Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 7736414" data-attributes="member: 37579">Yes. Because they chose particularly precise phrases to present the idea that their sales are great. Picking the one year where they had a new game launching and comparing that to the year before. Only mentioning that the company had a great year and not Pathfinder?It's like saying “My finances are great. I have more money now than I did this time last week” and neglecting to mention it's payday.And since when has a “large editorial staff” been a descriptor of the strength of sales? (Large staff generally means smaller profits.)And, again, it's not “largest staff ever” or even “largest editorial staff ever”. But the editorial staff now vs when Pathfinder 1 launched, which was still a shaky time for the company. Roll20 tells us nothing except that more people are going onto Roll20. Again, the number of people playing 3.5e and 4e and OD&D also increased over the last couple quarters. Would you say those games also have a growing audience? That their sales are strong?But that still doesn't address the main question. If Pathfinder is doing amazing, if the game is still growing, why do a second edition right now? Why risk losing the audience? Why only a single year and not a two year playtest? Why not stretch it to eighteen months? Or a year with an accompanying six part AP to focus playtests for more consistent results?</blockquote>