Repeating the Mistakes of the Past

[Mistwell]

Paizo is stretching themselves a bit thin. Sales are also likely hitting a cap. Subscribing likely helps as people will buy extra products for the convenience of products they like being automatically shipped. But as people stop buying, having reached enough content, and other players go back to WotC, Paizo will have to tighten belts.
But I think they're financially in a better place.

I didn't mean to imply Paizo is seeing any financial hardship. I think they are doing great. I was just responding to the claim that WOTC published a glut of 4e books relative to Paizo's Pathfinder books over the past 2 years.

 

[Mercurius]

When someone is objectively wrong, I do think it's fair to discount it, to some degree.

I don't share your perception, I suspect thousands of people don't share your perception, and I am trying to change your perception by pointing out that it's objectively flawed. I'd be doing the same thing if you were saying you simply perceive the earth to be flat and I should give great credence to that perception.

I think you're missing my point here, Mistwell - that I'm not simply talking about "objective facts" (number of products) but "subjective perceptions." My perception isn't "objectively flawed" because it isn't only based upon number of products. That's the point about perception - it is subjective, not objective. You keep on reducing subjectivity to objectivity, but I'm calling that a false reductionism.

WOTC's didn't feel like filler or churn to meet a deadline either.

That is, ah, a matter of perception.

Here's what I suspect might be going on here - you like Pathfinder, and you're not really much of a fan of 4e, and so you didn't really read much of the "fluff" type hardback books for 4e. Am I right in that guess, or way off?

You're way off and I think this is where you show your hand, so to speak. You think I'm a pro-Pathfinder, anti-4editionist and have a grudge against WotC. This is simply not true. I played 4e for four years and have never played Pathfinder. I'm looking forward to moving on to 5e. But I do think that Paizo has run their business far better than WotC over the last few years, and they "get it" more than WotC is - that is, get how to run an RPG company, and how to produce a product line that is weighed towards quality over quantity.

Did you read Open Grave: Secrets of the Undead, The Plane Above: Secrets of the Astral Sea, The Plane Below: Secrets of the Elemental Chaos, Underdark, Hammerfast, or any of the other fluff-heavy books in the line? To me, these are some of the best books published for any version of D&D in many years, and I don't think they should be bashed as churn or things to meet a deadline, particularly if it turns out you never even read them.

I've owned every single book on that list and read a bunch of them and there are some good books there, so relax a bit with the false accusations, amigo!

But I think it's bloody obvious that, between WOTC for 4e, and Paizo for Pathfinder, it's hands down an easy call to say Paizo has been glutting the market far more than WOTC in the past two years. And if you "perceive" it to be different than that...I have to wonder if it's just a matter of faith in a company or product line you happen to like that is coloring that perception, versus a company or product line you don't have much interest in?

That is an easy call because WotC hasn't produced 4e product, as far as I can tell, in the last year and a half - since the summer of 2012!That's like saying "The NFL is glutting the TV market these days compared to MLB" (If you don't follow sports, MLB stands for "major league baseball" - and it isn't baseball season!). The point being, its a false, even unfair, comparison to line up the hiatus between editions at WotC with the golden age of Pathfinder (and one could argue that if Paizo is churning out more books the last two years its likely partially because WotC has been on a down-turn).

But again, its not only about total number of products, but what type of products. My perception of "glut" has to do with the huge amount of hardcovers WotC has produced, about 100 during the seven years of 3e and about 40 during the four years of 4e - that's 140 books in 13 years, or about 11 books per year! Compare that to the approximately 15 Pathfinder hardcovers that have come out in the last five years, or 3 books per year.

INow I realize that there are a lot of other books - modules, adventure paths, box sets, softcovers, etc, that would even things out a bit. But again, it is my view that the hardcover format has a kind of gravitas that gives the appearance of glut. A Pathfinder hardcover means something - it is a weighty, substantial tome, whereas many of the 4E hardcovers were rather slim and with a less dense word per page ratio. In other words, Paizo emphasizes quality over quantity where WotC has, for the most part, emphasized quantity over quality. In my humble perception, of course!

