne out in the difference of design. If you wanted to steal Pathfinder players, specifically, you'd probably build something that does pretty much what Pathfinder does, but slightly better - a further evolution of the 3e engine. 5e is too different from Pathfinder for that.

On the flip side, every campaign I start, I look at what games I have, and what's on the market, and consider what system would be best for the concept. If, after 5e's release, I decide to run a traditional high fantasy campaign, I'll look at 3e/Pathfinder, 4e, 5e, and maybe a couple other things. The choice among them would probably be pretty easy, but I'd at least think about it.

Whichever side of the fence you come down on, I'd be further interested in hearing whether you think Wizards is succeeding at their goal.

I don't claim to know WotC's goals, so I can't say I know if they're succeeding. If I had to guess, I expect the goal is close to what they stated - build a game with broad appeal to many kinds of players. I have not seen the final game, so I really don't know if they managed that or not.

 

[Wulfgar76]

No.

Pathfinder is for Players and DMs who prefer a 3e-style game. D&D Next is for Players and DMs who want something different from that.
WotC stated their purpose from the beginning: to create a new system that captures the essence of the 'universal D&D experience' and borrows from all editions.

 

[delericho]

Looking at the whole of what we know about D&D5, do you think that the Wizards design team is trying to develop a system that will compete with Pathfinder for individual campaigns?

No. They are competing with Pathfinder, but in business terms.

 

[billd91]

Of course they are, but no insider is going to say so in that many words. WotC is absolutely in competition with Paizo in order to get back on top of the RPG marketplace and any game being played with Pathfinder is a game not being played with D&D 5e. And you can be sure they want as many people playing 5e as they can get just because that will grow their market just as Paizo wants as many people playing Pathfinder as they can get.

That said, this competitiveness isn't about cutting throats and pillaging. They're not competing because they want to watch each other crash and burn (though I suspect there are some at the respective companies who wouldn't mind seeing that - there's always someone out there like that). Rather, they're competing for the health and success of their own products. They want to win people over on the merits of their own games and to do that they need to woo people away from spending time on other games. They can't survive on just virgin territory alone - they'll need a veteran market too.

Let's put it this way, if WotC wasn't interested in competing with Pathfinder, they'd just stick with developing 4e - something they didn't do. They apparently decided that wasn't successful enough, cut off ongoing development, and spent a couple of years in R&D on the next edition - a unity edition.

 

[DMZ2112]

any game being played with Pathfinder is a game not being played with D&D 5e.

The inspiration behind my question is that this is exactly how I used to feel about the situation, but today I got to thinking about what a bizarre statement that is if you substitute two RPGs in any other genre for Pathfinder and D&D5. D&D has always been the elephant in the room in the fantasy genre, but other than WoD for horror it is difficult to think of another RPG genre that is dominated in the same way.

Would you ever say, "Any game being played with Traveller is a game not being played with Alternity?" Certainly it's true, but is it meaningful? In most other RPG genres, things seem to have come to an equilibrium state, where games aren't competing for market share so much as they each have their own strengths and exist as alternatives to one another.

That said, this competitiveness isn't about cutting throats and pillaging. They're not competing because they want to watch each other crash and burn (though I suspect there are some at the respective companies who wouldn't mind seeing that - there's always someone out there like that).

Fiscally they absolutely want each other to crash and burn, because being the only game in town means you're the only game in town -- that's Free Market Nirvana stuff. That's why I took it off the table for the purposes of this discussion.

Let's put it this way, if WotC wasn't interested in competing with Pathfinder, they'd just stick with developing 4e - something they didn't do. They apparently decided that wasn't successful enough, cut off ongoing development, and spent a couple of years in R&D on the next edition - a unity edition.

This is not necessarily true. Without making any kind of value judgment: it is theoretically possible for a product to fail even in the absence of any competition, if not enough people want it.

 

[billd91]

The inspiration behind my question is that this is exactly how I used to feel about the situation, but today I got to thinking about what a bizarre statement that is if you substitute two RPGs in any other genre for Pathfinder and D&D5. D&D has always been the elephant in the room in the fantasy genre, but other than WoD for horror it is difficult to think of another RPG genre that is dominated in the same way.

