Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Setting as Selling Point?

[Dire Bare]

The two companies, WotC and Paizo, are marketing to different ends of the RPG fan market.

WotC is not using a strong setting tied to the rules because they don't want to overwhelm people new to the game.

Paizo has a strong setting tied to their rules because they are marketing to existing D&D fans who wax nostalgic not only for the previous edition of the rules, but towards the strong settings that 2e and 3e were known for.

Both companies want and pursue both types of gamers, but each has focused their efforts on these different segments.

Doesn't rule out folks who love the 4e ruleset and the Golarion setting, or folks who love the Pathfinder ruleset but not Golarion.

IMO.

 

[Dannager]

I like very much the Pathfinder setting. I think is beyond comparison with any D&D campaign resource material we have read before.

My opinion is that the system and the world is tightly connected. I cannot use 4e for this setting. It seems that 4e is made for a band of superheroes and a series of encounters somehow connected. This tabletop-encounters-game-view goes deeply within the system of 4e. In Golarion, the baker in your neighborhood has got a stat block like you. He is not a minion or a DM monster.

Dimitris

Not only can you use 4e for this setting, you can do it quite easily. Check the link in my signature to a conversion of the Pathfinder AP Rise of the Runelords. It's set in Golarion, and yet I (and quite a few other groups) run it without much hassle at all in 4th Edition.

 

[Dimitris]

From what I know, I have a feeling that 4e was moving from a coherent structural simulationist approach towards to a more "the characters are the heroes and the world is built around them for theirs eyes only" view. Not to mention 4e overwhelming emphasis in combat. I am not saying this is wrong. It may be very well received from WotC customers, especially new customers. I don't know. I will continue to DM 3.5e / PathfinderRPG. But my feeling of Golarion is that of a detailed world where the things around have been developed as if they have a life for their own. It seems to me that the audience is different. I am glad that you are playing Golarion in 4e edition. It is a very nice world.

 

[Khairn]

I'd say that 50% of home games using a homebrew setting is a low estimate. Given this, I can't really see how a published setting could be that big of a draw or deal-breaker.

That being said, I thought the fact that Pathfinder wasn't 4E was its main selling point.

That's funny, I always thought that 4E's main selling point was the fact that its not 3.5? I do believe that published settings are certainly a big enough deal to WotC. Big enough that they would rather ret-con older settings than create new ones for 4E. Which I personally believe is a mistake on their part.

Dire Bare (above) said that WotC isn't tying its rules to a setting as they don't want to overwhelm new players, and for the most part I agree with him. WotC is also looking for 4E to be used for multiple settings, so tying it to none supports that concept as well.

Paizo seems to be going at this from another angle. They've built their reputation on numerous creative and successful AP's. Paizo has taken that experience and used it to create Golarion and a shared RP experience for its customers. This approach also helps to create a stronger community IMHO.

For the most part, WotC appears to be selling a game mechanic, with a different interchangeable setting each year. While Paizo is selling not just a revised OGL system, but the entire gaming experience with numerous AP's, modules, setting supplements and props (Harrow Deck) that are all tied into an exciting new setting. Golarion is also generating a lot of fan support (Wayfinder magazine from Paizo-Con).

For those players who prefer homebrewed settings, Golarion is not much of a selling point. But for the many gamers who want to minimize their prep time (one of the design goals of 4E) having a large amount of high quality setting material to chose from is a benefit. I know it is for me.

On a separate note I am surprised at the number of 4E fans who say they are using Golarion as their setting of choice. I think that says a lot about the quality of Paizo's setting material.

 

[Dire Bare]

On a separate note I am surprised at the number of 4E fans who say they are using Golarion as their setting of choice. I think that says a lot about the quality of Paizo's setting material.

Most certainly. Due to a limited budget, I haven't purchased much of Paizo's Gamemastery or Pathfinder products . . . but I'm constantly stealing looks at their website and guiltily flipping through their books at the FLGS. I suppose it's only a matter of time before I break and go into a Paizo purchasing frenzy. I've always been impressed with everything they've ever released.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

It might be a selling point, but it should be remembered that few settings remain popular and profitable forever. I mean, which long-running settings have remained in print since their inception?

The Forgotten Realms. The world of Shadowrun. The setting of RIFTS.

That's about it, I think.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I honestly don't care about the setting.

