Whatever happened to Necromancer Games?

[Steel_Wind]

Seems to work rather well for Paizo.

Paizo has a very different player acquisition and customer churn model. Whether it can prove successful over the long haul remains to be seen. I hope so.

That doesn't change what happened to TSR though.

 

[carmachu]

Seems to work rather well for Paizo.

Different time and era. PLus they have a long track record of quality, and lots and lots of good will with its customer base. Something which TSR lacked after a time. Its difficult to sell your customers a product if your antagonize them...(see Games Workshop)

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

At least in my circles (and I knew at least a hundred gamers in college), D&D wasn't 'the standard' back then. It had really stagnated, and most people I knew had left it for other systems that they considered more advanced -- for example, games that had a real skill system. In my case, that game was RuneQuest. Lots of people I knew played GURPS and the various White Wolf games as well.

3rd edition D&D really changed that. For the first time, D&D had a game system that had a skill system and a unified resolution mechanic.

That certainly helped, but for my own circle of friends (many of whom were computer science majors/beginning software developers ) the OGL made D&D 'cool' as well as 'competent'.

We viewed ourselves as sortof postmodern (yes, it seems ridiculous in hindsight) gamers who were beyond what TSR could possibly provide in terms of story and themes. The OGL meant that edgier companies could provide what TSR / WoTC would not. It made it substantially easier for me to convince our entire group of gamers to quit playing RuneQuest and try D&D.

Ken

But that's the thing...D&D was ALREADY the standard in the RPG marketplace. Even during the dark days before WOTC's buying TSR, the D&D game (and engine) ate up the majority of the market.

Even white wolf I dont think in its heyday came close to dislodging D&D at its lowest ebb...If this had been WHITE WOLF that came up with the OGL, I think it would be a brilliant way to increase market share to BECOME #1.

I *GET* the concept of the vision of Ryan D. That WOTC would focus on the high end moneymakers like the rules books and that others would benefit from producing adventures et al.

I'm just skeptical that say d20 Conan does more for WOTC than say GURPS Conan.

 

[ggroy]

Paizo has a very different player acquisition and customer churn model. Whether it can prove successful over the long haul remains to be seen. I hope so.

How does Paizo's "player acquisition and customer churn model" function, in comparison to TSR/WotC?

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Paizo was handed its customers, and most of its employees, on a silver platter, by some other company whose name escapes me at the moment.

How does Paizo's "player acquisition and customer churn model" function, in comparison to TSR/WotC?

 

[Pramas]

And steering this back to Necromancer, this is why Green Ronin is still publishing, because as a smart move you were already trying to form your own niches and not be dependent solely on a license or compatibility with D&D. M&M is a stand-alone product with it's own target audience, True20 is different from standard D&D, and you also have games that aren't using the OGL.

Well, we learned some valuable lessons from M&M. First, that it was possible to publish a really successful game using the OGL but without the d20 logo. Second, that doing so minimized the impact of any changes WotC might make in D&D. We saw this first with 3.5. Sales of our 3.0 era d20 books took a serious hit after D&D 3.5 came out, but sales of M&M were not affected at all.

I've always believed that GR should publish a diverse portfolio. Every game has a life cycle, with an ending that can be natural (interest simple wanes) or unnatural (your license changes or is yanked). If you have many irons in the fire, you can survive when a game or product line ends. If you bet everything on the continuation of the status quo, odds are you will eventually regret it.

During the whole 4E/GSL debate, Clark said at one point that he was only interested in publishing if he could do so for the latest edition of D&D. That struck me as a strange position to take, as it seemed to place the brand of D&D over the game itself. I had to look at it more practically. If my interests and WotC's lined up, great. Ultimately I decided that they didn't so GR moved on. Even if we followed through on our 4E plans, however, that would only have been one part of GR's overall publishing plan. There's a limit to how much control I want to give another company over my business.

 

[Steel_Wind]

How does Paizo's "player acquisition and customer churn model" function, in comparison to TSR/WotC?

D&D is a gateway game; Pathfinder is not (and is not marketed as one right now, either - though the Pathfinder Society is at least trying to keep the doors open to new gamers with organized play). People who start with RPGs are overwhelmingly likely to start with D&D more than any other system. (V:TM might have once been an exception to this when it came to female gamers, however, WoD's popularity has decreased a lot over the years - I don't know whether this is still true).

Whatever the case, people start with D&D and the overwhelming number of those players "churn out" of gaming and leave the hobby within three years or less. Those that do not churn out, stick with it and remain casual or lifestyle gamers and play D&D until they eventually churn out and leave the hobby many years later -- or graduate to another game system. Pathfinder is one of those "graduate to" systems. Right now, it's the most popular, actually.

So those are the kind of people who are most likely to play Pathfinder. There are a lot less of them than "ordinary" new gamers, but they tend not to leave the hobby for quite a while.

Which means that Pathfinder's players, like those gamers who play all "graduate" or second tier games will tend to be gamers in for the long haul within the hobby. They are less likely to leave the hobby and stop being your customers, as a relative percentage to D&D's customer base - the large majority of which do "churn out" of the hobby.

Does not mean Pathfinder's customer base won't leave the game for another RPG within the hobby, mind you. The biggest risk would be losing them back to D&D with that game's 5th or 6th Ed. For the precedent in FPRG gaming, look to GURPS and Rolemaster, which were both the big second tier FRPGs of the late 80s and throughout the 90s. The large majority of the customers of those game systems "came back" to D&D with 3.xx.

 

[Filcher]

During the whole 4E/GSL debate, Clark said at one point that he was only interested in publishing if he could do so for the latest edition of D&D. That struck me as a strange position to take, as it seemed to place the brand of D&D over the game itself. I had to look at it more practically. If my interests and WotC's lined up, great. Ultimately I decided that they didn't so GR moved on. Even if we followed through on our 4E plans, however, that would only have been one part of GR's overall publishing plan. There's a limit to how much control I want to give another company over my business.

This seems a very rational and sensible stance to take.

 

[Wicht]

Does not mean Pathfinder's customer base won't leave the game for another RPG within the hobby, mind you.

It doesn't. On the other hand, you have folks like myself who, after twenty seven years of gaming no longer care as much about the rules and care more about the 'story' and the 'adventure.' I've had fun with multiple games and editions and the rules really blended into the background in almost every edition and game. More important was the interaction of PC and NPC and DM.

 

[JoeGKushner]

So since we now know what happened to Necromancer Games and the thread has started to veer off into various subjects that have nothing to do with the original, is it time to be shut down?