Pathfinder 1E Question for the Paizo folks regarding D&D's state of today

[Korgoth]

I don't agree with you, but I do feel the same way (how's that for contradictory).

I feel the same as you, in that I don't want my D&D experience to be an online computer based thing. And I'll resist it for as long as I can, but it's probably inevitable.

However, contrary to my own feelings, rationally I can't agree that D&D "...is made of reality..." and not "...intended to be made of electrons...". My D&D experience, no matter the medium, is primarily within the mind of me and those who I play it with (whether DM or Player). The visuals and the special effects, the story and the interaction...they take place almost completely within our imaginations. Whether the media is provided to me in a physical book or online, that part won't change.

But like you, I don't want it only online...I want my books!...and I also will not ever predominantly play online - I require my physical table. I can use the online service as my "book", but I have to have players sitting around my physical table, with the action playing out on my game mat...or it's just not D&D to me. If our community reaches a point where I can't find anyone interested in this type of play anymore, then I'll probably hang it up also.

But Hey! As long as the two of us are still playing it on a tabletop, then it's still alive...right?! In that circumstance, where there's nobody else playing it around a table anymore, maybe the two of us can get a game going...?

So, where is Barbaria...?

Well, it may also be that I didn't put forward my point with any kind of rigor or precision. I think we're pretty much on the same page, minor pun intended.

See, the semantic content of the D&D game might not be made of reality (at least, not wholly material reality, depending on your analysis of the nature of thought), but the gaming is made of reality. Here's what I mean:

In this life at least, I will never have a direct experience of another person's inner life. I know I have an inner life, but I'll never have any direct evidence than anyone else does... the proposition that other people have inner lives just like I do is something that I have to take on faith, which is something rational (I have to take it on faith, but like all good uses of faith I have a good reason for doing so). Nonetheless, there is some quality about interacting with other people: their alterity, if you will. See, if I were a solipsist and thought that the whole world was merely my dream, I'd still have to acknowledge that those things I call "other people" are able to surprise me. And even when their actions don't surprise me (because I know them well enough), they still intrude on my conscious horizon with seeming independence. And I like that fact.

There's actually no one with whom I regularly game of whom I totally approve... I have a strict religious code and none of my gamer friends adhere to it. And I disagree with most of them about politics, too. But when I'm talking about "alterity", my agreement or disagreement with them is neither here nor there... I'm talking about something much more elemental. They're other people. And unlike Sartre, I like other people. And I like to be at table with them. And I like to hold physical books and physical dice. And to write on physical paper with graphite... man, I love that gray, slick cylinder of carbon.

The joy of marking on paper with graphite. The joy of taking one or more plastic polyhedrals and chucking them across the table. The engaging quality of seeing another human being's face. These are simple, elemental pleasures and they are part of what makes the role playing experience fun.

Staring at a monitor. Listening to disembodied voices. Watching computer graphics. All that sounds too much like work!

I think that now more than ever the analog role playing experience is relevant. It's something special in that it's something that's not tied to the computer.

And I love computers and what they do for my life. But for human interaction, nothing beats having actual humans in the same room. Sure, there are humans (one in particular) that I'd rather Skype with than have some other human besides that person actually in the room, but that's pretty much a limit case. And I'd much rather always be in person with that person than on Skype if I could be. All other things being equal, for human contact analog is far superior to digital and always will be.

Oh, and Barbaria... it's in Texas, son!

 

[Hippy]

I can appreciate the "hassle" aspect, but I am a 40ish gamer and frankly we have begun to embrace the notion of online connection just to game on a semi-regular basis. We have utilized Skype video conferencing and it has worked very well. In a couple of instances I have been able to "join" the group when I could not otherwise come in person. In one instance I was sick with a slight cold. Not a big deal normally, but we play at a nursing home where one of the players is a resident, and I did not want to bring in any illness that could maker him or the other residents ill. In another instance I had to be home to watch my kids. Suffice to say without the skype I would not have played at all.

