D&D 4E Paizo and 4e.

[ShinHakkaider]

It is my impression that Paizo is setting itself up as the anti-4e company, aided by the fans on its forums.

Meanwhile, the vibe I get from Necromancer Games they'll move to 4e as soon as possible, and adapt it as necessary to keep the feel they want.

Does anyone else get this impression?

Cheers!

No I think it's just you.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Actually, I think Paizo has dug their own hole here: Pathfinder.

By committing to Pathfinder, they've killed their ability to adapt quickly. They have six month spans where they must use one edition. (And, let's face it, Paizo probably knew before anyone else that 4e was coming, due to the cancellation of the magazines). Orcus and Necromancer aren't in that bind.

Perhaps they believed that they would have at least one year from the announcement to the advent of 4e? That means they could have completed two Pathfinder arcs, thus building a following for their new product, and still be able to switch editions with WotC.

Of course, this assumes that they expected at least a year from announcement to 4e, which is what WotC had previously stated. In this case, WotC taking over the helm of Dungeon and Dragon would perhaps have seemed more about controlling information flow about the build-up to 4e rather than the imminent release of 4e.

With their APs in Dungeon, Paizo demonstrated that they had a viable product that generated a high level of interest in the gaming public. They would have been foolish to not follow through on the momentum they had already generated. And it is always possible to complete a 3.5 Pathfinder arc while selling 4.0 Game Mastery modules.

Just speculating, of course.

RC

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don't understand why people are pronouncing doom and gloom if Paizo leaves 4E behind.

Because being a 3rd party publisher is hard enough. Being a 3rd party publisher that has an actual large staff (26 full-timers, Erik said on the Paizo board) and having a previous version of D&D as the primary version you support? That's a huge gamble, with an enormous downside.

If Erik were just cranking out Pathfinder in his basement while holding down another job -- which is apparently how Eden Studios operates, for instance -- it might be doable. But to argue that he has to take this enormous risk with the jobs of more than two dozen people strikes me as incredibly unrealistic and even selfish by a lot of the Paizo fans.

And the notion that people won't buy a 4E PHB, but will buy a 3.75 PHB in sufficient numbers to make a 3.75 Pathfinder successful just compounds the risk to a huge degree.

That's why I offended people when I asked them to pretend it was their money: Because I don't think most people would be arguing for something this risky if they were the ones who were going to possibly go broke because of it.

 

[Shroomy]

It is my impression that Paizo is setting itself up as the anti-4e company, aided by the fans on its forums.

Cheers!

I don't think that Paizo is necessarily setting itself up as an anti-4e company, but many of its fans wish it so.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Of course, this is assuming that 4e doesn't crash and burn. Not saying that it will, or even that I think it wiil, but it is a possibility.

Not really. No edition of D&D to date has crashed and burned right out of the gate, and nerd rage over the 2E/3E changeover (much of which, unfortunately, has been lost to server crashes) didn't make 3E flop. 4E isn't going to crash and burn.

And given that, as goes D&D, so goes the RPG industry, it's probably a pretty bad thing for people to keep hoping for. You think your FLGS is hanging on by a thread now? Take away 60 percent or more of the RPG market and see how it's doing.

 

[Matthan]

I don't understand why people are pronouncing doom and gloom if Paizo leaves 4E behind. I mean the mechanical changes to d20 4E sound great. The fluff has me less then thrilled. And I know I am not the only one that thinks that way. A Pathfinder RPG (if its OGL) would be something I am interesed in because it sounds like it would leave the fluff where it belongs and follows a similar path of mechanical changes that 4E would use. Other companies have left d20 publishing for their own systems (Green Ronin/Mongoose) and they are doing quite well for themselves. So why do people believe that Paizo will fail if they do similar? Paizo will be delivering exactly what some customers want.

I think some of the doom and gloom is just people who want Paizo to support the game they want to play right now (4E). It's the mentality that says the more people that agree with my choices, the better my choices are. There's nothing wrong with that. To steal an example from someone else, the idea is that I love peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, yet somehow knowing you are eating them too, makes my sandwich more delicious. A little silly, sure, but it happens to all of us on some points.

For the rest of the doom and gloom, I think it's an attempt at an honest appraisal of the information that they have (ie. we don't know the numbers that Paizo is selling or their market research, or the same for WotC). Out of the information, I think there are a few things that are playing into the doom and gloom mindset if Paizo stays 3.5.

1. Paizo has built its name on supporting D&D. If past history is any indication, when 4E comes the majority of the playerbase will migrate to the new edition. In the majority of the playerbase's eyes, 3.5 will no longer be "real" D&D. For examples of this, ask around at how hard it can be to find players for a first or second edition game. It's possible and it happens, but it is by no means the norm. So if Paizo doesn't move to 4E, they are not maintaining the image of supporting D&D to most of the playerbase.

