TheRPGSite

So what do you think the good people at Pazio will do with Pathfinder when D&D next comes out?

Do you think they will be compelled to put out a new edition of pathfinder?

If 5e is a big hit do you think they will make a comparable clone - or will they go with a re-imagined version of the 3e rules set?

Will they make a 2e Pathfinder if 5e is met with a lukewarm reception?

Personally I think that they will make a new edition of some kind, but it will come out a year or so after Next.

It would be really interesting if they were working in secret on a new edition that came out the same year as D&D next.

Everyone Speculate!


.

Quote from: Jaeger;684925So what do you think the good people at Pazio will do with Pathfinder when D&D next comes out?

Do you think they will be compelled to put out a new edition of pathfinder?

If 5e is a big hit do you think they will make a comparable clone - or will they go with a re-imagined version of the 3e rules set?

Will they make a 2e Pathfinder if 5e is met with a lukewarm reception?

Personally I think that they will make a new edition of some kind, but it will come out a year or so after Next.

It would be really interesting if they were working in secret on a new edition that came out the same year as D&D next.

Everyone Speculate!


.

The only thing Paizo needs to do is what it's already doing. They have absolutely nothing to worry about. 5e is a non-issue. I mean, really....how soon will it be before we see a 6e?

If they decide to make a Pathfinder 2e in the next two years (unlikely), then it would likely just be an errata'd version of the first one. They're primarily aiming for the 3.x market, which contains the lion's share of D&D players. It's a winning strategy.

But who knows? Maybe Paizo will become cosmically stupid, and prematurely abandon a winning formula.

*If* there is a generally open license for 5e *and* 5e seems to eat heavily into their sales, I think you will see a slow migration over, probably starting with duel stated books.

How likely either of those is, it is hard to tell right now.

Paizo shouldn't be patting themselves on the back too much over their success: they had very little to do with it. They poached the 3.0 artist and reprinted the rules with minimal changes. If 4e hadn't been such a clusterfuck Pathfinder would be making the same money that Castles and Crusades or Dark Descents makes-- not much. Keep in mind that most people don't stick with Pathfinder out of any great love of the system. They're there because it's not 4e.  

4e's existence and short lifespan are aberrations, not the new normal.
Once the campaigns for 5e start getting released: Dark Sun, Eberron, Dragonlance and the like, Paizo will very much have to watch their back.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;684932The only thing Paizo needs to do is what it's already doing.

Basically.

All Pathfinder has to do is come out with Pathfinder Basic. A light rules RPG that is completely compatible with Pathfinder core (Advanced) rules.  And the best part, they wouldn't need two years to make it.  Doing that, they will make sure to keep and add those that want a rules light system. As long as they keep it high quality, there is nothing to worry about.

Quote from: Benoist;684936Basically.

So you think they can sustain indefinitely with a two new full-size player option books every three months (on average - it's two a month, but they are small, so takes three of them to add up to one full-length book); and can also sustain their current trend of referencing those additional non-core books in their new adventures at what seems to be an increasing rate with each new AP?

I don't.  That's not a good long-term strategy, it's a short-term to mid-term one.  That's a strategy that, if maintained, has historically always led to a new edition.

Quote from: Mistwell;684939So you think they can sustain indefinitely with a two new full-size player option books every three months (on average - it's two a month, but they are small, so takes three of them to add up to one full-length book); and can also sustain their current trend of referencing those additional non-core books in their new adventures at what seems to be an increasing rate with each new AP?

Well I'm not their target audience. It seems to me that what they are doing caters to the fandom they are after, namely the people who want more 3.x, more rules options, more prestige classes, and so on, as well as those who want more adventure paths, more 2e-style setting gazetteers, story-telling and so on.

Neither of these crowds show any sign of wanting the supplement mill to slow down or stop altogether. I mean, as a former compulsive buyer of 3e stuff some ten years ago, I think I own all the game books and rules stuff I would ever need if I ran 3e/Pathfinder again (which if I did, I probably would limit to core-only, admitedly, with specific PrCs and stuff adapted for my settings' needs, of course), while the adventure paths might represent more actual value to me for ideas of adventure set-ups and the like, but I'm not their customer right now.