 

[Mistwell]

I think you're missing my point here, Mistwell - that I'm not simply talking about "objective facts" (number of products) but "subjective perceptions." My perception isn't "objectively flawed" because it isn't only based upon number of products. That's the point about perception - it is subjective, not objective. You keep on reducing subjectivity to objectivity, but I'm calling that a false reductionism.



That is, ah, a matter of perception.

Right. So, our two perceptions cancel each other out as they are subjective opposites. What we are left with is objective fact that one company published way more material than the other company, when comparing the last two years of Pathfinder to any two years of 4e.

You're way off and I think this is where you show your hand, so to speak. You think I'm a pro-Pathfinder, anti-4editionist and have a grudge against WotC. This is simply not true.

I said it was a guess, not the basis of my position.

I've owned every single book on that list and read a bunch of them and there are some good books there, so relax a bit with the false accusations, amigo!

What false accusation, or accusation at all? All I said was, "Did you read...", and "If you did not read them, then...". No accusation involved.

OK, so we both agree those were good books. So, why did you say WOTC was just churning out stuff to meet deadlines, and publishing out books not worthy of being hardbacks?

That is an easy call because WotC hasn't produced 4e product, as far as I can tell, in the last year and a half - since the summer of 2012!

If you take the last two years of 4e material that was actually produced (which is "up until Summer 2012, or whatever the date was), and compare it to the last two years of Pathfinder material that was actually produced,(which is "up until now") you will come to the same result. Pathfinder has been churning out way more material in the past two years than even the peak two years of 4e. In fact, I suspect it is more than the peak two years of WOTC 3e material. As I mentioned earlier, someone crunched the numbers and found it was close to the peak years of TSR.

My perception of "glut" has to do with the huge amount of hardcovers WotC has produced

Whether or not it is hardback is meaningless to me, and I think to many people. You are the only person I've ever even seen mention this argument about hardbacks equating somehow with the gravitas of the book. It's nonsensical to me, given the nature of the line. WOTC went with hardbacks for their entire 4e line, with the exception of their Essentials experiment. They went with hardbacks for most of 3.5 as well. It's just a binding direction they chose, probably for shelf space reasons and uniformity, and it had nothing to do with the content.

about 100 during the seven years of 3e and about 40 during the four years of 4e - that's 140 books in 13 years, or about 11 books per year! Compare that to the approximately 15 Pathfinder hardcovers that have come out in the last five years, or 3 books per year.

Again, none of this is making a whit of difference to me, and you have yet to explain why it makes any difference to you. Why does it matter, in terms of content? I assume the words were just as important regardless of how the binding was done. The only connections I can see to content are page count, and maybe maps. Why do you keep mentioning it like it's obvious to everyone why the heck you think this is an important issue?

Now I realize that there are a lot of other books - modules, adventure paths, box sets, softcovers, etc, that would even things out a bit. But again, it is my view that the hardcover format has a kind of gravitas that gives the appearance of glut.

WHY do you think this? Where does this come from? Who else, other than you, has ever said anything like this? How is it relevant given WOTC chose that as their base format for everything? Why do you think others share this perception? And, given that the overwhelming bulk of what Paizo publishes is softcover, are you arguing the bulk of what they publish lacks gravitas? It's just the format they chose, not a commentary on content quality.

A Pathfinder hardcover means something - it is a weighty, substantial tome, whereas many of the 4E hardcovers were rather slim and with a less dense word per page ratio.

This paragraph above, does not in any way follow to this paragraph below...

In other words, Paizo emphasizes quality over quantity where WotC has, for the most part, emphasized quantity over quality. In my humble perception, of course!

How does book weight, page count, and word count density, equate with quality over quantity? It's the opposite! If the page count is lower, if the word count is less dense, then THE QUANTITY IS LESS NOT MORE. Your argument, if it actually made sense (and I don't think it does) would tend to support the quality being HIGHER for the WOTC books, and LOWER for the Pathfinder books, as the Pathfinder books were spamming more words into it, while the WOTC books were getting the job done with less quantity of words and easier reading (due to more white space) which goes to quality of the product itself (as easier reading means higher quality experience).