On a separate note, I use D20Pro for a virtual table top in my home game. We are all around the table, but the ease of creating FOG without having to manually draw out what they can see and not see has hugely sped up the amount we can get to in an evening. This is very important when we can only meet every other week for the game.

The success of the D20Pro has made my use of WOTC and metal minis at the table less and less relevant. In all honesty it has not taken away from the experience of the "feel of D&D" at the table, just made it easier and quicker to get to the story and action. It also is easier for one of my players to see the action as I can zoom in on any part of the map battle areas, etc. He has vision issues and sometimes he could not follow the minis as easy on a battle mat.

So to make a long explanation short (too late I know) the idea of WOTC moving to a online virtual table top makes perfect sense, and frankly what they promised from the very beginning of the 4e switch. The just have not been able to deliver much that way until now with the 4e beta. I am a 3.5 (and soon to be Pathfinder) player, but the version is irrelevant, that fact is if the medium (online) improves your game for ease of use or frequency of play...people will use it and pay for it if the quality is there. Granted WOTC has missed the boat on the quality aspect to date for many customers...but give them time, I think it will change out of necessity if nothing else.

Just my two electrum..

Cheers,

hippy

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I do think that if WotC moved entirely online, some other company would step up and try to proclaim themselves the "inheritors of D&D."

If they get together will all the other companies that tried to proclaim themselves the inheritors of D&D, they can found a big band. Or perhaps even a small village.

Hmm, "Gameville, MA - home to more D20 than people".

And i think it's not Wotcs problem that many gamers won't follow them online. Their problem is that many gamers are already online and waiting impatently for THEM to follow.

 

[Dykstrav]

And i think it's not Wotcs problem that many gamers won't follow them online. Their problem is that many gamers are already online and waiting impatently for THEM to follow.

Absolutely, Keefe. This is something that I can agree wholeheartedly with. WotC's problems have never been that people don't like their products, but rather catching up with what people are already doing themselves.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Absolutely, Keefe. This is something that I can agree wholeheartedly with. WotC's problems have never been that people don't like their products, but rather catching up with what people are already doing themselves.

Like staring at their Iphone and wondering where the button for the charbuilder is.

 

[Aeolius]

Like staring at their Iphone and wondering where the button for the charbuilder is.

More like wondering why there isn't a 3.5e/d20/Pathfinder VTT app for the iPad, that takes advantage of the internal gyroscope for 3D movement.

 

[Dausuul]

But so what?! It costs you nothing, and buys you a lot of goodwill rather cheaply. If the last year or two haven't taught you that goodwill does equal profits, then I'm not sure you're capable of learning that lesson. That would be unfortunate.

I'm not sure they've learned that lesson. I'm not sure I've learned that lesson, either, or that it's the lesson they should be learning. The fanbase didn't split over nebulous issues of goodwill. It split because 4E moved too far from its predecessors and a lot of folks decided it wasn't a game they wanted to play, either because they didn't like the game itself or because it invalidated too much of their existing library.

If WotC had released exactly the same game, but been more courteous and respectful about it, would you have made the switch to 4E? From what you say, I'm guessing the answer is "no." Then why should WotC care about your goodwill? How does your goodwill translate to their bottom line?

Say they release old-edition .PDFs for sale. You buy them, well and good. That's some profit for WotC to chew over, and weigh against other considerations, whatever they may be. But where does goodwill come into it? Will your goodwill lead you to buy things from WotC you wouldn't otherwise have bought?

Goodwill no doubt has some effect on WotC's bottom line, and there were certainly things they could and should have done better in terms of customer relations. But I dispute the idea that this is a big important lesson the last few years should have taught them.

Would such a competitor be able to compete with WotC? I don't know, but I really doubt it. But as the architect said in the Matrix Reloaded, "there are degrees of survival." I'm sure that a few small or tiny operations (relatively speaking, considering that we are talking about RPG companies after all) would be able to keep something in print and figure out a way to earn some scratch from it.

