Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

[prosfilaes]

But, even as successful as Vampire was, it didn't survive. It's not even a blip on the radar anymore.

Why? I put part of the blame on the cultural zeitgeist moving past them, and part of it on the fact that White Wolf got bought by a computer company, and no longer aggressively markets it. I'm sure other reasons exist, but I'm not convinced that mechanical problems were a big factor.

Managing a brief stint of selling better than 2e twenty years ago isn't exactly a stellar success when, 20 years later, you're down to pdf only and pretty much out of the RPG industry.

There's nothing out there besides D&D that has burnt as hard and as long as the World of Darkness. It's not down to PDF only; Amazon still has three new WOD books on the top 100 best-selling gaming books. At a quick glance I'd say less then 10 RPGs are on the list at all. Compared to anything but D&D, WoD sold better over a longer period of time.

 

[Guest 85555]

Vampire's decline was really more about 90s style and outlook winding down and d20. I don't think balance had much to do with it (especially with an rp heavy game like vampire).

 

[Nagol]

Was, of course, being the operative word.

And, let's not forget why Vampire did so well - it actually brought in an entirely new demographic into gaming.

But, even as successful as Vampire was, it didn't survive. It's not even a blip on the radar anymore.

Managing a brief stint of selling better than 2e twenty years ago isn't exactly a stellar success when, 20 years later, you're down to pdf only and pretty much out of the RPG industry.

Yeah, it shows the power a schism in the player base has over a new direction for the game. nWoD was an... interesting change.

Then of course, there was the purchase of the company by a computer game manufacturer who wanted the IP and relegated the printed works to "legacy products".

CCP Chief Marketing Officer Ryan Dancey did an interview on Gamasutra, talking mostly about Eve Online. He had this bit to say about White Wolf and the World of Darkness.

Can you fill me in on the status of White Wolf, the physical game company CCP acquired in Atlanta?


It's just an imprint... White Wolf used to have a fairly large staff. It doesn't anymore. It's focusing primarily on the World of Darkness RPG products. It's not doing some of the things it used to do; board games and other card games and things. The focus of the company [CCP] is on making MMOs and our legacy table top business is a legacy business.



Check out the entire article here...

Gamasutra - News - Q&A: CCP On Keeping EVE Online Fresh And Growing

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

And, let's not forget why Vampire did so well - it actually brought in an entirely new demographic into gaming.

But, even as successful as Vampire was, it didn't survive. It's not even a blip on the radar anymore.

That's an interesting point. What I recall from my (very limited) experience with any WoD is that that demographic was a lot different than the standard D&D demographic, being much less concerned with mechanics, and much more so with the setting and RP.

[edit: I've noticed the following has been answered in the time I took to type.]

So what has happened to that demographic now that the game itself is of lesser stature than its former self? Presumably they've either left gaming, or else moved on to some other game.

If they've moved to a different game, what is that game? Is it more balanced? Do those players care?

And if they've abandoned gaming, why? Was it because of the mechanics of the game; because it was a fad; or because that particular demographic is just fickle that way?

 

[Guest 85555]

A lot of the folk i knew who played vampire got into larping.

 

[Hussar]

That's an interesting point. What I recall from my (very limited) experience with any WoD is that that demographic was a lot different than the standard D&D demographic, being much less concerned with mechanics, and much more so with the setting and RP.

[edit: I've noticed the following has been answered in the time I took to type.]

So what has happened to that demographic now that the game itself is of lesser stature than its former self? Presumably they've either left gaming, or else moved on to some other game.

If they've moved to a different game, what is that game? Is it more balanced? Do those players care?

And if they've abandoned gaming, why? Was it because of the mechanics of the game; because it was a fad; or because that particular demographic is just fickle that way?

I imagine if you could answer those questions, you'd be far more in the know than most. I certainly cannot. My gut feeling is that while excellent setting stuff makes for great RPG's to read, it makes them not so great to play.

To be fair though, I think the LARP version of Vampire is still going pretty strongly. But, then again, there's a game with extremely balanced mechanics.

 

[Summer-Knight925]

you can break any game, no matter how the mechanics are, its how the human mind is that breaks it

the only way the game will remain 'unbroken' is if everyone playing has the exact same amount of experience/interest/books

this is 1 reason I left 4e, the more and more books they cranked out made it so my characters were under powered because I didn't buy a new book, granted I took my interest not to Pathfinder but to Palladium (now THAT is an easily broken system, but thats part of it)

the reason 4e is not doing as well compared to pathfinder is simple...well actually complex...but has nothing to do with mechanics as the argument recently went, it comes down to the simple (or complex) answer of 'the economy'

WoTC cranks books out, books that build on each other and are almost needed (don't have all the PHBs? you might feel this pain) meanwhile Pathfinder has the corebook, the advanced players guide and complete magic with complete combat on the way

just those 4 books...thats more than enough, the corebook alone offers enough stuff to make your fighter kick 'flask' and your wizard cast spells, its simplicity that makes a game, and just look through a 4e book, its far from simple.