Now, if 4E flops, maybe Paizo would be well positioned, but planning your market strategy around the market leader, who has a proven track record of converting the player base, producing a flop seems on the surface to be a poor business decision. While we don't have any numbers, the fact that Paizo has stated that they want to support 4E seems to bear this idea out.

2. Paizo is in a position where it is hard to diversify. The other D20 publishers (Green Ronin especially) that have managed to diversify their product lines did not release their games at the same time as a new edition of D&D. They introduced those products after the initial push for the new edition. They also made sure that these new games did not operate in the same niche as D&D. By doing so, they were able to build an audience who was looking for a new game. By past history, we can predict that when 4E hits, the majority of people looking for a new game will be investing in it. A 3.75 no matter how good it is, will not appeal to the majority of the playerbase. It will be seen as an inferior D&D clone (whether inferior or not). For an example of this mindset, look at 3.0 and 3.5. Both games work and are fun. The way 3.5 was positioned and accepted made 3.0 obsolete. No one makes products to support it and the majority of players don't play it. It's reasonable to assume that the same mindset would affect any company trying to stay in the 3.5 marketplace in a post 4E world.

3. Paizo's main product, Pathfinder, makes course correction difficult. Pathfinder to my understanding is on 6 month cycles. A product a month for six months and then the Adventure Path resets and new people can jump in (or jump off, but that's the nature of periodical products). If Paizo were to stay with 3.5 or 3.75, and it hurt their business, they would be in the regrettable position of having to weather half a year with diminished profits (or possibly losses). That could be enough to sink a business. Their product line has a six month commitment. If they found out that their first product for 3.5 after 4E, sold miserably they are stuck with six months of poor performance (though I do believe that if this actually happened, you would see them scramble to try and save themselves, probably by doing something with dual statting. That is pure speculation though.)

On the other side, if 4E flops they could have a massive success, but as above, it is hard to place your livelihood and those of all the people who work for you on the chance that the market leader will suddenly fail where he has never failed before.

That's my perspective on it at least. I've been honest in that I want Paizo to convert over and support 4E. Even with my admitted bias, I think that it is an honest and reasonable concern to predict "doom and gloom" if Paizo attempts to go its own way by supporting 3.5.

 

[dmccoy1693]

That's why I offended people when I asked them to pretend it was their money: Because I don't think most people would be arguing for something this risky if they were the ones who were going to possibly go broke because of it.

You didn't offend me. I don't envy Mona in the slightest. He's got one heck of a touch decision ahead of him. And every way carries risk for the future of his company. But Mongoose, for example, has 22 full-time employees (IIRC) and they don't have an online store that sells many other people's products to supplement the RPG writing income.

2. Paizo is in a position where it is hard to diversify. The other D20 publishers (Green Ronin especially) that have managed to diversify their product lines did not release their games at the same time as a new edition of D&D.

Of all your points, this one I agree with the most. No doubt Paizo's position is difficult. Probably more difficult then any 3rd party company that jumped ship. All the rest of your points, I look at them and see opporunity for Paizo (and Mona must as well or else he wouldn't even be considering jumping ship), but this one is a major sticking point that is not easy to shake.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I honestly would put Pathfinder AP3 on hold until this is resolved. Don't get me wrong: A quality Underdark saga sounds awesome to me, but if this is forcing Paizo to make a tough decision with insufficient information, I think they'd be better off selling more GameMastery modules for a few months instead of locking themselves into six months of one gamble or another.

(Although I still think Necromancer Games' approach is likely pretty good: Write for the Saga Edition and have probably only a few conversions to make when you finally get the 4E rules in hand.)

 

[dmccoy1693]

(Although I still think Necromancer Games' approach is likely pretty good: Write for the Saga Edition and have probably only a few conversions to make when you finally get the 4E rules in hand.)

Somehow, I am willing to bet that 3.75 looks alot like Saga.

 

[Matthan]

I've just finished scanning the thread over at Paizo (which means I read the posts of anyone who actually works there), and I understand they are in a very rough position.

One thing that does cheer me is that Erik Mona is concerned about the eventual 5th edition years away. To me, that's a sign of someone who is in this for the long haul and is going to try and make the best decisions to survive for that.

What worries me is their need to publish their own core books if they decide to stay 3.5 or 3.75. Not only would that take development, but that's additional product based on a (in my view) precarious market decision.

My hope at this point is that if they don't get the 4E srd, they might consider delaying their third Adventure Path for two or three months and release a shorter path in the interim to minimize their risk. But that may be impossible for them. I don't know what guarantees they have made to their subscribers or distributors.

Long term, my hope is that they can weather this situation in some way and then when the market has settled a bit, they can work on diversifying their product base to make something that will be unaffected by the future of D&D.

All that said, I'm not a businessman. I do wish them and all the other publishers the best.