But really I think this is all nonsense anyway. On any measure, be it product count, page count, word count, whatever, I think it's obvious Pathfinder has had more "glut" than 4e, if you take the last two years of Pathfinder and compare it to any two year period of 4e. There is no rational definition of "glut" which only applies to hardcover vs. softcover books - glut refers to quantity of content, or quantity of books, and not quantity of just one particular binding of books. Perception or not, it's inherent to the definition of the word, which simply cannot be changed due to your perception.

 

[Mercurius]

What an utter waste of time this discussion is. Merry Christmas, [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]!

 

[Echohawk]

Someone recently did a comparison of the publishing by Paizo for the past two years, to the publishing by TSR in the final two years of their governance of D&D, where they published the most amount of materials ever. And that analysis showed Paizo put out just about exactly as much as TSR had, over that same time frame.

I'm not sure TSR's final two years were their most prolific. That was well after they started having financial problems, were cutting products left and right, stopped producing the magazines for a while. And quite a few worlds had "ended" at that point.

It was me that did that comparison, in this post. But I didn't compare TSR's final two years, I compared TSR's peak annual output (which was in 1995) with Paizo's releases for 2013. In both cases, I reached a total of 79. However, several of Paizo's planned December releases have been bumped into 2014, so Paizo's total for 2013 will now probably be closer to 70.

Of course, that sort of comparison will give different results depending on what exactly gets counted. Pathfinder Pawns don't contain any new rules content. The Pathfinder map products don't either. But then neither did TSR's Player's Survivial Kit or the various Volo's Guides, so there are many products which could be removed from either count, if the goal is only to count rulebooks.

I'm willing to draw the following conclusions myself:
1. Paizo's output in gaming products is currently similar in terms of number of products to TSR's at its peak.
2. Paizo is more cunning that TSR ever was, in terms of how it presents its product lines to its customers.
3. Consequently, it doesn't feel (especially to the Pathfinder customer base) as if the total number of Pathfinder products available is as overwhelming as TSR's many different product lines felt, even though they are numerically similar.
4. Paizo publishes fewer hardcovers than WotC did during either the 3.X or 4.X era. I'm entirely unconvinced that this fact by itself is a good argument that Paizo is producing less (or more) crunch vs fluff than WotC or TSR did at any point. I think a proper analysis per product would need to be done before anyone can draw valid conclusions on that point.

 

[Jester David]

It was me that did that comparison, in this post. But I didn't compare TSR's final two years, I compared TSR's peak annual output (which was in 1995) with Paizo's releases for 2013. In both cases, I reached a total of 79. However, several of Paizo's planned December releases have been bumped into 2014, so Paizo's total for 2013 will now probably be closer to 70.

Of course, that sort of comparison will give different results depending on what exactly gets counted. Pathfinder Pawns don't contain any new rules content. The Pathfinder map products don't either. But then neither did TSR's Player's Survivial Kit or the various Volo's Guides, so there are many products which could be removed from either count, if the goal is only to count rulebooks.

I'm willing to draw the following conclusions myself:
1. Paizo's output in gaming products is currently similar in terms of number of products to TSR's at its peak.
2. Paizo is more cunning that TSR ever was, in terms of how it presents its product lines to its customers.
3. Consequently, it doesn't feel (especially to the Pathfinder customer base) as if the total number of Pathfinder products available is as overwhelming as TSR's many different product lines felt, even though they are numerically similar.
4. Paizo publishes fewer hardcovers than WotC did during either the 3.X or 4.X era. I'm entirely unconvinced that this fact by itself is a good argument that Paizo is producing less (or more) crunch vs fluff than WotC or TSR did at any point. I think a proper analysis per product would need to be done before anyone can draw valid conclusions on that point.

Great stuff.
As you say, Paizo has a lot of content with limited rules content (pawns, cards, maps). And many of the Campaign Books also have limited mechanics. Like the Volo or VanRichten books.
You do exclude novels which would jump up TSR's number dramatically.