It's quite obvious that some people like this stuff, want this stuff, and despite almost 15 years of d20-compatible products to choose from, will want more and more of this stuff for the years to come. If they've kept on buying this stuff for 15 years, I don't see why they would suddenly stop doing so.

I really have no dog in this fight, because as a gamer I'm looking for something else right now, and as a designer I want to bring something different from what Paizo's offering at people's gaming tables, so take that as you will. It really seems to me Paizo is doing good business for itself, and it doesn't show any sign - from what I can tell, as an outsider - of slowing down or stopping any time soon.

Quote from: Benoist;684942Well I'm not their target audience. It seems to me that what they are doing caters to the fandom they are after, namely the people who want more 3.x, more rules options, more prestige classes, and so on, as well as those who want more adventure paths, more 2e-style setting gazetteers, story-telling and so on.

Neither of these crowds show any sign of wanting the supplement mill to slow down or stop altogether. I mean, as a former compulsive buyer of 3e stuff some ten years ago, I think I own all the game books and rules stuff I would ever need if I ran 3e/Pathfinder again (which if I did, I probably would limit to core-only, admitedly, with specific PrCs and stuff adapted for my settings' needs, of course), while the adventure paths might represent more actual value to me for ideas of adventure set-ups and the like, but I'm not their customer right now.

It's quite obvious that some people like this stuff, want this stuff, and despite almost 15 years of d20-compatible products to choose from at this point, will want more and more of this stuff for the years to come. If they've kept on buying this stuff for 15 years, I don't see why they would suddenly stop doing so.

I really have no dog in this fight, because as a gamer I'm looking for something else right now, and as a designer I want to bring something different from what Paizo's offering at people's gaming tables, so take that as you will. It really seems to me Paizo is doing good business for itself, and it doesn't show any sign - from what I can tell, as an outsider - of slowing down or stopping any time soon.

I figure that if anything, Paizo will come out with another RPG that won't compete in Pathfinder's space.  A SF or Modern oriented game, perhaps.

Paizo isn't going to kill the golden goose by coming out with Pathfinder v2.0.  They saw what WotC did and obviously learned what WotC did wrong.

Let me rephrase this question:

Why is Pathfinder more successful than any of the other OGL hanger's on?

Quote from: JonWake;684946Let me rephrase this question:

Why is Pathfinder more successful than any of the other OGL hanger's on?

when they worked for WotC they got all the marketing information on who buys what, which gave them a massive inside edge. They also got a good reputation while inside the WotC umbrella which was pretty much enhanced when WotC cut them loose as part of the transition over to 4th edition, which lets face it did not make WotC many friends.

Most other OGL companies* either had a reputation for mass producing poor products, or for jumping on the OGL bandwagon.

*there are probably exceptions to this, as an example Green Ronin springs to mind.

It doesn't look like Next will offer much for the hardcore char op crowd. So Paizo has them locked up. The question is how much of their fanbase (especially the DMs) hold their nose at the system in order to enjoy the adventures. If Next hits a couple early adventures out of the park, or comes up with their own take on the adventure path, you could see DMs start to drift back to the old country.

And every game needs to replenish its player-base to offset attrition. In the long run, the publisher best able to attract and gain new players will win.

Quote from: Haffrung;684948The question is how much of their fanbase (especially the DMs) hold their nose at the system in order to enjoy the adventures.

The playtest material seems to have been received quite warmly on Pazio's forums. You a,so see a lot of people asking for Pathfinder Basic... although the fact that Pazio has never really gone down that route suggests that they don't think their are enough to make the risk viable.

Quote from: jadrax;684947when they worked for WotC they got all the marketing information on who buys what, which gave them a massive inside edge. They also got a good reputation while inside the WotC umbrella which was pretty much enhanced when WotC cut them loose as part of the transition over to 4th edition, which lets face it did not make WotC many friends.

Most other OGL companies* either had a reputation for mass producing poor products, or for jumping on the OGL bandwagon.

*there are probably exceptions to this, as an example Green Ronin springs to mind.

Green Ronin did well with Mutants and Masterminds, but they've never even approached the kind of numbers Pathfinder gets.

Quote from: JonWake;684946Why is Pathfinder more successful than any of the other OGL hanger's on?

Paizo was well-established and highly regarded by 3e players long before 4e was announced.

