The roots of 4e exposed?

Ted Serious · Jul 25, 2018

Charlaquin said:
But, again, trying to drive their fans away is not a thing either company did, and therefore not a way in which PF2 is unlike 4e.

4e did drive fans away. Paizo was there for them.

Charlaquin · Jul 25, 2018

Ted Serious said:
4e did drive fans away. Paizo was there for them.

And again, WotC didn’t try to drive their fans away, which is the way you claimed PF2 was unlike 4e. Since neither company tried to drive their fans away, your assertion is false. Not trying to drive their fans away is, in fact, a way in which they are similar.

If you had said, “Paizo has not driven their fans away” or, “Paizo won’t drive their fans away,” we’d be having a very different discussion.

Ted Serious · Jul 25, 2018

Charlaquin said:
And again, WotC didn’t try to drive their fans away, which is the way you claimed PF2 was unlike 4e. Since neither company tried to drive their fans away, your assertion is false. Not trying to drive their fans away is, in fact, a way in which they are similar.

If you had said, “Paizo has not driven their fans away” or, “Paizo won’t drive their fans away,” we’d be having a very different discussion.

Paizo won’t drive their fans away.
4e did. Pathfinder 2 won't.
Paizo has learned from wizards mistakes.

Charlaquin · Jul 25, 2018

Ted Serious said:
Paizo won’t drive their fans away.
4e did. Pathfinder 2 won't.
Paizo has learned from wizards mistakes.

Which is a very different assertion than,

Ted Serious said:
Pathfinder 2 is nothing like 4e. It does not want to drive its fans away.

Still not one I agree with, but not one I feel like arguing with.

houser2112 · Jul 25, 2018

Ted Serious said:
Paizo won’t drive their fans away.
4e did. Pathfinder 2 won't.
Paizo has learned from wizards mistakes.

By releasing Pathfinder 2 and discontinuing support for PF1, they WILL split their base at least a little. It's impossible to get everyone to follow you. I don't foresee a rift as great as the one caused by 4E, but there will be stragglers. It remains to be seen if releasing PF2 was a mistake, but at least Paizo isn't making the mistake of deriding their own previous product and the customers who like it in the process.

Kobold Boots · Jul 25, 2018

Ted Serious said:
4e did drive fans away. Paizo was there for them.

Her point was that WoTC did not intentionally drive people away.

Kobold Boots · Jul 25, 2018

Ted Serious said:
Paizo won’t drive their fans away.
4e did. Pathfinder 2 won't.
Paizo has learned from wizards mistakes.

Paizo is entirely capable of finding their way to making their own mistakes independently of WoTC. I can see where PF2 could go too far for even the 3X diehards but I'm waiting to see the content before I make an opinion or decision beyond not playtesting actively with my group.

Their current market position was the result of capturing lightning in a bottle and being in the right place at the right time, enabled by WoTC's poor business strategy and lack of ruthlessness. (Personally, I would have stepped on their throat and that would have been the end of them. Not personal, but business isn't slap and tickle. It's killshots)

Given what they've accomplished though, I admire the firm. Their quality sets the tone for the industry and we're better off as gamers for having them around.

billd91 · Jul 25, 2018

Kobold Boots said:
(Personally, I would have stepped on their throat and that would have been the end of them. Not personal, but business isn't slap and tickle. It's killshots)

Maybe because the industry is small enough that they don't want to crap too much in their own pool knowing they'll be swimming in it for years to come? Honestly, I think too much overt hostility would be self-destructive.

Kobold Boots · Jul 25, 2018

billd91 said:
Maybe because the industry is small enough that they don't want to crap too much in their own pool knowing they'll be swimming in it for years to come? Honestly, I think too much overt hostility would be self-destructive.

1. Industry small - market share is important.
2. Talent is important - Their best talent is likely much better than my middle performers and not making a ton more than they are.
3. Step on throat and offer best talent sugar.
4. Get rid of middle talent. They will either get better and be my new competition (that I have tons of backstory on) or they do something else with their lives.

Either way, everyone loves winning. All you need to do as a firm in any vertical is put out one product everyone loves and all is forgiven. Doing this sort of thing when your product sucks is what you need to avoid. Prior to 4e launch it would have been very wise to take down the competition and assume their top talent while getting rid of chaff. But there's no way I'd have let Monte go. Stupid move on their part. When you have iconic employees that are worth their weight in marketing and PR, you do what you have to to keep them.

Overtly, even in a situation like this one, I'd not have gotten personal or directly offended anyone due to the size of the industry. Can't control how other people take it but if I keep someone like Monte, go after someone like Mearls or Buhlmann hard and let Bill, Tess, Derek and Mary go, in favor of folks that will playtest the hell out of something for 15 an hour. I'm better off for the next product cycle at least.

Informed in business, uninformed in the RPG industry, but assuming that one product cycle can kill a brand so I'm not looking at the long game much. Keep quality employees, put a muzzle on the social media without making sure that there's a unified message behind everything and put out the best product.

KB