Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")

[Dannyalcatraz]

People are not choosing 3E over 4E because Paizo made Pathfinder.
Paizo made Pathfinder because it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E.

Well put.

Far and away the number one reason people are not playing 4E is, quite simply, they don't want to. Anything else is just a kind of wishful thinking.

Well put.

 

[Dannager]

People are not choosing 3E over 4E because Paizo made Pathfinder.
Paizo made Pathfinder because it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E.

While I'm sure that the latter is correct, I doubt the former.

Certainly, there are a lot of 3e players who didn't want to play 4e and would have stuck with their 3e games if Pathfinder hadn't come along. But let's not pretend that there aren't gamers out there who saw Pathfinder as a legitimate alternative to 4e simply because both Pathfinder and 4e were receiving active support from the companies that created them. I know that current support is a huge deal for me as a DM, and that I give a lot of weight to playing current games rather than older games.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I doubt the former.

As mentioned before, I know of at least 10 gamers who are not interested in Pathfinder- or any 3Ed clone- and have simply kept playing the original. For them, those games might as well not exist.

While half of us are currently playing 4Ed, that is out of courtesy & friendship- 3.5 is still the game of choice and the rest aren't even touching the 4Ed books.

 

[pawsplay]

While I'm sure that the latter is correct, I doubt the former.

Certainly, there are a lot of 3e players who didn't want to play 4e and would have stuck with their 3e games if Pathfinder hadn't come along. But let's not pretend that there aren't gamers out there who saw Pathfinder as a legitimate alternative to 4e simply because both Pathfinder and 4e were receiving active support from the companies that created them. I know that current support is a huge deal for me as a DM, and that I give a lot of weight to playing current games rather than older games.

Before the Pathfinder RPG came along, I had never purchased a single product from them other than PDFs of old TSR D&D products. Pathfinder exists not just because of the Paizo audience, but because it is an acceptable substitution, perhaps an improvement, for much of the 3e audience.

The hypothetical you are discussing doesn't make sense. Many people on these boards were actively developing 3e products when the 4e bomb was dropped, and would still be doing so now. It is great that a top tier group like Paizo decided to put out a flagship for an updated version, but if they had waited too long, someone else would have. Paizo's strategy was cunning; early announcement, early strike into the market, and a huge playtesting strategy that generated interest at the same time it was drawing oxygen away from any other theoretical heirs to the 3e crown. They capitalized on the goodwill they had earned being the good guys in the Dragon and Dungeon situation and the PDF fiasco, and they used their expertise to put print books into stores.

But make no mistake; Pathfinder was sufficient, but not necessary. Just google, and you can find a half dozen generic OGL brandings that popped up during the brief Dark Age between 3.5 and PfRPG as a stopgap measure.

 

[BryonD]

While I'm sure that the latter is correct, I doubt the former.

Certainly, there are a lot of 3e players who didn't want to play 4e and would have stuck with their 3e games if Pathfinder hadn't come along. But let's not pretend that there aren't gamers out there who saw Pathfinder as a legitimate alternative to 4e simply because both Pathfinder and 4e were receiving active support from the companies that created them. I know that current support is a huge deal for me as a DM, and that I give a lot of weight to playing current games rather than older games.

All that establishes that people not playing 4E had a currently supported version of 3E amongst their choices.

Your premise seems to demand that lacking a currently supported version of 3E, non-4E fans would throw their tastes out the window and play 4E.

Again, if you were right the non-PF 3E holdout would be slowly but steadily drifting into 3E. It ain't happening. If anything the net flow is the opposite direction as people decide they are done with 4E, but don't want to go to PF either.

Certainly PF has hugely benefited from the lack of enthusiasm for 4E. But that does not make the reverse true. I'm sure GURPS, Warhammer, Fantasycraft, and many others have also benefited from the market split as well. And, I'm sure that THOSE games have gained less fans because the "not 4E" crowd was their prime growth target and PF staked a big claim in that territory.

In this reality a lot of people said "I'm not interested in playing 4e." They then, later, said "I will play Pathfinder." (with a lot of people replacing Pathfinder with something else, just not 4E)

In your alternate reality with no Pathfinder the first step is unchanged. But the second step would not become "I will play that game that does not interest me." They would play other games that DID interest them. If Pathfinder disappeared tomorrow and every copy fell to dust, very few current players would go to 4E. Yes, some, but very few. Many more would go to other games. The number who would leave table top RPGs altogether would probably outnumber the 4E converts.

 

[BryonD]

But make no mistake; Pathfinder was sufficient, but not necessary. Just google, and you can find a half dozen generic OGL brandings that popped up during the brief Dark Age between 3.5 and PfRPG as a stopgap measure.

I would be playing Trailblazer, with the only difference being it would have a different name.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

3.75 with a nice Frank Miller cover & internal art would have been cool.

 

[Dannager]

Your premise seems to demand that lacking a currently supported version of 3E, non-4E fans would throw their tastes out the window and play 4E.

No. I'm saying that some people who were not initially enamored of 4e would have eventually come to view active support as a selling point unto itself, and would have made the switch to the new edition, doing everything they can to fix their perceived problems with it. Are you really going to tell me that you don't think anyone views active support as a big enough draw to pull that one guy who didn't have enough of a reason to try 4e over the edge?

What you initially claimed was an absolute: that there wasn't anyone who decided to stick with the 3e-generation solely because of Pathfinder. I'm challenging that absolute.

 

[BryonD]

No. I'm saying that some people who were not initially enamored of 4e would have eventually come to view active support as a selling point unto itself, and would have made the switch to the new edition, doing everything they can to fix their perceived problems with it. Are you really going to tell me that you don't think anyone views active support as a big enough draw to pull that one guy who didn't have enough of a reason to try 4e over the edge?

What you initially claimed was an absolute: that there wasn't anyone who decided to stick with the 3e-generation solely because of Pathfinder. I'm challenging that absolute.

Where? Please show me.

You quoted THIS:

People are not choosing 3E over 4E because Paizo made Pathfinder.
Paizo made Pathfinder because it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E.

There is nothing remotely reflecting your claim in that, or anything else I posted.

To answer your first part, as far as market relevant numbers are concerned I am saying that no amount of support for 4E is going to make people play game they don't like. Not only have you invented a core premise I didn't state, you have elected to ignore the key point I did make. That being that there ARE other actively supported games, both D20 derived and other that would be much higher up the list than 4E for people who don't like 4E. I think my point that 4E dislikers would be more inclined to just not play than play 4E should have been clear enough.

a) 4E dislikers are not going to play a game they dislike just because it is supported.
b) Even if PF didn't exist, lots of other options do exist.

One of the logical outcomes of these realities is:
People are not choosing 3E over 4E because Paizo made Pathfinder.
Paizo made Pathfinder because it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E.

Paizo didn't create the market, they saw it and reacted to it.

 

[Mark CMG]

Where? Please show me.

You quoted THIS:

People are not choosing 3E over 4E because Paizo made Pathfinder.
Paizo made Pathfinder because it became very clear that people wanted to choose 3E over 4E.

The first portion of that quote can be read two ways.

1. (your flexible version) Paizo making Pathfinder isn't the only reason people chose not to move from 3E to 4E . . .

- or -

2. (Dannager's absolutist interpretation) Paizo made Pathfinder, therefore people are choosing PF (and not 3E) over 4E . . .

For D's version to be the way to read it, the reader would really need to ignore the second sentence, IMO.