It didn't help that Whizbros spit in their collective eye by taking Dragon and Dungeon digital and substituting for the OGL with whatever license it was they came up with for 4e products.

It also doesn't hurt, that by all accounts, they seem to publish stuff that many gamers like.

Quote from: JonWake;684950Green Ronin did well with Mutants and Masterminds, but they've never even approached the kind of numbers Pathfinder gets.

Yes, I was saying they don't have a poor reputation rather than they rival pathfinder's sales.

Quote from: Haffrung;684948It doesn't look like Next will offer much for the hardcore char op crowd. So Paizo has them locked up. The question is how much of their fanbase (especially the DMs) hold their nose at the system in order to enjoy the adventures. If Next hits a couple early adventures out of the park, or comes up with their own take on the adventure path, you could see DMs start to drift back to the old country.

And every game needs to replenish its player-base to offset attrition. In the long run, the publisher best able to attract and gain new players will win.

My hypothesis on Pathfinder's success is threefold: it's the default 'this is D&D' system for a whole generation that came of gaming age in the early 2000's, they produce good work, generally, and 4e is not compatible with any other gaming system.

Of those three things, Paizo really only has control over one of them. If I were them, I'd be looking to ease back into the WoTC fold in two or three years. Not right away, but start making inroads towards compatible adventures.

Quote from: JonWake;684953My hypothesis on Pathfinder's success is threefold: it's the default 'this is D&D' system for a whole generation that came of gaming age in the early 2000's, they produce good work, generally, and 4e is not compatible with any other gaming system.

Of those three things, Paizo really only has control over one of them. If I were them, I'd be looking to ease back into the WoTC fold in two or three years. Not right away, but start making inroads towards compatible adventures.

Why?  They don't need do anything of the sort.  I imagine you think that trademark D&D is somehow going to be a big success again.  I really don't see that happening.  I'm sure it will do well at first, but after a couple of years it will become the edition nicknamed "We made it like you said you wanted, why are you not buying it anymore."  People have far too many options and no one has to buy trademark D&D to get their D&D.

Quote from: hamstertamer;684938All Pathfinder has to do is come out with Pathfinder Basic. A light rules RPG that is completely compatible with Pathfinder core (Advanced) rules.  And the best part, they wouldn't need two years to make it.  Doing that, they will make sure to keep and add those that want a rules light system. As long as they keep it high quality, there is nothing to worry about.

Quote from: jadrax;684949The playtest material seems to have been received quite warmly on Pazio's forums. You a,so see a lot of people asking for Pathfinder Basic... although the fact that Pazio has never really gone down that route suggests that they don't think their are enough to make the risk viable.

Even though it has been a huge success, Paizo seems reluctant to extend Pathfinder Basic to a full game, likely out of fear of splitting the player-base the way B/X and AD&D split D&D.

However, if Next does get traction by attracting new blood, Paizo might have to bite the bullet and release their own newbie-friendly version. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a rough plan for full Pathfinder Basic in their back pocket. The key would be making it compatible with standard Pathfinder adventures.

Quote from: hamstertamer;684956Why?  They don't need do anything of the sort.  I imagine you think that trademark D&D is somehow going to be a big success again.  I really don't see that happening.  I'm sure it will do well at first, but after a couple of years it will become the edition nicknamed "We made it like you said you wanted, why are you not buying it anymore."  People have far too many options and no one has to buy trademark D&D to get their D&D.

Because someone has to bring new blood into the hobby. That generation of 3x fans that Pathfinder relies on will get old and attrit away eventually. D&D has always been the point of first contact for the hobby. Without a broadly appealing and popular D&D, these other games will need to prove they can foster their own fresh player-base. I don't know if Paizo is doing much more than hanging on to the 3e crowd. Pathfinder isn't exactly the easiest game to learn or DM.

I don't think Paizo needs to do anything in the short-term other than continue producing high-quality adventure paths and the occasional supplement to their RPG. In the long-term, they certainly should be flexible enough to adjust their product line should D&D Next be successful. Whether that means they go with a Pathfinder version 2.0 or get on board with D&D Next depends on what sort of licensing Wizards offers, though.

Of course, D&D Next's success is not certain - partly because of Pathfinder and, from what I am hearing, 13th Age.

