Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder outselling D&D

[Theo R Cwithin]

Because football is entertainment for the audience, and an RPG is entertainment for the players.

When a bunch of guys get together in a backyard to play touch football, they don't have a special teams group that sits out for 90% of the game.

Dude, if I had to guess, I'd imagine most people play sports "because it's enjoyable", not "because of the spectators". Millions of kids play in league sports every year just because they enjoy doing it-- despite benchwarming, getting injured, losing, or not being the best on the team. In fact, that's one of those activities a certain stripe of parent insists is good for kids to help them learn that having fun and being part of a team is in fact, not completely fair or symmetric (ie, it's helps them grow up).

When you're talking about a game, something played for the sake of its own entertainment, everyone ought to have something interesting to do at any given point, or at the very least right around the corner. WotC decided that having something interesting to do on a round-to-round basis was enough to keep everyone engaged.

Really? That strikes me a slightly insulting; I hope that's not the real reason for that particular design decision, as it greatly underestimates a player's capacity to enjoy the game or maintain interst in it for longer than a few minutes with "nothing" to do. When my PC goes down, or can't do jack for damage, meh, I still manage to cheer on the rest of the party... just like when I was a crappy rightfielder in Little League, I still managed to have a good time when my team won despite my minimal contribution. Admittedly, if the unspeakable horrors of imbalance happened literally all the time, then sure, it'd be an issue for me-- but of course that's not at all what really happens ime, nor in the experence of anyone I've ever talked to beyond the hyperbolic echochambers of the internet.

None of this is to say there's anything wrong, imho, with a design decision that ensures all players have something to do all the time. It works very nicely in lots of contexts, from boardgames to cardgames to CRPGs, and even *gasp* TTRPGs. But such a design decision is absolutely not the only valid one, simply because player sensibilities and motivations do vary widely, as we see in threads like this, and (more significantly) in the wide variety of ways people choose to entertain themselves.

Insistence that there's only One True Way regarding game design-- or marketing, or publishing, or anything else-- is simply wrong.

 

[Dark Mistress]

Just wanted to comment on the WoD comments. As someone that was big into vampire and the other WoD games in the 90's. I played it TT a lot and in several online sites. The biggest impact that made WoD go away was they stopped making the game and then made new versions of the game. Most people I know didn't care for the new versions of the game.

A example a friend of mine owned and ran one of the online chat sites. At it's height there was over 600 active players on it. When the new WoD came out it was discussed and voted on. Do we switch or stay with oWoD. The majority said stay with oWoD. That was common with most online sites and most groups I knew. But with no new books or ways to attract new gamers players slowly left over time and stopped playing with no new ones coming in.

This has nothing really do to with the discussion at hand but since WoD was brought up as a example earlier and I was a avid player back in the day I thought I would share my personal experience. I was even one of White Wolf's offical ST's (storytellers aka GM) for their chat sites for awhile. Thats actually how i meet Clark Peterson on the Fangsfall DnD chat of theirs.

 

[Votan]

Fun matters.

Re-playability matters.

If you have these two things, balance is irrelevant.

(Of course, "balance" or lack of same, can be used to affect fun and replayability, but not necessarily in the same way for the same people. "Balance" is a game feature, not a core requirement.)

Yes, an excessive focus on balance at the expense of fun leads to an inferior game. After all, the extreme version of this can exist in games like Monopoly where each player has the same piece (or chess with pieces). But RPGs were based around the idea of differences in pieces (characters).

Consider Lord of the Rings: Gimli and Boromir are not equal in all ways but are both interesting charcaters to play.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

[MENTION=11816]Dark Mistress[/MENTION]: What was it about the change from WoD to oWoD that players didn't like, in your estimation? Was it the actual rules changes; the fact that the changes occurred at all; disatisfaction with the company; or something else?

(I ask only because I have practically no experience with ether system, other than a few one off games.)

 

[Nagol]

[MENTION=11816]Dark Mistress[/MENTION]: What was it about the change from WoD to oWoD that players didn't like, in your estimation? Was it the actual rules changes; the fact that the changes occurred at all; disatisfaction with the company; or something else?

(I ask only because I have practically no experience with ether system, other than a few one off games.)

I'm not Dark Mistress, but I'll give my perspective.

nWoD has a simpler, more balanced, and coherent rule set and the rules became consistent in application across character types. In effect, it completed the slow evolution of rules the various revisions of the oWoD games went through -- vampires, werewolves, and mages became more comparable and more sensible to use in a single universe. Each type of character ended up with almost the same number of creation options available and more consistent mechanics.

But it lost a lot of the goth/dark atmosphere. A lot of the angst was wrung out of the system. The individual character struggles became homogenised (in mechanics -- not fluff).

 

[technoextreme]

I believe that is ultimately the objection that some have to an over-attention to "balance" in a game: it's simply not appropriate all the time. At some times, the defensive players need to shine, while at other times the offensive ones do. There's no reason to ensure that both offensive and defensive roles must shine all the time; and were a football coach to attempt that, he'd be looking forward to a losing season.

