Rolling for Initiative--'Pathfinder' and the 5th Coming of 'Dungeons & Dragons'

[Morrus]

ICv2 has an article discussing Paizo's plans about how to weather the launch of 5E. It's not terribly detailed or analytical, but seems to come to the conclusion that Paizo is going to be waiting until the initial rush has died down, and then trying to convert some of the new players WotC has created. Erik Mona has always said that what's good for D&D is good for the whole industry, so I imagine he means by that that a successful 5E means new RPG players and a bigger market. "Paizo's plan, it appears, is to wait for WoTC to launch its campaign for 5th Edition, look for it to bring new people in and lapsed players back, then, when they start to lose interest in the new edition, steer them to Pathfinder, as happened with 4th Edition D&D."

I suppose this means that a short and long term pair of effects are needed. In the short term, a big successful launch; in the long term, those players tiring of D&D. I don't know if that'll happen, but it'll be interesting to see.

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/28425.html

 

[Jester David]

The part I disagree with is the authors claim:

First, Paizo will release the Emerald Spire Superdungeon in June; a 16 level adventure with levels from writers such as Ed Greenwood, Chris Pramas and Frank Mentzer. While that's great, and some players will buy it, by its very nature, a Superdungeon targets gamemasters. Modules and gamemaster-oriented books typically sell 4-6 times less than do those targeted at players. So Paizo is kicking off the Summer of D&D 5th Edition with a book not targeted at the vast majority of the company's target market.

The logic behind the statement is that there is 1 GM and 6 players at a table, so books aimed at players can sell far more copies.

This never seemed to match reality, as every player at a table is not going to buy a book. So long as one player has a book, everyone essentially has a book. In most of the campaigns I've played in, there's been one person who was "the collector" who we relied on for everything.

Adventures also serve the niche of "people unable to play", as you can read the adventure and almost picture a party going through it. It's a vicarious gaming experience for people unable to play. And the Emerald Spire will also tie into Pathfinder's Golarion world, so it will appeal to fans of that setting who want more secrets and lore.
Mike Mearls, in the PAX seminar, went on and on about how DMs have less time in the modern world. Which is both true and untrue (if the game is important, you'll make time). Having a published adventure certainly aids nowadays, when people are strapped for time and cannot prep like they used to.

I have no doubt that adventures, especially super adventures sell less than other books. Because not every GM is going to run a published game. However, 4-6 times fewer?

 

[delericho]

The part I disagree with is the authors claim:

The logic behind the statement is that there is 1 GM and 6 players at a table, so books aimed at players can sell far more copies.

...

I have no doubt that adventures, especially super adventures sell less than other books. Because not every GM is going to run a published game. However, 4-6 times fewer?

Yep, you're right. I think they meant that the potential market for DM-side materials is 4-6 times smaller than the potential market for player-side materials. And it has also long been accepted that "adventures don't sell". But AFAIK nobody has ever published definitive sales figures that demonstrate that adventures sell less to that extent (it might be a 2:1 ratio, or 10:1, or even 100:1; I don't claim to know).

(I would also be very interested to know how, if at all, the DDI affected sales of splatbooks for 4e. Given that all the mechanical stuff from "* Power" quickly made its way to the Character Builder, did this meaningfully impact sales of the printed volumes? My guess would be that they were significantly reduced, probably to the point where those books became niche items rather than best-sellers, but that is, of course, a guess. It would be nice to know.)

 

[ExploderWizard]

Adventures also serve the niche of "people unable to play", as you can read the adventure and almost picture a party going through it. It's a vicarious gaming experience for people unable to play. And the Emerald Spire will also tie into Pathfinder's Golarion world, so it will appeal to fans of that setting who want more secrets and lore.
Mike Mearls, in the PAX seminar, went on and on about how DMs have less time in the modern world. Which is both true and untrue (if the game is important, you'll make time). Having a published adventure certainly aids nowadays, when people are strapped for time and cannot prep like they used to.

Yeah, lots of GMs and even some folks who are interested in being a GM buy adventure material for pleasure reading and to use ideas/npcs/monsters/etc. from without actually playing the adventure as a whole.

Also, regarding some of the plans for the D&D brand concerning "now" gaming, I don't think the brand has the oomph to be very sustainable outside the rpg crowd. It would be interesting to see how many fans of D&D fantasy fiction there are who are NOT tabletop gamers or former tabletop gamers. Without a solid fanbase of such people, D&D isn't going to get the traction in the non-tabletop markets that it is looking for. A great many fans of Marvel or Harry Potter happen to be gamers but the brands are strong WAY beyond just those fans.