Quote from: Haffrung;684958However, if Next does get traction by attracting new blood, Paizo might have to bite the bullet and release their own newbie-friendly version. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a rough plan for full Pathfinder Basic in their back pocket. The key would be making it compatible with standard Pathfinder adventures.

I suspect so, too - but I don't think this is necessarily key to their ongoing success. They are doing a lot of things that WotC did, and Hasbro is doing now - extending their branding/IP to other types of games, card games, MMO, novels, etc. Less so licensing others IP (Pokemon). They are trying to sell the brand...and its working.

I like the idea of an extended Basic game though.

Sell stocks/shares, what have they.

IMO, the secret to Paizo's success -- from having spoken to players at GenCon -- is customer support.  Paizo fans love Paizo.  They like Pathfinder Society, they like the Adventure Paths, they like their web presence, and they generally like the release schedule and what's on it.  Paizo needs to keep doing what it's doing, relying on solid service and products, and they're going to see good results.  I mean, the Advanced Class Guide is due all the way out next August and I'm already excited for it.

Will they take a hit when Next hits shelves?  Undoubtedly.  But if I were them, I'd bank on the fact that Wizards is going to continue to have the same tendency to make missteps that made 4e so problematic (Essentials, for instance, D&D's online component, mixed support and the RPGA will continue to be poor in comparison to PFS) and that so far, Next is looking like it wants to be everything to everybody, which means the chances of it succeeding at that aren't terribly likely; whereas Pathfinder is content with being what the 3.x audience wants, which is much easier to do.

Third, I suspect one of the problems at work is simply expectations -- D&D 4e, for all its warts, was still the number one game in the hobby, and it wasn't enough, and that was before Pathfinder and the OSR movement and pdfs of previous editions took a bite out of it.  I don't think D&D 5e is capable of doing what 4e did, and 4e wasn't capable of doing what 3e did, so D&D is always going to be chasing after smoke.  I know that nothing I've seen of the 5e playtests made me even remotely interested in switching over to 5e from ACKS and Pathfinder.  I'll probably buy a copy of the core rulebook, just to see, but I'll be shocked if the product has me as excited as Paizo and the OSR have me.

Quote from: Haffrung;684960Because someone has to bring new blood into the hobby. That generation of 3x fans that Pathfinder relies on will get old and attrit away eventually. D&D has always been the point of first contact for the hobby. Without a broadly appealing and popular D&D, these other games will need to prove they can foster their own fresh player-base. I don't know if Paizo is doing much more than hanging on to the 3e crowd. Pathfinder isn't exactly the easiest game to learn or DM.

Paizo has brought new blood into the hobby with their Beginner Box.

I may play 3.0 on my longstanding D&D game, but my kids play Pathfinder strictly due to that Beginner box.  Paizo spent a lot of time and effort into what should go into an all in one basic game, and they created a winner.

Quote from: JonWake;684934If 4e hadn't been such a clusterfuck Pathfinder would be making the same money that Castles and Crusades or Dark Descents makes-- not much.

I fully believe this, it's why I'm playing Pathfinder.

I can only speak to my experiences, of course, but Paizo has built up a lot of good will.  

Their customer service top notch (including replacing two books that were damaged in transit with no questions asked and listening to the feedback and adding corner protectors on their hardcover shipments).  

I was a HUGE fan of Dungeon magazine (subscribed from day one and still have rejection letters for module submissions from Roger E. Moore) and still have all 150 issues.  WotC killing that magazine was a point of no return for me, I never entertained buying 4e after that.  

I also appreciate that Paizo has a focus on adventures, including the excellent change to their modules line.  Despite having never played any of the 70+ issues of their Adventure Paths I enjoy reading them and find the mix of adventure, fiction, bestiary, and world articles worth my $20ish a month.  

I like the kitchen sink nature of the world and I think their focus on one world to the exclusion of others is a strength.  Sure, there are some elements I'm not a huge fan of, and their constant return to Varisia gets a bit old, but there is a lot to like with the world.  I also like that they don't feel the need to advance the timeline or introduce some world shaking cosmic event every couple of years.  

Other than that, production values are top-notch.  The art is great, the maps are decent (though honestly I prefer a more DCC old-school approach), the typography and layout is creative and, most importantly, readable.

