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

[variant]

Paizo had to know that when their idea of creating a new product is taking another product and rebranding, it could only last so long. Even if it was to fill the gap from a screw up of another company. They had to know that eventually that said company would learn its lesson, readjust and then release a competing product with the stronger brand name. The success was solely because of the screw up of the other company, not in any part by some superior design of their product. The question is why they put everything in one basket with Pathfinder.

 

[Wicht]

Paizo had to know that when their idea of creating a new product is taking another product and rebranding, it could only last so long.

It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence, to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: "And this, too, shall pass away." How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride! How consoling in the depths of affliction!

Of course Pathfinder's success can only last so long. The question of how long remains to be seen. It seems premature to be planning the eulogy for PFRPG. Especially since your argument is identical to those made five years ago about why Pathfinder was a bad idea for Paizo. All my ideas should be so poor.

 

[Cybit]

I don't know if or how much of an effect it would have on PF sales, but if someone comes into a store and says, "I'm looking to get into D&D. What should I buy?" I can see the salesclerk saying, "Well, this is 4th edition D&D, but they're going to come out with a new edition in a few months. If you're looking to get into D&D right now, I recommend Pathfinder."

Pretty much what Iosue said. You might be in a different situation, but at least in the Seattle area (going from Tacoma to Everett), most of the game stores will point you towards Pathfinder when asked about D&D. No store is going to point a prospective new customer towards an edition that the store knows they will not be able to find soon; it is a bad business decision. They're limiting their own sales by pointing them towards 4E currently.

Going to also point out you never ASKED the sales clerk as someone brand new, where the "D&D" books are, and listened to their answer. Which was my entire point.

 

[Umbran]

Why would someone get tired of that and want to play a game that's pretty much the same, but a lot more complicated?

Um, some players *like* complication. If the rules of 5e are not sufficiently complicated to satisfy their gearhead nature, they may try something else instead.

 

[Iosue]

As far as the OP goes, it strikes me as an eminently cromulent strategy. We might surmise that in terms of loyalty, Pathfinder and Paizo customers describe something of a normal distribution. On one end, you have some folks who love Paizo as a company and/or love Pathfinder the game as perfect for their needs. These folks aren't going anywhere. On the other end, you have a similar number of folks who perhaps don't have any great loyalty to Paizo, and play Pathfinder not because it's absolutely the best for them, but because it's the best of the options out there. It's from this group that Paizo stands to lose the most, but they're highly volatile anyway, and are basically made up for with new players. Then you have the largest group in the middle. This group is the most varied, made up of folks who will stick with Pathfinder because that's what the group is used to and its too much trouble to switch, or who play multiple games anyway, or for whom Pathfinder is their only game, and they aren't interested in finding new ones. Even from this group who ultimately leave, they may continue buying adventure paths, Paizo's bread and butter, because 5e is designed to be relatively easy to convert to 3e.

It seems to me that, edition wars on the Internet notwithstanding, WotC and Paizo have distinct goals and distinct enough niches for their games and rulesets that they don't really need to compete head to head. And ICv2 numbers and edition wars aside, I'm not sure they really have been.

 

[Henry]

Um, some players *like* complication. If the rules of 5e are not sufficiently complicated to satisfy their gearhead nature, they may try something else instead.

In fact, GX.Sigma's statement exactly describes one of the big differences between 4E and Pathfinder: It was a simpler and more GM-Friendly system, but in addition to wanting something closer to what came before, many people wanted something more complex on the PC side. From a GM perspective, I love 4E -- it's a dream to prep for, with maybe Savage Worlds coming in a close second. But from the player standpoint, much like Basic D&D, there just wasn't a lot to differentiate one Fighter from another, or even one Fighter from his Paladin buddy. Even being better in one skill than another PC meant at most a +5 difference usually. So, though it can be a virtue to level up in 5 minutes of math, for my group especially it just wasn't enough.

 

[Henry]

Paizo had to know that when their idea of creating a new product is taking another product and rebranding, it could only last so long. Even if it was to fill the gap from a screw up of another company. They had to know that eventually that said company would learn its lesson, readjust and then release a competing product with the stronger brand name. The success was solely because of the screw up of the other company, not in any part by some superior design of their product. The question is why they put everything in one basket with Pathfinder.

I find these sentiments selling the work Paizo has done a bit short. This isn't comparing JIF peanut butter to the Wal-mart house brand; it's more like comparing an open source product that got abandoned by one company, and picked up and feature-expanded twofold by another company and resold for support. If the first company wants to pick it back up and expand on it from there, or even take ideas and go off in another direction, they're more than welcome to -- if they're willing to pick the torch back up and mine the whole base for new ideas -- which, looking at the playtests, looks like they've done, and grabbing quite a few Open concepts while they were at it, which as OGL licensor they're entitled to do, but it makes me a little sad.