Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

[prosfilaes]

If you feel I have respond in a way that is less than rational, you are free to demonstrate that.

You dismissed it without argument or evidence.

See: nearly every team sport ever, most team-based video games, trading card games, some board games, etc.

As was said above, most team sports don't make any pretense of balance between players; they're only concerned about balance between teams.

Since when is any trading card game balanced? Magic is designed so most decks will be suboptimal. In Magic, like D&D 3.5, you can build goblin decks if you just like playing fighters instead of druids.

As for board games, name them. After searching my mind, the one that came up is Axis and Allies. And notoriously, Axis and Allies is not balanced. Russia is weaker than the other players. And the ultimate answer is that doesn't matter. Axis and Allies might be a better game if it were more balanced, but it's still a very successful game, and rules changes could make it less fun as easily as more fun.

I didn't bring up Chess to demonstrate the difference between balance and homogeneity. I brought it up because it's a classic example of game balance.

And yet it is also a classic example of homogeneity.

 

[Sonny]

Which one is?

That's not the point.

Trial periods in MMOs (bounded by time or level limits) are nothing new. They're not even new to WoW. The "free-to-play" model only exists if the game itself is free to play, forever (no subscription fee) but charges money (typically via microtransactions) for added perks. WoW is not an example of free-to-play, and will not be no matter how much of the early game experience they make free.

That the MMORPG market is growing is arguable. It is certainly not at its largest period of growth - that is likely behind us. And "young" is a relative term. Subcription-based MMOs have been around for more than 15 years now. That's generations in terms of digital entertainment. The MMO market is more mature than you give it credit for.

Again, fifteen years.

Yes.

That doesn't have any bearing on what we're talking about.

That's not why I mentioned EVE.

I brought it up because EVE is an example of a subscription-based MMO with a WoW-esque subscriber structure. It is an exception to the "WoW and everyone else" rule.

I don't know that I'd argue that WoW and EVE are competitors, though. Not in the same way that Warhammer Online and WoW are/were competitors.

Yes, and they traded off that rule. I never said that WoW would rule forever. I said that there would always be one (perhaps two) MMORPGs that would dwarf the competition, because that's just how this market works.

You don't believe me when I say that the MMORPG industry will have one or two giants and a bunch of wannabes, but then you bring up video games?

For a decade, it was a two-giant arena. There was Nintendo, and there was Sega. Then Sega was replaced, by Sony. Then Microsoft clawed its way onto the scene, and now we have three giants. Except that didn't last long. Nintendo gave up on trying to compete directly with Sony and Microsoft within a single generation, and decided that it was going to market itself as its own thing; their whole strategy was to convince people that they needed a hardcore console - a choice between the 360 and the PS3 - and a casual console, and they made themselves out to be the only choice in that arena.

In other words, Nintendo recognized that trying to compete with the hardcore console giants was a losing battle, so they developed their own model going forward.

For further evidence, look at dedicated handheld consoles. Nintendo dominated this arena until recently, and Sony has been having a hell of a time getting consumers to buy into the PSP line.

And, of course, that doesn't even begin to acknowledge the added incentive for customers to consolidate around a single game that social experiences like MMOs provide.

Consoles used to be the hub of gaming for most of the market in 95 (around 15 years in game industry's history, well not if you count arcade games).

At this point consoles only have 40 percent of the total game market.

None of those consoles separately have more then 20 percent of the market. They are not the giants they once were. So yes, trying to say it's still a two or three company dominated market isn't quite correct. In terms of actually software sales those three companies are further marginalized in terms of market share.

The game industry of 1995 looks nothing like it does today. It will look even less like it used to once Cloud gaming comes to fruition. At that point who even knows what will become of consoles.(If you've tried cloud gaming, you'll know the tech is excellent even now, with very little lag, and good performance on various machines)

Neither of us knows for sure what the future holds for the MMORPG industry, especially with the portable MMORPG market getting off the ground. So we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

And it was quite silly of me to actually respond to a part of your post that wasn't even applicable to the RPG market this thread is about. As you had rightfully pointed out in the original post!

So sorry for getting you off track with that.

 

[MerricB]

Most RPG games change over its lifetime, but I didn't see a 2.5, it was always 2e for its entire lifetime. The added books 11 years into it weren't mandatory, nor were the previous 11 years of books rescinded and pulled off the shelves when it happened. When I was playing 2e, and I was playing it still well into 3x, our gaming group looked at the Player Options books (that came out after 11 years on the shelves)

After six years. The Player's Option books came out in 1995. The new edition of D&D (3E) came out in 2000. AD&D 2E came out in 1989.