Point taken, and I agree; there will always (or for several decades, at least) be a niche for old-fashioned tabletop. But in the age of digital D&D, it may not be a niche that can support more than a handful of shoestring producers. Paizo, for instance, would likely be unable to continue at anything like its present scale.

Keep in mind that I'm talking long-term; 15-20 years from now, and predicated on the assumption that Erik Mona is correct and D&D is the single gateway through which new gamers come to the world of RPGs. If that presumption is true, and D&D goes online, then there will come a day when the vast majority of gamers come to the world of RPGs through an online gateway, while most of the old-school tabletoppers have drifted away or gone to play at Gary Gygax's table.

 

[El Mahdi]

I'm not sure they've learned that lesson. I'm not sure I've learned that lesson, either, or that it's the lesson they should be learning. The fanbase didn't split over nebulous issues of goodwill. It split because 4E moved too far from its predecessors and a lot of folks decided it wasn't a game they wanted to play, either because they didn't like the game itself or because it invalidated too much of their existing library.

If WotC had released exactly the same game, but been more courteous and respectful about it, would you have made the switch to 4E? From what you say, I'm guessing the answer is "no." Then why should WotC care about your goodwill? How does your goodwill translate to their bottom line?

Say they release old-edition .PDFs for sale. You buy them, well and good. That's some profit for WotC to chew over, and weigh against other considerations, whatever they may be. But where does goodwill come into it? Will your goodwill lead you to buy things from WotC you wouldn't otherwise have bought?

Goodwill no doubt has some effect on WotC's bottom line, and there were certainly things they could and should have done better in terms of customer relations. But I dispute the idea that this is a big important lesson the last few years should have taught them.

Because:​

Not playing or preferring 4E, does not necessarily equate to not purchasing WotC products.​

And​

Animosity toward WotC, does equal some not purchasing WotC products.​

​

I think the misconception you voiced is part of a common black-and-white view of the edition situation - a misconception that anti-4E must mean anti-WotC/D&D products. I'm not saying that for some this isn't the case (such as the very vocal but minority 4E-haters), but it's not the rule. I and other gamers still occasionally bought D&D products, despite not having adopted 4E. Tiles, miniatures, and campaign/fluff products are non-edition dependent, and even adventures written with specific edition mechanics can be easily adapted by most older edition DM's. A good number of people that didn't switch to 4E, still actually bought 4E core books...some even after they decided not to switch. Even though not the desired system for these gamers, those books still contain ideas and mechanics worthy of mining for their own games, and having the books just in-case they occasionally participate in a 4E game with friends. But significantly, and reinforcing WotC's likely current/future business model, some of that stuff was behind the paywall for DDI. Even though I didn't play 4E, I still had a DDI subscription...mostly for Dragon and Dungeon, but partly because I liked "supporting" the company that made my favorite game - and I wasn't the only one. But things like pulling pdf's led to a good portion of that group refusing to buy any WotC/D&D products at all.

For example, prior to the pdf issue, I had purchased the core book set, the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide, Pyramid of Shadows, and a few miniatures through 3rd party retailers...but most importantly for WotC, I had a DDI sub from the first month they went to a pay model. Between when 4E was released and the pdf's pulled, that adds up to about $200 altogether (June 2008 to April 2009). I cancelled my DDI sub the very day WotC pulled pdf's - and again, I wasn't the only one. That's about another $200 dollars of my money that WotC didn't get...and just from DDI! That amount doesn't include other incidental products I likely would have bought, such as more miniatures (that I would have bought, but purposely didn't), and I most likely would have picked up Gamma World, and the new Red Box and Essentials books (for mechanics ideas and comparisons). That's somewhere in the realm of another $150, and altogether (with DDI) about $350 dollars since WotC pulled pdf's - and again I'm not the only one. As for the industry in general, I have bought products from a few other companies that I probably wouldn't have before the pdf thing, but definitely not $350 dollars worth. That was a lose-lose for both WotC and the industry in general as far as this customer goes (though it did free up money for an ENWorld subscription). But that's probably not indicative of the industry as a whole - as for example, Pathfinder seems to have done very well.