This is the problem I see D&D facing. A focus on the brand apart from tabletop is just going to give Paizo a bigger boost in the tabletop market.

 

[GX.Sigma]

That strategy doesn't make much sense to me. D&D Next is a much simpler, more GM-friendly system. Why would someone get tired of that and want to play a game that's pretty much the same, but a lot more complicated? The main thing that drove 4e players to Pathfinder (not matching expectations of what D&D should be) won't be a thing with D&D Next.

 

[billd91]

That strategy doesn't make much sense to me. D&D Next is a much simpler, more GM-friendly system. Why would someone get tired of that and want to play a game that's pretty much the same, but a lot more complicated? The main thing that drove 4e players to Pathfinder (not matching expectations of what D&D should be) won't be a thing with D&D Next.

I wouldn't bet on that. I think WotC has done a lot more this time around to avoid that issue, but I think it entirely possible it could still have a noticeable presence.

 

[Fobok]

That strategy doesn't make much sense to me. D&D Next is a much simpler, more GM-friendly system. Why would someone get tired of that and want to play a game that's pretty much the same, but a lot more complicated? The main thing that drove 4e players to Pathfinder (not matching expectations of what D&D should be) won't be a thing with D&D Next.

I agree. Pathfinder's main audience were the 3.5 players who didn't like the new direction of 4e. Those players already have Pathfinder. Just like 4e brought in new players that stayed with 4e (not enough, but definitely a number of people), 5e will bring in new people who will stay with 5e, *and* likely have a number of 4e players (though, again, probably not all.) I can see only a tiny fraction of that audience trying out Pathfinder, and only a fraction of the GMs coming from those easier-prep-systems sticking with Pathfinder as it stands.

The only hope, from this plan, that I can see is that Pathfinder players will try 5e, form new groups of new 5e players, and then bring them back to Pathfinder eventually. However, I think most Pathfinder players trying 5e will be trying it with groups they already have, so if they tire of 5e and move back to Pathfinder, there's no gain of new players.

Now, 3e is a blast to play, and Pathfinder looks to have improved tremendously on it. (I just started playing it. I haven't had a gaming group in years, and that last group was 4e, so haven't got to try it much yet.) However, looking at the rules, I don't see that they've gotten rid of the DM prep-time issues that 3e had. Or, heck, from the player side making a fully-filled-out character sheet without Hero Lab can still take a good chunk of time.

I like Pathfinder, and I hope they continue to be successful. I just don't think relying on people to tire of 5e is the answer.

 

[DMZ2112]

That strategy doesn't make much sense to me. D&D Next is a much simpler, more GM-friendly system. Why would someone get tired of that and want to play a game that's pretty much the same, but a lot more complicated? The main thing that drove 4e players to Pathfinder (not matching expectations of what D&D should be) won't be a thing with D&D Next.

Well, for what it is worth, I intend to use both, at least until D&D5 comes out with modules that can replicate Pathfinder's depth of skill play. D&D5 will absolutely be my preferred fantasy RPG, knock on wood, but out of the box it is just not going to do a lot of what Pathfinder does.

If a player is really into Pathfinder's complexity, but is, say, frustrated by its unbounded accuracy (as I am), I can totally see that individual switching to D&D5 in the short term but just not having his interest captured in the long term.

It is also believable to me that D&D5 will bring in new players who don't know what they want, and that what they do want may not turn out to be D&D5, ultimately.

But all variables considered, it does seem like a small hook in a windy hallway to hang your hat on.

 

[Minigiant]

I think the plan to hope that NEXT starts big and snatch up fans years later is a very flawed plan. 4e was a perfect storm. It won't be back like that again.

Beside waiting out NEXT's demise with low selling books will... just give WOTCtime to print modules and variants to snatch up their fans.

 

[SteveC]

It's interesting. I hear the "Adventures don't sell!" adage a lot, and I sort of think of Frodo speaking with Boromir ("I know what you would say, and it would seem like wisdom, but for the warning in my heart.")

The idea that you don't make money with adventure/GM supplements makes sense if not for the fact that Paizo has done exactly that for years.

It will be extremely interesting to see how this shakes out over the Next Launch. WotC has not exactly done a great job with PR for the launch, but maybe they just needed to not alienate their new/returning customer base. I don't see them as doing that so far, but I think the OSR/Pathfinder crowd could speak better to that than I could.

I will say this: if there was a clone of 4E, and Paizo supported it with adventures, I'd be buying the heck out of it. Wouldn't that be an ironic development?