There's _so_ much stuff available right now, Pathfinder having a setting is almost like giving a drowning man a glass of orange juice.

These days, I fully expect that a game is going to come with a main setting book and then is going to do another 5-10 additional books; for me, that's just way too much. It winds up being a barrier to entry for me, because I quite frankly have no interest in having to read a whole bunch of made up stuff, just to get my game on. I want to run and play _my_ game; not be a guest star (or guest director) in someone else's deal.

I realize I'm not the majority on this, but... *shrug*

It's a fine line to walk between putting on new stuff for the collectors to pick up, and just making folks like myself dig in their heels and say "I'm not spending a dime on anything other than the core book."

Settings will mostly be used by those not creating their own. Of those groups they will be of most interest to the GM rather than players.

I think you underestimate folks quite a bit. Over the years, I've known players to be much more avid collectors of this stuff than GMs. That's not counting the folks that don't play any more and buy stuff because they think they're going to play again...some day, or the people that buy it because they like reading this stuff like it's a novel or something, or the folks that are buying it as some sort of inspiration.

Plus, let's be honest, most of the "setting" stuff? It's got a decent chunk of mechanics mixed in. Pure fluff (background) books are pretty rare. So if a GM or player is interested in mechanical things (rules updates, additional bits, whatever), chances are they're going to pick up the book, regardless of how much use they actually have for the setting material.

 

[BryonD]

I quite frankly have no interest in having to read a whole bunch of made up stuff, just to get my game on. I want to run and play _my_ game; not be a guest star (or guest director) in someone else's deal.

This has been my position for years. I have often phrased it as "I don't pay other people to play the game for me."

I've long been a home brewer. And I pretty much never played in the Forgotten Realms. But I did buy almost everything for the Realms. Because I find it to be both a good place to steal stuff from, and also a good muse.

So far I find Golarion to be a level above the Realms for these purposes.
Everything is recognizable, standard fare D&D troupes.
And yet everything has a deeper element that can be a huge change in the fundamental way the characters interact, or can be completely ignored.

And honestly, even back when wotc was doing 3.5 and Paizo was Dungeon and Dragon, it was my opinion that Paizo was the king of fluff. GR was probably king of crunch to me. And I can think of several other great crunch companies. And they all had good crunch and good fluff (and some bad crunch and bad fluff). But some were head and shoulders above the crowd. And in fluff and story, Paizo was head and shoulders up. And they still are.

All that said, I still fully agree with your point. There is more product out there than anyone could ever use and, honestly, if you are home brewing then the amount you need is approximately zero.

This is orange juice and you don't need this orange juice.

But it really is damn good orange juice.

 

[smug]

It might be a selling point, but it should be remembered that few settings remain popular and profitable forever. I mean, which long-running settings have remained in print since their inception?

The Forgotten Realms. The world of Shadowrun. The setting of RIFTS.

That's about it, I think.

Well, it depends what you mean by 'in print'. Having new stuff released periodically is probably a better measure, particularly now that pdf sales effectively keep anything 'in print'. As for what has had support:

Harn has. Glorantha's hiatus was also not based on a lack of interest for the game, either (and it's back now). Warhammer's setting has. Dragonlance has (although for 3.x it was licensed out to Margaret Weis). Shadow World pretty much has, although production has been slow (although there was an attempt, pretty much, to kill it off, that mostly seemed to be John Curtis' baby and TKA started producing it again).

Some D&D settings haven't had a great shelf-life, but they made so relatively many that's hot a huge surprise.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

I didn't start playing TTRPG's until 2005, so I may be wrong, but from what I understand Golarion was partly designed to be a fantasy kitchen sink where elements from almost any official D&D setting could be inserted. You've even got "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks - Land" in Numeria.

Personally, I don't like using a published campaign setting for two reasons: one, I'd rather make up my own, and two, reading the published descriptions for fleshed out areas makes me feel uneasy about making up my own material for another part of the world that isn't quite as fleshed-out. The closest thing to a published setting I'd consider using is the "Map of Mystery" at the end of the last print issue of Dungeon since it's just a map with some evocative place names.

As for Paizo being the king of fluff, I definitely agree, but I'll also add that they often go overboard and put in detailed descriptions and backstories that the PCs will never learn about. That does make the modules more interesting for the DM to read, though.