Pathfinder 1E Is PAIZO becoming the next Wizards?

[thecasualoblivion]

Well, since Paizo's founder and owner (my boss) was more or less at ground zero helping make Vampire and Magic the smash hits they turned into... I'd say our chances are better than slim.

I can give you that. I don't see it happening based on what is currently going on. Putting out something new in the future, then we'll see.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Interesting, and sounds logical. I agree with you although I'm not an RPG professional, so my opinion on that probably doesn't really matter.

I have a question, but I'm not trying to start a war, and I'll start with the caveat that I think 4E is a good game, even though I don't prefer to play it. So, dear readers, please don't start a war over this.



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 would also expect that as a game ages, it often attracts less new players. Games become dated after a while, and might not keep up with the expectations of new players, both mechanically and aesthetically. Kids new to tabletop RPGs who have played RPG video and PC games will find 3E and 4E a lot more familiar and friendly than older editions of D&D and RPGs from the 80s from a mechanical standpoint. Final Fantasy, Peter Jackson's LotR and various forms of Anime are much more familiar to the 15-25 crowd than classic fantasy literature by Vance or Howard, and game catering to newer tastes will appeal more to new players.

 

[Windjammer]

Given the thread title, I thought I might as well post this here...

So is Paizo becoming the next Wizards? What if they are already getting WotC-ified? Seriously, looking at Zach' Houstons (extremely well done) interview with Erik Mona, I must say Mona's sales pitch for the next Paizo splat has become indistinguishable from a 4E sales pitch. To me anyway, but I'm curious what others make of this. (I ought to say in advance that Mona is my favourite guy in the RPG business currently, so don't take it as a personal stab against him.)

I think players should expect a lot of really exciting new stuff in the Advanced Player's Guide. Not just from the new classes like the alchemist, cavalier, inquisitor, oracle, summoner, or witch, but also from the traditional 11 classes, all of which are getting cool new options and exciting alternate powers. Many of these are in the form of "packages" that modify the existing classes to better match a character concept. Our lead designer, Jason Bulmahn, was listing off the final barbarian concepts to me this morning and I kept thinking, yep, yep, ok, cool, yeah, sweet! Each one of them was a legitimately cool concept a player might want to pull off with his barbarian, but which isn't quite supported by the rules as written. For example, my barbarian, Ostog the Unslain, doesn't like to wear armor, opting for the "traditional" bare chest and loincloth approach. I'm pleased to say there's an option for that type of barbarian in the book, and I can't wait to officially add some of the related powers to my guy.

 

[ggroy]

In order for Paizo to become the next Wizards, they need to catch lightning in a bottle. In other words, they need to do something like:

1. The original D&D craze
2. White Wolf creating a goth RPG zeitgeist back in the 90s
3. M:tG launching the CCG end of hobby gaming into the stratosphere

Something like that

(I don't consider the 3E launch one of these things. It was more along the lines of a reboot than a revolution)

I don't see it happening through rehashing a past edition of Dungeons and Dragons and putting out quality adventures and settings. They can become(if they aren't already) a solid 2nd tier RPG mainstay, but they need to come up with something revolutionary to exceed that.

A holodeck version of Pathfinder.

It will be so addictive, that it will be better known as "holocrack" or "crackfinder".

 

[Gorbacz]

Given the thread title, I thought I might as well post this here...

So is Paizo becoming the next Wizards? What if they are already getting WotC-ified? Seriously, looking at Zach' Houstons (extremely well done) interview with Erik Mona, I must say Mona's sales pitch for the next Paizo splat has become indistinguishable from a 4E sales pitch. To me anyway, but I'm curious what others make of this. (I ought to say in advance that Mona is my favourite guy in the RPG business currently, so don't take it as a personal stab against him.)

Well, it's a solid sales pitch. But what's different from WotC 4ed sales pitches is that Erik doesn't try to convince us that the game we've been playing for past 7 years is wrong and bad and un-fun on oh so many levels.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I would also expect that as a game ages, it often attracts less new players. Games become dated after a while, and might not keep up with the expectations of new players, both mechanically and aesthetically. Kids new to tabletop RPGs who have played RPG video and PC games will find 3E and 4E a lot more familiar and friendly than older editions of D&D and RPGs from the 80s from a mechanical standpoint. Final Fantasy, Peter Jackson's LotR and various forms of Anime are much more familiar to the 15-25 crowd than classic fantasy literature by Vance or Howard, and game catering to newer tastes will appeal more to new players.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that because games like Chess and Monopoly have been pretty stable for dozens or hundreds of years. (And yes, I know about the special editions of Monopoly, but those are mostly variations on a theme with many of the same rules).

You really don't have to change the mechanics of D&D to have it become an evergreen product. Like said above, CoC proves this as they have not made many mechanical changes. The stuff you mention about new fantasy games could still work with either Red Box basic edition if you updated the art and references. I simply don't agree that games become "dated", other than their superficial elements. (Monopoly is still a valid game even if inflation makes the money seem cheap nowadays).

The biggest long term risk to D&D is coming up with a paradigm where you make big sweeping changes to the fundamentals every edition. This would lead to a situation where the trademark becomes more valuable than the game itself. Changing it so often could make it harder for various generations to be able to experience the same things, thus weakening its stature as a long term game by itself.

 

[Reynard]

I'm not even sure Paizo would want to "be WotC", but if they do there's one thing they are missing: Pathfinder needs to be peoples' first RPG, via a "Red Box" like Basic Set (sub GR to do it; the Dragon Age boxed set is a phenomenal first set for a game). When interested parties -- 8 to 88 -- experience PF first, instead of some D&D, it'll be embedded and if those parties remain gamers, they'll look to Paizo and Pathfinder for their fix.

 

[Maggan]

I'm not sure I'd agree with that because games like Chess and Monopoly have been pretty stable for dozens or hundreds of years.

While I too feel that an "evergreen" version of D&D would be cool, comparing it meaningfully to Chess and Monopoly is difficult to me. Monopoly has a much, much lower entry barrier, and thus can have an "evergreen" core thanks to the huge potential market for it.

Chess is a bit more difficult, since it is at least to me, an even more compicated game than D&D. Still, people get into it, and I guess the hard core chess fans spend lots and lots of money on the game. But it still feels different.

Anyone know how many people play chess, approximately?

/M

 

[JoeGKushner]

Well, it's a solid sales pitch. But what's different from WotC 4ed sales pitches is that Erik doesn't try to convince us that the game we've been playing for past 7 years is wrong and bad and un-fun on oh so many levels.

And which recent D&D releases from WoTC have done that? If you were comparing edition change to this book, which is not a core book but a support book, you're making the wrong comparission. Try again.

 

[Imaro]

(I don't consider the 3E launch one of these things. It was more along the lines of a reboot than a revolution)

I would disagree here... if the release of 3e also includes the OGL.