Would you ever say, "Any game being played with Traveller is a game not being played with Alternity?" Certainly it's true, but is it meaningful? In most other RPG genres, things seem to have come to an equilibrium state, where games aren't competing for market share so much as they each have their own strengths and exist as alternatives to one another.

All games are going to compete at some level. Some pairings, however, will compete much more directly. Mutants and Masterminds competes more directly with Champions than it does Dread because M&M and Champions are both in the same genre and trying to supply the same demand. D&D 5e, when it comes out, will be competing with Pathfinder in a pretty direct manner. Same basic genre. Versions of the same IP from monsters to classes to magic items. Their respective markets will not 100% overlap since there will be some PF fans who will not buy from WotC, will not want to go to a lighter rule set, just as there will be people in the D&D market who won't buy from Paizo, continued with the D&D line through 4e's days and into 5e, etc. But the overlap will be considerable. There will be PF players eager to return to the official D&D family, looking for a lighter rule set, rewarding WotC for dumping 4e, whatever. And there will be some (like possibly me) who will undoubtedly play both because the games relieve slightly different itches. But, not being infinitely rich or blessed with infinite amounts of time, any playing of one I do will probably cut into the play time I would have had for the other and I won't invest as heavily in both games as I would in one. And both companies will want players like me buying their stuff so I fully expect Paizo to continue to present awesome products for my consideration and I expect WotC will try to raise its game and do the same.
So yes, they are going to try to compete for players, tables, and buyers from Pathfinder fans. By simply re-entering the marketplace with a D&D edition, they are doing exactly that.

This is not necessarily true. Without making any kind of value judgment: it is theoretically possible for a product to fail even in the absence of any competition, if not enough people want it.

True, but the current situation for WotC isn't just theory. It's reality and has a basis in real events, judgments, and decisions. They stopped development on 4e earlier than was apparently planned (since they cancelled products already in the works) and announced a new revision under development that would hopefully appeal to fans of all editions. If that isn't a statement that 4e wasn't living up to hopes (however successful it may have been) and that they were feeling the loss of Pathfinder players and fans and wanted to produce a game that attracted them back as customers, then I don't know what would be.

 

[Umbran]

Fiscally they absolutely want each other to crash and burn, because being the only game in town means you're the only game in town -- that's Free Market Nirvana stuff. That's why I took it off the table for the purposes of this discussion.

That depends on which "they" you're talking about, I think.

I doubt you'll find any of the developers actually want to see anyone "crash and burn", for example. I strongly expect they all understand the concept of hybrid vigor, and how having others in the marketplace gives them fodder for their own improvement.

I'd guess that they don't want to be the only game in town, but just want to be the biggest game in town. If you are the only one, then folks who aren't playing your game are more thoroughly lost from your potential market. If they are playing something else, they are still at least minimally engaged with the gaming community, and are then more easily brought to your products in the future.

Without making any kind of value judgment: it is theoretically possible for a product to fail even in the absence of any competition, if not enough people want it.

It also follows that for your own product to succeed, you don't need the competition to completely fail. The RPG market is not a strictly zero sum game, as the number of players is not fixed (the market can grow), and when those of us in the market choose to play a game, that choice isn't necessarily exclusive. In theory, 5e could become top dog, without Pathfinder losing a single sale.

 

[Ichneumon]

They're competing against the inner voice that says "D&D? That's for geeks and other odd people, not me". A far worthier goal than just nibbling on Pathfinder's pie.

 

[Emerikol]

my thoughts

I think Umbran makes some good points. There is a reason that restaurants congregate together. At this point the devs are worrying more about the hobby dying than they are about killing off each other. If Pathfinder brings in new players, there is at least a chance that some of them might move on to D&D one day. Same for the reverse case.

Now given all of that, I do think WOTC wants D&D to be number one. I believe on day one it can't help but be. The real test will be how it's doing two years out. That is the real test for any edition.

I am very happy that there is competition. It's great of us customers. I love the OGL. I wish though there were more major competitors. I kind of half wished that 13th Age would prosper more just to give the 4e people a home. I realize it's different enough but it believes a lot of the same philosophical beliefs that 4e loving people believe. If 5e recaptured the pre-3e crowd, Pathfinder rules the 3e crowd, and 13th Age could capture the 4e crowd, I think that would be good. I don't think though it will turn out exactly that way. I'm just saying it would be nice.