I'm a bit concerned about rules bloat but I am avoiding that by not buying many of the hardbacks anymore, and skipping most of the companion line.  I still pick up the occasional campaign setting book.  

I really wish they'd expand the Beginner's Box to 6 - 10.  I'd love to see them dual stat the first three adventures of each AP and have them come to a bit of a resolution at the end of the third so that those that prefer lower-level, simpler play could have their own APs.  I doubt they'd ever do that, though.  Heck, they don't really need to dual stat much, the conversion should be easy enough, but a conclusion mid-arc that would be satisfying for those bowing out would be great.

Despite being a bit meh about demons and such (the focus of the next AP) I'm sure it'll be enjoyable reading.  After that there are two APs I'm really looking forward to (as well as a few support products).  And Bestiaries, I love those.

Edit: Also having a resolution in the third book of an AP would entice Beginner's / Expert's Box players to start the AP and, when they get to the end of the third book and provided that conversion to full-blown Pathfinder is easy, they may just continue on through the second half of the AP and start playing full-blown Pathfinder.

This is adding to the sentiment of "keep doing what they're doing", but continuing their inclusiveness despite the recent bitching of a few is going a long way towards keeping my loyalty.

Having your existence acknowledged does wonders for building up warm feelings for a company and franchise.  And unlike certain self-appointed SJW's elsewhere, Paizo actually steps up to the plate and gets shit done.  And they do it without turning the game into a sexless or flavorless wasteland.

Following up the Beginners Box would be a welcome addition though. :)

Then again their adventure path for next summer is about barbarians and machine gods.  It's going to take a lot in a 5e adventure to draw my attention away from that one.

Quote from: JonWake;684946Let me rephrase this question:

Why is Pathfinder more successful than any of the other OGL hanger's on?

Because:

• OGL games other than retroclones are aimed at small niches;
• Retroclones similarly are split across multiple styles (0e, Classic, 1e, or hybrid of one of those + 3e;)
• Paizo responded very quickly to the announcement that 3e was going away than the announcment that TSR-era D&D was going away, so they lost fewer players during the wait;
• Many TSR-era players made do with what was already published and didn't feel as strong a need for a replacement;
• Secondary markets were flooded with more material for Classic and 1e/2e, so it was possible to pick these up cheaply until fairly recently;
• TSR-era fans were, until recently, almost exclusively older than 3e/4e players, so there's more "die-off" (figurative and literal...)

Quote from: hamstertamer;684956Why?  They don't need do anything of the sort.  I imagine you think that trademark D&D is somehow going to be a big success again.  I really don't see that happening.  I'm sure it will do well at first, but after a couple of years it will become the edition nicknamed "We made it like you said you wanted, why are you not buying it anymore."  People have far too many options and no one has to buy trademark D&D to get their D&D.

You're assuming that it won't.  Even when 4e was being published, even with it losing a significant chunk of players to Pathfinder, Wizards was still the 800 lb. gorilla, outselling Pathfinder for several years. It's silly to think that they won't be again.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;684951Paizo was well-established and highly regarded by 3e players long before 4e was announced.[...]

It also doesn't hurt, that by all accounts, they seem to publish stuff that many gamers like.

Oh, that's just crazy talk.

JG

Quote from: Jaeger;684925So what do you think the good people at Pazio will do with Pathfinder when D&D next comes out?

Nothing for at least 1 year.

QuoteDo you think they will be compelled to put out a new edition of pathfinder?

Probably not.

QuoteIf 5e is a big hit do you think they will make a comparable clone - or will they go with a re-imagined version of the 3e rules set?

There is no reality in which Paizo will chase 5E by making a clone of it. There might be some reality where they start producing 5E-compatible products, but even that is extremely unlikely.

QuoteWill they make a 2e Pathfinder if 5e is met with a lukewarm reception?

Probably at some point.

QuoteIt would be really interesting if they were working in secret on a new edition that came out the same year as D&D next.

Zero chance of that happening. First, there's no rational reason to go head-to-head with D&D (particularly when D&D has been building marketing momentum for two years). Second, Paizo is going to wait to see what the fallout of D&D Next is before they make any radical decisions with Pathfinder.

It should also be noted that D&D Next being a success won't have any meaningful impact on Paizo's business decisions. The only way D&D Next has an impact on Paizo's business decisions is if it translates into Paizo losing Pathfinder players.

