Would Paizo Make a Better Steward for Our Hobby?

[delericho]

To the OP: I suspect they would.

C'mon WotC -- outsource to Paizo like you did with Dungeon and Dragon. You know you want to!

I can't imagine that Paizo would consider that deal. The problem is that if they're producing D&D, that basically means ending Pathfinder support, because otherwise they're competing with themselves. But if they've licensed the game, rather than bought it outright, then 5 years down the line they may well lose the license... and then they've got nothing.

 

[Jester David]

Paizo seems to be a much better company than WotC, in every way I can think of. It doesn't have annual Xmas layoffs, it doesn't suck at PR,
If Paizo was in charge of D&D (or PF, whatever), maybe we'd have another edition that broke the decade mark. Maybe we'd have less unwanted rules bloat, and more adventure and setting support instead. (Let's also assume that Paizo is supporting your favorite setting.)

WotC does suffer due to having several different brands, so there's a whole other layer of management added. And WotC is run by Hasbro suits who are not gamers, so the attitude inside the company is very different. Paizo has great communication with its fans and encourages staff to interact with the players via the message boards.
These do make the company great for supporting the hobby. Gaming is a niche activity so having a strong relationship with your fans is advantageous.

But Paizo has some other advantages. While Pathfinder lacks the name recognition of D&D it also lacks the negative stereotypes of the name, the continual baggage from the '80s that also keeps books out of many box store shelves.

Pathfinder is reaching a pretty heavy level of rules bloat though. It's lasting longer than 3.5e before becoming an inescapable black hole of content - because the accessories are being driven by the Adventure Paths - but it's closing in on that mark. The GenCon 2014 product release seems pretty "bloaty".

The one thing WotC has is settings. But this is a... mixed blessing. Multiple setting support really hurt TSR back in the day, so Paizo is deliberately focusing on a single setting and will likely never add a second.

But then again, who's to say that Paizo wouldn't become the next WotC after increasing its revenue stream and seeing the future generation of management? Like how VH1 became the next MTV, after going from MVs to reality garbage just like MTV did. When I see things like that happen, I have to suspect that there's an insidious underlying cause for the pattern. Who's to say that as a big company, there aren't underlying reasons for WotC's behavior other than bad decision-making and callousness?

But the growth of the company has limits. Gaming is a niche hobby so Paizo will only expand so far before growth slows. It's able to offset this a little by branching out into side products like the card game, and it might eventually have some luck with board games. (I'm very surprised we haven't see more Pathfinder specific board games.) But eventually gaming fans will be unable to continue paying money to support the company, having exhausted their disposable incomes.

Even then I don't see Paizo becoming more like WotC due to the personalities of the management. Paizo is trying to make money, but they're trying to do so by giving us products we want. It has not become a pure profit buisness.
If the owners and CEO of Paizo sell, I can see this happening. Once they bring in someone who is not personally invested in the company to run things that will change the tone from "act of love" to "business to make as much money as possible." Heck, the CEO once laid herself off and worked for free for a time (during the magazine days) because she didn't want to lay off employees while not being willing to give up her own job.

 

[Bluenose]

But the growth of the company has limits. Gaming is a niche hobby so Paizo will only expand so far before growth slows. It's able to offset this a little by branching out into side products like the card game, and it might eventually have some luck with board games. (I'm very surprised we haven't see more Pathfinder specific board games.) But eventually gaming fans will be unable to continue paying money to support the company, having exhausted their disposable incomes.

Gaming is a niche hobby? That depends how narrowly you define it. Do you think it's impossible for RPGs to match the performance of miniature wargames? How about CCGs? If you do think it's impossible, why?

 

[Jester David]

Gaming is a niche hobby? That depends how narrowly you define it. Do you think it's impossible for RPGs to match the performance of miniature wargames? How about CCGs? If you do think it's impossible, why?

Tabletop Roleplaying is niche for sure.

Both wargames and card games (collectible and otherwise) have the advantage of being able to drop in and out. There's no narrative to track, regular play to stay competitive is not required, and the minimum number of participants is lower.
Wargames and CCGs are also more traditional games: you have a winner and a loser, there's competition, and all players participate equally. There's less explanation needed. You know what you're getting with a board game, you don't know what you're getting with an RPG.
The buy-in of board games, wargames, and CCGs is also lower, both in terms of time and money. You buy the game, read a short rulebook, and can play freely. RPGs often have a high price point, Pathfinder and Dungeons & Dragons especially, and have the longest rulebooks known to man. And the prep time for the GM is huge, even for simple systems. And the minimum time for a game is measured in hours.

CCGs also have a low shelf space requirement that makes them easily available in non-exclusive venues, like Targets or WalMarts. Booster packs are excellent impulse purchases. Most wargames and other board games are self-contained, being boxed, so it's easy to find shelf space. Loose rulebooks and odd dice are tricky and seem out of place on shelves of boxed games.

All this makes TTRPGs trickier beasts to manage. While it's possible that RPGs could gain ground as more people learn what D&D is and the conventions of role-playing. But the requirements on number of players and time and difficulty only playing one-of games make this harder. You can have a "board game night" with friends and have people over to try a couple different games, but that doesn't work with RPGs. RPGs are almost a lifestyle.

 

[Wicht]

I'm very surprised we haven't see more Pathfinder specific board games.

I'm not.

You know the old joke about how to make a small fortune in RPG publishing? Boardgame publishers tell a variant of the exact same joke. Games cost money to design, publish and produce, and the boardgame market is not huge (though it is growing at a faster clip than RPGs).