If WotC is looking at revenue shortfalls (though nobody except WotC knows if they do have shortfalls), I think that would be a significant place to be looking for an explanation. Though whether they are being brutally honest with themselves is also an unknown.

Anyways, if WotC's goals are to move almost entirely to a subscription based content model, then their goals have to include getting as many people to subscribe as possible. Selling less books means less revenue from that medium (though maybe they were losing money, or not making enough profit, from that medium anyways...again, nobody really knows for certain except WotC). Also, 4E was designed to bring in new players, but we're almost three years into it now - most "new" players they were going to bring in are probably already here and has trickled off considerably. I also don't think anyone foresaw just how many older players wouldn't switch to 4E. From past history, I know they had to expect some, I just don't think anyone foresaw just how big a group it ended up being. Essentials was designed, along with simplifying/unifying the rules and including errata, to bring back some of those older edition players to 4E. Whatever older players they were going to bring in with Essentials was probably a fairly immediate surge...and then that's it. Most older players probably made up their minds pretty quick.

That leaves the majority of untapped potential customers as those who prefer, and almost exclusively play, older editions - and have decided at multiple points not to switch to 4E or Essentials. They are the ones that need to be courted in order to significantly boost DDI subs. It's the only untapped pool of potential customers left to them. Right now, that group is either playing their preferred systems with the materials they already have, and not contributing to the RPG Industry/Economy...or spending their money on other systems/companies products, and not contributing to the WotC Industry/Economy. Either way, it's money that isn't going to WotC...but could. And it's support that older edition players want, but isn't available.

It's a simple rule of business: one of the most effective ways to expand is to find an underserved market and fill it's needs. WotC continues to ignore an underserved market, one to which they have an almost exclusive ability to exploit. Sure, they tried to woo some with Essentials. But that's like saying "I know you said you don't want to play 4E, but if we re-dressed it like this, we're sure you'll like it." No, NO, NO! It's not what we keep telling you we want.* Clean it up and put it in a familiar wrapper all you want, we can tell the difference! The only way WotC will get our money is if they produce what we want. (However, if it wasn't for the pdf thing, you probably would have been able to sell it to some of us, even if we didn't want to play it.) So, that leaves the only things we're interested in is: restoring access to older edition materials, support for older editions on DDI, and developing some houserule flexibility into the DDI system for players of all editions.

*(Though apparently WotC isn't doing a good job of listening to their current customers either - as evidence by running a poll asking customers what they want from DDI, posting those poll results for the whole world to see, and then putting their efforts into DDI products that the poll clearly showed wasn't a priority...)

As to goodwill, I agree that a lack of goodwill is not what fractured the fan-base - but it has become a significant impediment to getting some fans/customers to return. Generating goodwill with these customers is the only way to overcome the animosity that's been generated, and that means some form of apology. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree on the causes or justification of such animosity, the fact that it exists is undeniable.

The formula is two-fold, provide the desired product(s), and do something to address customer animosity.

DDI type subscriber content is the inevitable future. No way around it. But whatever edition, players want flexible tools that allow them to play their game. And right now, DDI doesn't provide enough of that.

 

[scruffygrognard]

I agree with El Mahdi in that I have zero interest in 4th edition but would love to spend some disposable income on official, WotC-offered, D&D stuff (AD&D and BECMI pdfs, classic D&D maps and merchandise and so on, generic d20 game aids that were not collectible in nature, etc).

 

[Erik Mona]

Not to brag, but I can absolutely guarentee that when you stack up any of your online games to our Ptolus game at teh table? It loses.

Would you be willing to put your tabletop Ptolus game up against my old tabletop Ptolus game?

--Erik