At this point in time, my prediction is that the next edition of Pathfinder will be a revised edition and not a reboot edition (it will feature a handful of improvements while maintaining backwards compatibility; it won't completely revamp the system). We are also unlikely to see it before 2017.

Quote from: JonWake;684946Why is Pathfinder more successful than any of the other OGL hanger's on?

They trailblazed the subscription-based product model and built a reputation for being incredibly reliable in delivering high quality support.

The mistake you seem to be making is in assuming that the reasons they became successful have any significant relevance to their future popularity. It's like arguing that Apple should start phasing out iPhones in the next 2-3 years because it was home computers that made them successful in the first place.

Yes, if Paizo needed to repeat their success starting from scratch next year they would be much less likely to do so in the face of D&D Next. But that's not what Paizo is going to be doing.

Quote from: JonWake;684934Paizo shouldn't be patting themselves on the back too much over their success: they had very little to do with it. They poached the 3.0 artist and reprinted the rules with minimal changes. If 4e hadn't been such a clusterfuck Pathfinder would be making the same money that Castles and Crusades or Dark Descents makes-- not much.

Paizo's success was that they knew what people wanted, and reacted quickly by giving people what they wanted. Of course, if WotC hadn't fucked up with D&D4, Paizo wouldn't have had a chance.

QuoteKeep in mind that most people don't stick with Pathfinder out of any great love of the system. They're there because it's not 4e.

Quite the contrary. Most people stick with Pathfinder because it's the system they love, and that system is D&D3. Oldschoolers dislike D&D4 as much as Pathfinder fans, but they're not generally interested in Pathfinder.

Quote4e's existence and short lifespan are aberrations, not the new normal.

Agreed.

QuoteOnce the campaigns for 5e start getting released: Dark Sun, Eberron, Dragonlance and the like, Paizo will very much have to watch their back.

If D&D5 is a success (and I think it will be, however I don't know if it will be "more successful than D&D4" successful, or "as successful as D&D3" successful), Paizo will stop being the top head of the industry, but they will be in a very good situation if they keep giving people  what they want, that is, good adventures compatible with D&D3.

There seems to be a lot of hope that Paizo fails once 5E comes out.

I do not think that will happen.

Paizo's success is based upon not arbitrarily changing a product that people enjoy to the detriment of their fans or fellow producers through the Pathfinder OGL. They are not going to jeopardize that by having a knee-jerk reaction to WotC.

Quote from: JonWake;684934Paizo shouldn't be patting themselves on the back too much over their success: they had very little to do with it. They poached the 3.0 artist and reprinted the rules with minimal changes. If 4e hadn't been such a clusterfuck Pathfinder would be making the same money that Castles and Crusades or Dark Descents makes-- not much. Keep in mind that most people don't stick with Pathfinder out of any great love of the system. They're there because it's not 4e.  

4e's existence and short lifespan are aberrations, not the new normal.
Once the campaigns for 5e start getting released: Dark Sun, Eberron, Dragonlance and the like, Paizo will very much have to watch their back.

I see Pathfinder as the next evolutionary step of the OGL. Yes, it is 'not 4E', thank the gods. But it is also something that I *like*.

Quote from: jeff37923;685046There seems to be a lot of hope that Paizo fails once 5E comes out.

I do not think that will happen.

Paizo's success is based upon not arbitrarily changing a product that people enjoy to the detriment of their fans or fellow producers through the Pathfinder OGL. They are not going to jeopardize that by having a knee-jerk reaction to WotC.

I don't think I care one way or the other how Paizo does. They seem like nice people. But I also think people attribute way more foresight and ability to what was just a damn lucky break. Yes, they've done a masterful job of exploiting that-- if the Paizo leadership were a little less agile they'd be in the same boat as Green Ronin.

I also think people are making the mistake that their customer base is all that loyal.  Back in 2008, people would have said the same thing about D&D customers.  It's mad world and all bets are off.

I kinda think they've already responded by bringing out Mythic. I've seen an Adventure Path on the cards that mentions 'mythic levels'.

I guess it's the equivalent of the Epic Level Handbook, but i don't know, maybe it does more than that.

