Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7406493" data-attributes="member: 996">Aside from the &quot;continued&quot; part being gone already, as D&amp;D has been back to out-selling PF since the moment 5e hit the shelves, we have 40 or so years of history illustrating that &quot;selling a game on its own merits&quot; results in, at best, a successful niche game that doesn't come any where near parity with D&amp;D.&nbsp;&nbsp; OTOH, selling a game to people who have been convinced they hate D&amp;D (because it was demonized as &quot;Roll Playing,&quot; or edition-warred against by it's own fans, for the two instances where it worked) /can/ flirt with parity with D&amp;D... especially when D&amp;D is already in trouble on the business side (as happened in both those instances, too).Now, because it did also happen in the 90s, we can't say that the opportunity PF1 cashed in on was 'unique' - but it's been fairly rare.&nbsp;&nbsp; So, yeah, barring D&amp;D imploding again, &quot;sell your game based on it's own merits&quot; and &quot;seek parity with D&amp;D&quot; are mutually exclusive.&nbsp; Sad but truism of the industry.&nbsp;PF had a brand name before it became a full 3.5 clone in it's own right - and a well-respected one, for producing top-notch adventures.3.x, by virtue of the OGL, can always be cloned for those interested in continuing to play that iteration of D&amp;D - if PF2 isn't that, someone else can take up the mantle.&nbsp;I'm beginning to think, thanks to points made in this discussion, that a better course might have been to return to PF as a brand for adventures and expansions - more crunch, and more challenging adventures that let you enjoy crunching it.&nbsp; So more the Judges Guild model than the Arduin Grimoire model.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7406493, member: 996"] Aside from the "continued" part being gone already, as D&D has been back to out-selling PF since the moment 5e hit the shelves, we have 40 or so years of history illustrating that "selling a game on its own merits" results in, at best, a successful niche game that doesn't come any where near parity with D&D. OTOH, selling a game to people who have been convinced they hate D&D (because it was demonized as "Roll Playing," or edition-warred against by it's own fans, for the two instances where it worked) /can/ flirt with parity with D&D... especially when D&D is already in trouble on the business side (as happened in both those instances, too). Now, because it did also happen in the 90s, we can't say that the opportunity PF1 cashed in on was 'unique' - but it's been fairly rare. So, yeah, barring D&D imploding again, "sell your game based on it's own merits" and "seek parity with D&D" are mutually exclusive. Sad but truism of the industry. PF had a brand name before it became a full 3.5 clone in it's own right - and a well-respected one, for producing top-notch adventures. 3.x, by virtue of the OGL, can always be cloned for those interested in continuing to play that iteration of D&D - if PF2 isn't that, someone else can take up the mantle. I'm beginning to think, thanks to points made in this discussion, that a better course might have been to return to PF as a brand for adventures and expansions - more crunch, and more challenging adventures that let you enjoy crunching it. So more the Judges Guild model than the Arduin Grimoire model. [/QUOTE]

Verification