Pathfinder 1E Is PAIZO becoming the next Wizards?

[wedgeski]

WotC promised an open beta of 4e? That's odd, I have no recollection of that. Link?

Neither do I. I had a quick Google for it and didn't find anything either, but admittedly I didn't try very hard.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Paizo just needs to keep focusing on things that give Paizo strength.

1. Supporting a solid campaign setting. WoTC has dropped the ball on this in my opinion. A setting gives them a place to put all their adventurers, setting books, monster books revisited, etc... Much of the revisited monster books is useful for any edition and is packed with ideas. WoTC default setting has some solid roots but it adrift with no stabalizing elements.

2. Continue to partner with people who can promote that line. This could be physical miniatures like Crocodile Games or Reaper or paper miniatures, dice, etc...

3. continue to make products all gamers want. Their map tiles, various card expansions, and flip matts are solid products for any edition.

4. Continue to make products their fan base wants. The high quailty art, layout and feel of their adventurers feeds into what people enjoyed about previous editions more than 4e does. 4e is a different experience.

5. Expand conservitively. The fiction line sank TSR. Too many returns, too much owed the printers, etc... If Paul Kemp and Elainine Cunningham can bring in new eyes to the setting, fantastic, but don't publish in a void.

 

[Maggan]

WotC promised an open beta of 4e? That's odd, I have no recollection of that.

Neither have I. Sometimes when these things crop up, I sort of understand where they come from, but this promised open playtest of 4e is total news to me.

/M

 

[PaizoCEO]

5. Expand conservitively. The fiction line sank TSR. Too many returns, too much owed the printers, etc...

Actually, this one isn't true. As the person responsible for figuring out what happened at TSR that caused them to slip to a point where Wizards could buy them, the fiction line was actually a shining good point. The main reasons were really crappy printing prices and Cost of Goods management in general, and breaking up the customer base into smaller and smaller niches so instead of D&D players you had Forgotten Realms players, Greyhawk players, Dark Sun players, Ravenloft players, etc. And each of those groups wouldn't buy the products made for one of the other groups.

There were returns that added to that, but the most damaging returns weren't fiction but game related. And there was too much owed to the printers, but that wasn't because of the fiction line. Again, the costs of RPG products were significantly higher than the fiction ones.

-Lisa

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Wicht]

This leads to the debate as to what constitutes a new edition and what constitutes a new game.

When an "edition" changes the languages, assumptions and traditions of a game it will, I think, inevitably lead to a fraction in the customer base. A new edition does not have to do this though.

 

[ggroy]

This leads to the debate as to what constitutes a new edition and what constitutes a new game.

When an "edition" changes the languages, assumptions and traditions of a game it will, I think, inevitably lead to a fraction in the customer base. A new edition does not have to do this though.

It is possible to thrive on inertia in a ruleset, with very little to few changes from edition to edition.

There are examples of rpg games which have very few changes between editions, such as various Palladium rpgs and Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu.

EDIT: Though for something like this to be viable from a business standpoint, there would have to be a large enough hardcore crowd regularly buying the company's supplement books. I suppose Paizo offering subscriptions to their product lines, is one way they're able to judge whether there's enough paying customers to keep on continuing.

 

[billd91]

Do you think that making new editions also fractures the customer base into smaller and smaller niches?

I understand the need for new editions from a business standpoint, but does the very reality of this necessity create a slow death spiral for the game?

Intial game - eventual diminishing sales - new edition - renewed sales but fractured customer base - eventual diminishing sales - new edition - renewed sales but more fracturing of customer base - etc., etc., etc.

Do you think the fracturing could be mitigated by a company continuing support for older editions? (In at least some form?)

I think it depends on the nature of the edition changes. An edition change that is highly compatible with previous editions (several Hero editions, most Call of Cthulhu editions) probably does very little to fracture the customer base. The old materials are still mostly usable with the new rules, the new materials are still mostly usable with old rules. There's very little seem between groups using any particular edition.

But when the edition change is more substantial like between 2e and 3e and between 3e and 4e, then you will fracture the customer community. You just have to hope that the influx of new players that is inevitable with a new edition outnumbers what you lose in the long term.

As far as supporting earlier editions, I think then you do run into the problem TSR had with supporting too many different campaign settings. If you devote too many resources to support, you're probably investing too much with diminishing returns. But if that support can be very inexpensive (I'm looking at out of print PDF sales, for example) then I think it can work and may generate enough revenue to be self-sufficient, even profitable.

 

[Twowolves]

No strings attached to any of their products, at all?

Either way, 3.5 is a good system already, so they don't *need* to make their own, but publishers make money selling books, and sooner or later they are gonna hit bottom on what they can legitimately mine out of the source material. At that point, why not make their own? They have a strong following and a reputation for quality, if they produce even a middling product and support it with their AP's, things will remailn good for them, eh?

Jay

They can do well just selling the adventures, campaign setting fluff books, cards and maps. They don't need to get on a "Core Rulebook Treadmill" like 3.X and 4th ed. I agree, at some point you wring every last drop out of a setting, but a new campaign setting or an advancing of the timeline for and existing setting can recharge their batteries somewhat.

What I was referring to was all the posts saying essentially that Paizo will never be a "real game publisher" until they make a completely new system with no link to anything d20. What in the world for? To please a dozen internet posters? "Street cred"? Puh-leeze.

 

[Zil]

The main reasons were really crappy printing prices and Cost of Goods management in general, and breaking up the customer base into smaller and smaller niches so instead of D&D players you had Forgotten Realms players, Greyhawk players, Dark Sun players, Ravenloft players, etc. And each of those groups wouldn't buy the products made for one of the other groups.

It always makes me a little bit sad every time I read that one of the major factors for the demise of TSR is the multiple settings. I'm not disputing the fact, but the thing is I loved all those 2E settings and I still consider that period before the fall as one of the golden periods of D&D. Perhaps my group was a bit different than most because between us all we probably purchased every setting box set, adventure or supplement. Anyway, it makes me a bit sad because it means that no publisher is ever likely to repeat what I fondly remember as the golden age of campaign settings.