Paizo has had several forays into Boardgames already, with Stonehenge, Yetisburg, Kill Doctor Lucky, Key Largo, Save Doctor Lucky, and now the Adventure Card Game. They also have their Harrow deck which is, ostensibly, a card game. I get the feeling that they have been feeling their way into the boardgame market, learning lessons as they go. I doubt they made a huge amount with their first few games. I do know that they folded their Titanic Games division, which makes me think the original experiment was not overly successful. However, their subsequent games do seem to have got progressively better traction and the Adventure Card game has been, as far as I can tell from anecdotal surface evidence (and glowing reviews) a phenomenal success (I don't know how that translates into profits, but people like the game.)

This does not guarantee future success, and just because a game is good does not mean it sells well enough to be reprinted. But this holds true for other companies as well. While the DnD Boardgames were good and generally well received, I would not be surprised if the only one of the games made in the last 6 years or so by them to see a reprint was Lords of Waterdeep. A game has to be exceptionally well received to merit that distinction. (Edit: Notice that Lords of Waterdeep was well enough received to merit an expansion to the game, a mark of distinction)

Paizo has a good working relationship with Mike Selinker, who does good design work, and I suspect they will continue to roll out new games as they have opportunity, but don't expect them to churn them out at any great pace anytime soon. While not privy to their thinking, I suspect its something along the lines of - they would rather put out 1 or 2 games that are well received and make them money, than half a dozen that they have trouble clearing out of the warehouse when all is said and done.

 

[Wicht]

Also, in relationship to the boardgame market, there are hundreds of new boardgames being made every year. Its a little bit harder to get traction in the boardgame market than it is in the RPG market, where, while there might be many books, there are only a handful of dominate systems. With that in mind, Paizo is quite right to keep their boardgame offerings small at the moment.

 

[Bluenose]

Tabletop Roleplaying is niche for sure.

Both wargames and card games (collectible and otherwise) have the advantage of being able to drop in and out. There's no narrative to track, regular play to stay competitive is not required, and the minimum number of participants is lower.

There's an awful lot of competition play in both tabletop wargames and CCGs. If anything, they're the games where regular play is essential if you want to be competitive. Certainly more so than with RPGs.

Wargames and CCGs are also more traditional games: you have a winner and a loser, there's competition, and all players participate equally. There's less explanation needed. You know what you're getting with a board game, you don't know what you're getting with an RPG.

Agreed.

The buy-in of board games, wargames, and CCGs is also lower, both in terms of time and money. You buy the game, read a short rulebook, and can play freely. RPGs often have a high price point, Pathfinder and Dungeons & Dragons especially, and have the longest rulebooks known to man. And the prep time for the GM is huge, even for simple systems. And the minimum time for a game is measured in hours.

Do you know how much a miniatures army costs? How long it takes to paint? Or, with some of the "mega" boardgames, how much time they require? RPG GMs have it easy.

CCGs also have a low shelf space requirement that makes them easily available in non-exclusive venues, like Targets or WalMarts. Booster packs are excellent impulse purchases. Most wargames and other board games are self-contained, being boxed, so it's easy to find shelf space. Loose rulebooks and odd dice are tricky and seem out of place on shelves of boxed games.

Miniatures gaming takes up a whole wall in my FLGS, the same as the RPG section, and they do a lot more ordering-in of items for miniatures than they do for RPGs. Most of the best selling RPGs are in stock, or at least new items are when they come out. For miniatures, they can't remotely cover more than a fraction of what's available, and don't even have full ranges for the major games like WarmaHordes, Malifaux, or Flames of War.

All this makes TTRPGs trickier beasts to manage. While it's possible that RPGs could gain ground as more people learn what D&D is and the conventions of role-playing. But the requirements on number of players and time and difficulty only playing one-of games make this harder. You can have a "board game night" with friends and have people over to try a couple different games, but that doesn't work with RPGs. RPGs are almost a lifestyle.

So is miniature gaming. So how does that niche support so many companies, including ones significantly larger than Paize, and why can't RPGs match that?

 

[howandwhy99]

It would be nice to see Iquander publishing for Greyhawk again.

 

[TwoSix]

So is miniature gaming. So how does that niche support so many companies, including ones significantly larger than Paize, and why can't RPGs match that?

One thing miniature gaming, board games, and CCGs all have in common is that they're selling you physical product. TTRPGs are trying to sell you ideas. Sure, those ideas are packaged in a book, and lots of people like buying the package, but they're not necessary to play. The internet has lowered the monetary barrier to play TTRPGs to virtually nil.

 

[Umbran]

The title of the thread and the OP are a little at odds. The thread title is "Would some other company make a better steward for our hobby?" but the OP asks, "What if Paizo (or whatever company) made your preferred ruleset?"

Those are by no means the same question, at all. Producing my personal favorite and stewarding the hobby are not the same thing. I don't really have a single favorite game. I like a variety of different kinds of play, so that no one ruleset is apt to do everything I like well. So, I won't address the "what if they made your personal favorite game" aspect.

I do think we are well served by having a healthy RPG ecology - there should be one or two really big fish, and a whole bunch of smaller fish. The role of "steward of the hobby" goes to the Big Fish. I think anyone in that position will end up looking, for most purposes, just like WotC does to us. Being the Big Fish implies being a business of some size, and those have issues like WotC does. Bigger companies lumber.

What if Paizo had it instead? Remember TSR? It put out a lot of good stuff. But as a business, was too small to really keep the top spot, and faltered. Smaller companies don't have the resources to weather problems well.

The question has a lot of, "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence," to it. We have a tendency to look at things we don't like, and think, "If the universe were different, we could have those bad things go away, and not have *any* other bad things crop up." That's not usually how things work in practice, though. No company is perfect, at least not for long.