 

[Hussar]

you can break any game, no matter how the mechanics are, its how the human mind is that breaks it

the only way the game will remain 'unbroken' is if everyone playing has the exact same amount of experience/interest/books

this is 1 reason I left 4e, the more and more books they cranked out made it so my characters were under powered because I didn't buy a new book, granted I took my interest not to Pathfinder but to Palladium (now THAT is an easily broken system, but thats part of it)

the reason 4e is not doing as well compared to pathfinder is simple...well actually complex...but has nothing to do with mechanics as the argument recently went, it comes down to the simple (or complex) answer of 'the economy'

WoTC cranks books out, books that build on each other and are almost needed (don't have all the PHBs? you might feel this pain) meanwhile Pathfinder has the corebook, the advanced players guide and complete magic with complete combat on the way

just those 4 books...thats more than enough, the corebook alone offers enough stuff to make your fighter kick 'flask' and your wizard cast spells, its simplicity that makes a game, and just look through a 4e book, its far from simple.

I would point out that this is very much not my experience. My current fighter is built using nothing but the PHB 1 because that's the only book I own and I don't have a DDI sub. Yet, I'm by no means playing second fiddle to any of the other characters, despite their being built with all the latest and greatest, including one Essentials character.

Nor have the adventures that I've built using nothing but the MM1, DMG 1 and PHB 1 been cakewalks for the PC's, despite allowing them to use whatever they wish.

I have no idea what the Pathfinder experience is, I don't play it. But, power creep has not been an issue at all in 4e IME.

 

[Dannager]

No one is arguing against balance in games; at least most of us aren't. Where this started was when you were insisting that balance was so important that it justified an endless stream of errata, that everyone should be happy that WotC is continually trying to microadjust the balance on D&D 4.

For balance to justify regular rules updates, it doesn't have to be much of a priority, given how minor the inconvenience of keeping up with the rules updates is.

So it strikes you as a poor way to put an RPG together?

Yes. Creating a set of options, presenting them all as viable choices and iconic roles that need to be filled, and then laughing behind the curtain at the poor sap who decided to play a Fighter strikes me as a pretty terrible way to develop an RPG. I'm not saying that was the case, but it's certainly what you're getting at.

So why are you using it as an example of how balance is important, if the type of balance it uses is bad for RPGs?

How in the world did you manage to convince yourself that I was claiming that purposefully making certain choices objectively - and significantly! - better than others was something to be encouraged?

So we're now talking about two games that were made in 2005 and 2008, that don't have a long history of successful balance. You're talking semi-cooperative games, where it's basically most of the players against one or two and the game. You're talking about six player games where the person who happens to draw the traitor card is much more likely to win then the other players, but it doesn't matter because you're playing against the game as much as the traitorous players. I'd say both of them are very unbalanced on a player-by-player sense.

I no longer have any idea what you're looking for. You said you wanted examples of games that balance players against each other. Fine, you got some. You said you wanted examples of games that balance teams of players against each other. Fine, you got some. You said you wanted examples of asymmetrical games that balance players (and teams!) against each other. Fine, you got some. Now you're saying that's not good enough; apparently, in order to show you that games like D&D benefit from balance, I actually have to show you that D&D itself benefits from balance, because any other examples we bring to the table are being hand-waved off.

 

[Dannager]

you can break any game, no matter how the mechanics are, its how the human mind is that breaks it

the only way the game will remain 'unbroken' is if everyone playing has the exact same amount of experience/interest/books

this is 1 reason I left 4e, the more and more books they cranked out made it so my characters were under powered because I didn't buy a new book, granted I took my interest not to Pathfinder but to Palladium (now THAT is an easily broken system, but thats part of it)

the reason 4e is not doing as well compared to pathfinder is simple...well actually complex...but has nothing to do with mechanics as the argument recently went, it comes down to the simple (or complex) answer of 'the economy'

WoTC cranks books out, books that build on each other and are almost needed (don't have all the PHBs? you might feel this pain) meanwhile Pathfinder has the corebook, the advanced players guide and complete magic with complete combat on the way

just those 4 books...thats more than enough, the corebook alone offers enough stuff to make your fighter kick 'flask' and your wizard cast spells, its simplicity that makes a game, and just look through a 4e book, its far from simple.

I...what?