My love letter to WotC

[Azgulor]

I could live with that. I don't want Paizo to own D&D to bring back D&D necessarily. I want them to own D&D so they can use the IP that D&D provides. I want mind flayers, slaadi, beholders, etc. in my Pathfinder game.

I want James Jacobs awesome demonomicon articles to be usable by Paizo (without any licensing restrictions).

Gotcha. Within that context, I'd agree.

 

[DaveMage]

Gotcha. Within that context, I'd agree.

To go even further, I think "Dungeons and Dragons" still has a bit of an "uncool" stigma in the mainstream today, which Pathfinder won't have. So while the brand of D&D may still be #1, I think that if the "Pathfinder" brand can grow to be more on par with D&D in hobby circles, then choosing the stigma-free brand over the one with baggage becomes attractive.

 

[dmccoy1693]

To fair they did have a few:

Expedition to the Castle Ravenloft
Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk
Red Hand of Doom

But I see your point. There were good 3x/3.5 adventures but very few of them were from Wizards.

Ok, I'll grant you those. But you will also note that those sold well.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Ok, I'll grant you those. But you will also note that those sold well.

Also guys from the Paizo crew wrote those last two.

Jason Bulmahn, Erick Mona and James Jacobs for Greyhawk .

James Jacobs and Richard Baker (not a Paizo guy) for Red Hand Of Doom.

 

[Reigan]

There are plenty of 4e fans who don't like 3.5/Pathfinder, but generally speaking, I don't see them wishing Paizo and Pathfinder to fail. It's a shame some Pathfinder fans can't show the same courtesy.

No more BadWrongFun please.

 

[Wicht]

There are plenty of 4e fans who don't like 3.5/Pathfinder, but generally speaking, I don't see them wishing Paizo and Pathfinder to fail. It's a shame some Pathfinder fans can't show the same courtesy.

No more BadWrongFun please.

I think you are reading their desires wrong. It is not a desire for WotC and 4e to fail, it is a desire for the D&D legacy (which is broader than either WotC or 4e) to thrive. And their fear is that it will not thrive on its present road and their belief is that it would thrive better with different managment.

As for wishing Paizo ill (or just being plain insulting), I must confess I have seen it. About as often as I see people wishing WotC ill (or just being plain insulting).

 

[ShinHakkaider]

There are plenty of 4e fans who don't like 3.5/Pathfinder, but generally speaking, I don't see them wishing Paizo and Pathfinder to fail. It's a shame some Pathfinder fans can't show the same courtesy.

No more BadWrongFun please.

There were enough of them there at the begininning when the Pathfinder RPG was announced. I've said this before, the edition warring IS NOT one sided.

There were 4E fans were bashing 3.5 while touting 4E. There were 4E fans bashing Paizo staff for being "story" people not "rules" people so fail was in the cards for them.

Then there's the ever present not so subtle digs at Adventure Paths by several posters. While ENWorld has done War of the Burning Sky, the most prominent group doing AP's (a new one every few months in fact) is Paizo.

So again, please dont paint this as the 4E fans are stand up guys and the Paizo people are douches. There are douches and stand up people on both sides.

 

[Sunderstone]

Agree with Shin, though IMHO 4E folks were a tad more venomous than PF people, especially here. Its why I prettymuch stopped posting here.


As for the OP's first post. Too late (at least for me and my crew).

Paizo/Pathfinder has become the game, we dont even use "D&D" to reference the game. Now its a biweekly "Pathfinder" game, or getting together for "Pathfinder", etc. Honestly, I knew WotC/4E would kill the brand. WotC for their handling of the brand and 4E in general losing what the essence of D&D was (imho of course).

Also (kinda zero'ing on one part) regarding the game needing adventures, I couldnt agree more.
I remember reading how WotC wanted to stay away from adventures as their "market research" said they didnt sell well. Yet companies like Paizo, Goodman, Necromancer, etc seemed to make out well enough starting with adventures.
Even to this day, many people reminisce about the old classics like Tomb of Horrors, GDQ, Keep on the Borderlands, Isle of Dread, etc. Adventures that became classics. 3E/3.5 has some pretty famous adventures as well from various companies (including WotC, RHoD rings a bell for example) and im sure we will reminisce about these as the years go by. So I also agree we need adventures, regardless of how many people homebrew. Some of these homebrewers also buy modules to mine for ideas, maps etc. I cant see how these wouldnt sell, though I suspect WotC was looking at only their module sales, and lets face it, the early 3E modules from WotC were pretty bad. The rare diamond being The Sunless Citadel, etc. YMMV of course.

Bottom line, marketing people at WotC dont know squat when it comes to D&D. Some bad corporate decisions have made things worse and not just with the GSL fiasco.

I supsect that D&D is pretty much dead to a good number of people who just dont care anymore (I cant be the only one), the damage is done. Not so sure a new edition of D&D can save itself. If a new version were to be released, I for one, would not bother. Again, I suspect I might not be alone.

late edit and Disclaimer*** Im an armchair opinionated person and not an expert in D&D marketing. I base everything on what I observe, read, etc and form opinions from there. Take it all with a grain of salt.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Also (kinda zero'ing on one part) regarding the game needing adventures, I couldnt agree more.
I remember reading how WotC wanted to stay away from adventures as their "market research" said they didnt sell well. Yet companies like Paizo, Goodman, Necromancer, etc seemed to make out well enough starting with adventures.

The point made has never been that 'adventures don't sell' in the absolute sense. It was 'adventures don't sell in the numbers needed to make it a profitable worthwhile endeavor for a company the size of WotC'. That's always been their take since they bought TSR. They produce just enough of a line for a person to perhaps grab one off the bookshelf at the same time they pick up the PH on a whim... but they in no way wanted to base their entire financial scheme on trying to sell enough to make it profitable.

Smaller companies can. Smaller companies with lower overhead and without corporate monthly sales quotas can put a pair of designers on a module for a month to three of writing an adventure for production and end up selling enough copies of it to justify the expenditure. WotC (we've been told) does not. Or if they do decide to do it, it's hardbacked 'super-adventure' remakes using existing IP (like the Return series) that are big enough to charge more, plus have some name recognition to perhaps get more impulse purchases.

I don't know why this shocks people. Bigger companies have to make bigger things because they have bigger costs and bigger expenses, and bigger things have the potential for bigger profits. It's really quite simple. There's a reason why Universal and Paramount try their best to produce and release blockbuster tentpole films each and every year and let little guys like Focus Features have the $5 million indie films.

 

[Wicht]

Smaller companies can. Smaller companies with lower overhead and without corporate monthly sales quotas can put a pair of designers on a module for a month to three of writing an adventure for production and end up selling enough copies of it to justify the expenditure. WotC (we've been told) does not.

Without going round and round on this (see above: I understand the arguement but think its shortsighted and wrong) I do, at times wonder, just how many people make up the WotC Dungeons and Dragons department. Also, I can't help but wonder if they wouldn't do better of following the Paizo employment model (evolved from the magazine days it seems to me) of a strong editorial staff and a string of talented freelancers.