Question? Did you include Dragon and Dungeon in the count?
In many ways, the Pathfinder APs were meant to feel like slightly larger issues of Dungeon. And the now monthly Player Companions have a pricey magazine feel.

 

[Jester David]

If you take the last two years of 4e material that was actually produced (which is "up until Summer 2012, or whatever the date was), and compare it to the last two years of Pathfinder material that was actually produced,(which is "up until now") you will come to the same result. Pathfinder has been churning out way more material in the past two years than even the peak two years of 4e. In fact, I suspect it is more than the peak two years of WOTC 3e material. As I mentioned earlier, someone crunched the numbers and found it was close to the peak years of TSR.

That's an unfair comparison. You cannot compare the last two years of 4e (when they had halved their production and begun work on 5e) with Pathfinder's production at it's peak.

And I did the page breakdown for you earlier and found WotC was well ahead of Paizo in terms of rulebooks, even with their slowdown.The crunchy content that leads to bloat and glut.

 

[Mistwell]

That's an unfair comparison. You cannot compare the last two years of 4e (when they had halved their production and begun work on 5e) with Pathfinder's production at it's peak.

What's unfair is you pretending that's the totality of what I said. As I said (and it was in the quote you just quoted - so you knew I said it) is you can compare it to "even the peak two years of 4e". I also said choose ANY two years of 4e.

And I did the page breakdown for you earlier and found WotC was well ahead of Paizo in terms of rulebooks, even with their slowdown.The crunchy content that leads to bloat and glut.

Yeah you making an arbitrary determination between crunch and fluff is not meaningful to me in any way and is massively moving the goal posts here. We're not talking about that topic, we're talking about glut of material, not how crunchy that material is to someone (and even what is and is not crunch or fluff is debatable and often subjective, as things like campaign material is crunch to some DMs and fluff to others, and sometimes dependent on whether the DM feels the need to be familiar with it to run a published adventure and things like that, while sometimes powers contain a large amount of fluff in them, etc..).

Regardless, we're not talking about which particular content, as that's not what glut means.

 

[Hussar]

Great stuff.
As you say, Paizo has a lot of content with limited rules content (pawns, cards, maps). And many of the Campaign Books also have limited mechanics. Like the Volo or VanRichten books.
You do exclude novels which would jump up TSR's number dramatically.

Question? Did you include Dragon and Dungeon in the count?
In many ways, the Pathfinder APs were meant to feel like slightly larger issues of Dungeon. And the now monthly Player Companions have a pricey magazine feel.

Let's not forget that Paizo is banging out its share of novels as well. Although, to be fair, probably considerably less than TSR did.

 

[SteveC]

Or alternatively, maybe you are not representative of the majority of WotC's customers.

Well, that's a good point. Of course the fact that I actually purchase product from them and have been doing so since I saved up money for the White Box back in the 70s, and have stuck with them ever since tends to disagree with you a little on that.

But at the same time: 4E was released based on survey results. Lots of them. So if you don't like 4E, I suppose that would support my Bizarro World theory. And now Next is coming out with a "anything but 4E" mentality, and so, I'd say that also supports the Bizarro World theory, since the two products are pretty much polar opposites.

The majority of WotC's customers at the moment are subscribers to DDI, since that's the only real product they've actually released recently, and those subscriptions dwarf the recent PDF re-releases. Those people are their customers, and the majority of what they're getting is 4E support. I would assume that if you've been a continuing DDI customer, you actually want to use the 4E content and the character builder, since there isn't much else there. Now Next has nothing to do with 4E, so, I suspect it's likely that WotC is looking much more to their hypothetical "lapsed customers" than to their current base.

I think that's a mistake, much like the seeming hostility to their (then) customer base back with 4E was being developed.

So, yeah, I'm going to stick with the "WotC has great resources to survey their customers, but does a poor job of interpreting the results." I think you can like 3X, 4E or Next and agree with that sentiment, if you look at different time points.