Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PMárk" data-source="post: 7357165" data-attributes="member: 6804619">For a time. Although, we don't know how much new players PF got since then. They might recovered from that loss and even surpassed the former numbers by now. Or not. We don't know, but I won't bury them before they're dead.   Again, might be, or not. Depends on the local scene, your friends, etc. I read a lot of accounts of people going over to 5e and not wanting to go back. I also read a lot of accounts of people playing both gmaes and people finding 5e lacking and going back. I read accounts of towns and clubs where  the PF games died and accounts of places where you can1t find anything other than PF. We'll see, on the long run, if PF could sustain itself, but I'm not that concerned.I might be wrong, but I think it's also like the market share percentage, because rank is in relation to other things, not the actual sold copies. But even if they're selling less copies, I'm not surprised. The business model is vastly different that 5e's. Yeah, agree, we don't know. Could be that, could be the former, could be the latter. Time will tell.But we don't know if the product still sales well, or at least well enough to sustain them. What we know is that McDonalds sells more.I don't want Paizo to take over the world, or beat WotC. I'm not in need to make myself feel better by playing the most popular game, I'm perfectly content with the company I like the products of making those products and being okay financially. I'm okay being more niche. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> And Paizo is still by far the second biggest in the hobby, so I'm not afraid.But that's you and you're likely more in the 5e target audience, so it's fine.Maybe. Then, so be it.I disagree. New gamers aren't just the only target audience of 5e, there are others. Old gamers being nostalgic with a game that resembles more the earlier editions' feel. People, who don't like crunch, or have issues with "bloat". People who prefer lighter rulesets, or who prefer to homebrew, people with less time, etc.However, I'm standing by my assesment, that 5e's main audience is new gamers. The whole business plan is catered toward them, the game is catered toward them, to make picking up the game as easy as possible and I'm fairly sure they are making up the biggest demographic of 5e players right now.Also, change the word "dedicated" to "long term fans, who'd like to see more content" (mechanical or setting/fluff)" and I think we're okay. And yeah, "dedicated" to me means, that you're interested in this thing enough, that you spend significant time with it, want to read more of it, try more things out, etc. That you want more stuff, plain and simple. WotC just doesn't have enought stuff for 5e to satisfy those, especially if you want official material. So, I think those people will, after a time, converge toward other games. Again, I'm not saying 5e doesn't have "dedicated" fans, in the sense of dedicated meaning "long-term" for another reasons, but I do think that it is a minority, while new and casual gamers are the majority. And no, I don't thin "casual" is a demeaning word, but it's a different level of interest. I also don't think that being aimed primarily at new gamers is a bad thing. It's just  thing.  We'll see how they will line it up with their "anti-bloat" approach. If we'll see actual setting content, for example, outside of the APs, well, I'd applaud that. In short, your whole thought process is rather alien to me. I'm not measuring content by how much of it I actually used. Given, that's only a small portion of it. But that's not a problem, because having cool stuff to choose from (mechanically) and stuff to read and being inspired by (fluff) is a merit on itself in my eyes. Having options is a merit on itself. If I'd play only 1 class from those in ACG, that's fine.  But hey, I'm the kind of people, who like options and detailed settings and yes, even metaplot, so there's that. I never got into the mindset of not liking, for example FR, or WoD, because thre are too many stuff for it. Well, duh, that's the point. I won't say I'm a collector, I'm not buying books just to sit on the shelves, unread. I buy what interests me, but if something interests me, I'd at least read it, even if I won't using much of it and that's okay. RPG books aren't just tools for me, but sources of inspiration and leisurely reading too. I'm fairly sure everything, or elmost gotten used by someone somewhere, along the years. That's enough. Nobody will count it. They won't get more money if more people will try more of the options. It's not like Youtube, where you'll get money by more hours watched. If someone bought a book, enjoyed reading it and at the end only used one new class, or one location from it in their entire gaming career, but considered it a good read, that's enough. It also means you'll get to have more niche options and that is appreciated. Yeah, as I said, my favorites. I'm msotly a fluff-centered guy, truth be told. Reading crunch bores me to death, but I like to have it for character options.No, I don't think it would have to be regular. It could work irregularly or as thematic tie-ins, as you said.</blockquote>

Verification