Why are RPGs any different? Why is it necessary that every character has something important to do every round, when in a balanced game like football, not every player has the same consideration?

Yeah I would stop trying to draw comparisons to a game in which balance is a really good idea. Lets face it you want to stop people from scoring and score yourself meaning that both the offense and the defense need to operate in a meaningful manner in tandem.

Admittedly, if the unspeakable horrors of imbalance happened literally all the time, then sure, it'd be an issue for me-- but of course that's not at all what really happens ime, nor in the experence of anyone I've ever talked to beyond the hyperbolic echochambers of the internet.

Its not really echochambers. Its one of the most common houserules for the 3.5E system because the game is so imbalanced that you can basically remove any sense of challenge that the game has and make other classes utterly pointless.

 

[Imaro]

Its not really echochambers. Its one of the most common houserules for the 3.5E system because the game is so imbalanced that you can basically remove any sense of challenge that the game has and make other classes utterly pointless.

Wait what?? What is one of the most common houerules for 3.5?

Secondly, how in the world can a player remove any sense of challenge that the game has and make other classes utterly pointless? The only one who can do something even close to this in 3.5 is the DM. Go, go hyperbole!!!

 

[Dark Mistress]

[MENTION=11816]Dark Mistress[/MENTION]: What was it about the change from WoD to oWoD that players didn't like, in your estimation? Was it the actual rules changes; the fact that the changes occurred at all; disatisfaction with the company; or something else?

(I ask only because I have practically no experience with ether system, other than a few one off games.)

I think it was for a variety of reasons. Nagol I think named a few of them. Also keep in mind WoD was very story focused and when they changed everything they lost the story that drew a lot of people in. Also add in they changed everything where old characters no longer worked mechanically or story wise but left many of the names the same. The name just meant new things, which could be confusing as well.

Another mistake they made is the old WoD books all you needed to play was the main book for each game. In the nWoD there was a single core book with most of the rules and to play humans. But if you wanted to play vampire you had to buy it and the main vampire book. Which doubled the cost to get into the new game from what it was.

They also removed a lot of the favorite parts of the games. Vampire changed the least some of the others was beyond sharing a name was completely new games like Mage. The new mage had nothing at all to do with the old mage beyond some of the rules being the same. Which since most that played the games did it for RPing and cause they liked the setting and story of the world I think was a mistake.

So I think there was a few reasons on why, but most of them are from the switch in games. There was just a host of reasons that made people not switch. Some I knew it was the new setting and lack of over all story to the world. For some it was the new mechanics which they thought made things bland, for others it was the double in cost of intro into the game. Enough they didn't even give the new games a try.

The final thing is, WW I think made the cardinal mistake in that. They made a new version of the game when most of the players seemed very happy with the current game. I mean keep in mind revised oWoD came out at the end of 1999 and the new game came out in early 2004. In 1999 with the revised they redid all the books to the new revised rules which made most people rebuy all the books again and then less than 5 years later they did it again. Add in most players seemed happy with the current game as is.

Of course all of this is just from my own personal experience and from people I know online and offline that played the game. I mean for me that is what made me switch to DnD again. I had been playing it off and on some after 3rd came out, but really got into it after the nWoD came out.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Yeah I would stop trying to draw comparisons to a game in which balance is a really good idea. Lets face it you want to stop people from scoring and score yourself meaning that both the offense and the defense need to operate in a meaningful manner in tandem.

"Let's face it"? No, I don't want anyone to stop scoring; I simply prefer to look at the score as a team acheivement, and am not offended by the fact that it happened to be a couple guys other than me who physically threw and ran the ball into the inzone. That's what makes it a cooperative sport from the perspective of the players. I just happen not to get my undies in a twist when I'm sent to the bench now and then.

If that's not your style, of course, that's cool, too. And that's why I play my game, and you play yours.

Its not really echochambers. Its one of the most common houserules for the 3.5E system because the game is so imbalanced that you can basically remove any sense of challenge that the game has and make other classes utterly pointless.

You're quite right to a degree, though I'm not certain what this single mysterious house rule you refer to is. IME, different tables handle 3e "imbalance" issues in different ways, up to and including using specialized challenges, leaning on rp, or topping out at lower levels, as well as house ruling to nerf casters or boost fighters. It's not all that difficult to do, though it does require a fair bit of attention the DM's part. With real life time constraints or just not wanting to be bothered, I can understand why some tables prefer codified balance.

Again, whatever floats your boat. Just don't tell me I'm floating "wrong" because I'm on a sailboat while you're in a motor boat.

 

[Guest 85555]

Darkmistress: would it be fair to say that because of the role play focus of wod changing the rules to make them more balanced wasn't much of a priority for you or your players? I had a friend who ran a bunch of wod games for us and i never recall balance coming up as a concern. When we played d&d it was discussed but not wod.