AD&D 1E had a lifetime of 10 years (1979-1989).
AD&D 2E had a lifetime of 11 years (1989-2000).

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

And realistically, D&D before 4e was far more popular than 4e has been and IMO will ever be.

The general sales information we've been able to obtain (from a number of sources) indicates that 1E and 3E shared similar popularity/sales, than 2E was half-as-popular/well-selling as 1E, and we've got no information on 4E, but my gut feeling is "less well-selling than 2E", which isn't so good.

As for the effect of balance on RPG sales... well, what's balance, anyway? Gary Gygax considered it somewhat important, per his introduction to the Player's Handbook - "The characters and races from which the players select are carefully thought out and balanced to give each a distinct and different approach to the challenges posed by the game." - but AD&D is balanced much more on the "campaign" model rather than the "level/encounter" model of 4E. I side with whoever says that enjoyment gained through playing the game is most important, but "enjoyment" is a bit vague: the game provides it in many ways, and balance might be the most important bit. Depends on the product, really.

The trouble with comparing other long-lived RPGs to D&D is that most other long-lived RPGs are on life-support. Rolemaster, Call of Cthulhu and GURPS are played by diminishing groups of fans. Of them, only CoC has managed to stay pretty much with the same rules over the years. RM underwent a big shift (which ended up with a Classic and FRP line), GURPS underwent a big revision a few years ago.

Cheers!

 

[gamerprinter]

The general sales information we've been able to obtain (from a number of sources) indicates that 1E and 3E shared similar popularity/sales, than 2E was half-as-popular/well-selling as 1E, and we've got no information on 4E, but my gut feeling is "less well-selling than 2E", which isn't so good.

As for the effect of balance on RPG sales... well, what's balance, anyway? Gary Gygax considered it somewhat important, per his introduction to the Player's Handbook - "The characters and races from which the players select are carefully thought out and balanced to give each a distinct and different approach to the challenges posed by the game." - but AD&D is balanced much more on the "campaign" model rather than the "level/encounter" model of 4E. I side with whoever says that enjoyment gained through playing the game is most important, but "enjoyment" is a bit vague: the game provides it in many ways, and balance might be the most important bit. Depends on the product, really.

The trouble with comparing other long-lived RPGs to D&D is that most other long-lived RPGs are on life-support. Rolemaster, Call of Cthulhu and GURPS are played by diminishing groups of fans. Of them, only CoC has managed to stay pretty much with the same rules over the years. RM underwent a big shift (which ended up with a Classic and FRP line), GURPS underwent a big revision a few years ago.

Cheers!

Oh, no doubt, as stated, there are some non-D&D games I've played but that was mostly in the 80's, some in the 90's, otherwise I went from 1e, to AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, 3x and Pathfinder as the primary games I played during their running years. I haven't moved to 4e, but not my preferred game. Pathfinder hits the sweet spot for me, and am not really looking to play other systems at this time.

I never played most of the above mentioned games - in your post.

 

[Dannager]

You dismissed it without argument or evidence.

I was given nothing to argue against.

As was said above, most team sports don't make any pretense of balance between players; they're only concerned about balance between teams.

Nonsense. Balance between players is a key component and a critical consideration of nearly every sport out there. And what makes you think that balance between teams doesn't count?

Since when is any trading card game balanced? Magic is designed so most decks will be suboptimal. In Magic, like D&D 3.5, you can build goblin decks if you just like playing fighters instead of druids.

I challenge you: go ask the guys at WotC whether balance is a major consideration when developing a new set. You're bonkers if you believe they'll answer "No."

As for board games, name them.

Chess.

Checkers.

Scrabble.

I could go on.

After searching my mind, the one that came up is Axis and Allies.

Maybe try Google next time instead?

 

[Dannager]

Consoles used to be the hub of gaming for most of the market in 95 (around 15 years in game industry's history, well not if you count arcade games).

I think you might be misremembering how popular computer gaming was back in 1995.

But I understand your point: casual games have become a huge deal. And that's sort of my point - the market for those casual games is distinct from the market for traditional AAA retail game titles. Similarly, when we talk about what the market for tabletop RPGs looks like, we are not simultaneously talking about what the market for tabletop wargaming looks like.

At this point consoles only have 40 percent of the total game market.

None of those consoles separately have more then 20 percent of the market. They are not the giants they once were. So yes, trying to say it's still a two or three company dominated market isn't quite correct. In terms of actually software sales those three companies are further marginalized in terms of market share.

That's if you lump console game sales into the same market as sales of Angry Birds.

I promise you that Rovio doesn't consider themselves part of the same market as Activision-Blizzard, and I promise you that Activision-Blizzard doesn't consider themselves part of the same market as Rovio.

The game industry of 1995 looks nothing like it does today. It will look even less like it used to once Cloud gaming comes to fruition. At that point who even knows what will become of consoles.(If you've tried cloud gaming, you'll know the tech is excellent even now, with very little lag, and good performance on various machines)

Neither of us knows for sure what the future holds for the MMORPG industry, especially with the portable MMORPG market getting off the ground. So we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Portable MMO gaming replacing home MMO gaming is a long ways off. It's cute that Sony is giving it a shot on the Vita, but I really think that we're a decade or more away from seeing that really take form.

 

[pemerton]

While I never played an Iron Crown Enterprises game, Rolemaster with several iterations, but all are actively played has been around almost as long as TSR - its still sold and played.

Agreeing with you, there are many, many game systems of dubious states of balance that started long ago and are still being purchased and played today.

From here:

"Balance" is one of those words which is applied to a wide variety of activities or practices that may be independent or even contradictory. . .

Compare "balance" with the notion of parity, or equality of performance or resources. If a game includes enforced parity, is it is balanced? Is it that simple? And if not, then what?

. . .

Are we discussing the totality of a character (Effectiveness, Resource, Metagame), or are we discussing Effectiveness only, or Effectiveness + Resource only?

Are we discussing "screen time" for characters at all, which has nothing to do with their abilities/oomph?

. . .

[Example] Parity of starting point, with free rein given to differing degrees of improvement after that. . .

[Example] The relative Effectiveness of different categories of strategy: magic vs. physical combat, for instance, or pumping more investment into quickness rather than endurance. . .

"balance" can also mean that everyone is subject to the same vagaries of fate (Fortune). That is, play is "balanced" if everyone has a chance to save against the Killer Death Trap. Or it's balanced because we all rolled 3d6 for Strength, regardless of what everyone individually ended up with. . .

One fascinating way that the term is applied is to the Currency-based relationship among the components of a character: Effectiveness, Resource, Metagame. That's right - we're not talking about balance among characters at all, but rather balance within the interacting components of a single character. . .

"Balance" might be relevant as a measure of character screen time, or perhaps weight of screen time rather than absolute length. This is not solely the effectiveness-issue which confuses everyone. Comics fans will recognize that Hawkeye is just as significant as Thor, as a member of the Avengers, or even more so. In game terms, this is a Character Components issue: Hawkeye would have a high Metagame component whereas Thor would have a higher Effectiveness component.​

Rolemaster aims to have balance at least in relation to PC build rules, such that the various possible strategies - magic, fighting, sneaking etc - are all viable, and its hard for one PC to dominate in more than one strategy.

Rolemaster also depends heavily on "vagaries of fortune" balance - it's hard to build a PC who isn't vulnerable to fumbles/crits, or able to succeed on a high-open ended roll. This can go a long way to evening things up.

At high levels Rolemaster can have the "magic is the overwhelming strategy" problem, although perhaps not as badly as D&D can tend to. At that point, scenario design and scene framing by the GM becomes pretty important to maintaining balance, and "balance of screen time" can also become quite signficant. (Rolemaster has no formal metagame mechanics, but if the fighter PCs are all lords, and the wizards all hermits, this can help with balance. Conversely, if the wizards are all lords, and the fighters all grogs, than in my experience of high level Rolemaster no one will want to play a fighter!)

 

[Wicht]

The trouble with comparing other long-lived RPGs to D&D is that most other long-lived RPGs are on life-support. Rolemaster, Call of Cthulhu and GURPS are played by diminishing groups of fans.

Are you sure CoC is played by a diminishing group of fans and is on lifesupport? Seems rather timeless to me, with fans that are going to enjoy it basically forever. Though they may go to other games for their primary fix, its a reliable fall-back. Not to mention it still has 3pp making stuff for both the CoC game itself and the BRP engine.

 

[Wicht]

Nonsense. Balance between players is a key component and a critical consideration of nearly every sport out there. And what makes you think that balance between teams doesn't count?

I beg to differ. Balance between players is not desirable. I want my teams players to be maxed out sports-heroes and the other teams players to be suboptimal. Players clearly are not balanced. Which is why some are payed more than others.

I want the rules for interaction between the teams to be equitable. But player balance, not so much. I prefer my team to win more than half the time and a team that can pull off a win every time is not an unpleasant prospect.