Whatever, it opens up another tier of play by the looks of things for PF players - which can be seen as a pre-emptive strike on 5e if you squint.

Quote from: JonWake;685026You're assuming that it won't.  Even when 4e was being published, even with it losing a significant chunk of players to Pathfinder, Wizards was still the 800 lb. gorilla, outselling Pathfinder for several years. It's silly to think that they won't be again.

What is this "several years" bullshit? Pathfinder was released in 2009. That's only four years, dude. Furthermore 4e only outsold Pathfinder briefly, and then was quickly overtaken by Pathfinder. The 3.x player base has always been larger than the 4.x player base, and Paizo capitalized on it. 4e had its 15 minutes of fame, and has since been slowly withering away (like a rotted corpse), while Pathfinder keeps happily chugging along. Shit, I predicted all this stuff in 2009. I should track down all the posts I made explaining this. Everything that I said would happen, is happening now. For fuck's sake. :pundit:

Quote from: Tetsubo;685080I see Pathfinder as the next evolutionary step of the OGL. Yes, it is 'not 4E', thank the gods. But it is also something that I *like*.

There's a lot of people who are really committed to the idea that all Pathfinder games (or 4e games, for that matter) are four-six people sitting around a table grimly contemplating all the fun they're not having.

Occum's Razor applies here; most people who play PF do so because they enjoy it, warts (and there's plenty of warts) and all.

Quote from: tanstaafl48;685099There's a lot of people who are really committed to the idea that all Pathfinder games (or 4e games, for that matter) are four-six people sitting around a table grimly contemplating all the fun they're not having.

Some people go so far as to claim people only play their preferred games because of Stockholm's Syndrome.

Some people should slap the stupid out of their own mouths and focus on their own fun instead of shitting themselves over other people having their own.

Quote from: hamstertamer;684938All Pathfinder has to do is come out with Pathfinder Basic. A light rules RPG that is completely compatible with Pathfinder core (Advanced) rules.  And the best part, they wouldn't need two years to make it.  Doing that, they will make sure to keep and add those that want a rules light system. As long as they keep it high quality, there is nothing to worry about.

This would be awesome.

Quote from: BigWeather;684974Other than that, production values are top-notch.  The art is great, the maps are decent (though honestly I prefer a more DCC old-school approach), the typography and layout is creative and, most importantly, readable.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed that Paizo (and WotC) are the only RPG publishers that employ layout professionals and understand modern usability and design.

Quote from: Haffrung;685123I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed that Paizo (and WotC) are the only RPG publishers that employ layout professionals and understand modern usability and design.

I would say that FFG and AEG both handle this pretty well also.

Quote from: tanstaafl48;685099There's a lot of people who are really committed to the idea that all Pathfinder games (or 4e games, for that matter) are four-six people sitting around a table grimly contemplating all the fun they're not having.

Occum's Razor applies here; most people who play PF do so because they enjoy it, warts (and there's plenty of warts) and all.

Quote from: Evansheer;685107Some people go so far as to claim people only play their preferred games because of Stockholm's Syndrome.

Some people should slap the stupid out of their own mouths and focus on their own fun instead of shitting themselves over other people having their own.

I think both versions of this idea derive from the central idea that there is some ideal RPG that everyone will play and anything you don't like or that doesn't attract every possible gamer is just a broken, half-formed attempt at reaching that ideal.

Pathfinder is successful because there are a significant number of people who like that kind of game, or like a significant portion of it and can't find a game that caters to their differences. It's never going to be *THE* game, nor is D&D going to be *THE* game ever again. That genie has left the bottle.

I don't think they need to change anything, not yet. The core rule book sells more and more every year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&list=UUaZ7ByBXPqZRg-Q-J-_0YEA&v=NvAuMKKyA5U#t=262

Quote from: Emperor Norton;685125I would say that FFG and AEG both handle this pretty well also.

Absolutely.  I was rummaging through my old copy of FFG's Twilight Imperium 1st Edition, and the evolution of production values and layout from then to now is nothing short of amazing.

Quote from: jeff37923;685046There seems to be a lot of hope that Paizo fails once 5E comes out.
.

I hope Pazio keeps succeeding.

I think that if 5e is a big hit that they will need to do something, if they want to keep their market share.

.

Quote from: JonWake;685081I don't think I care one way or the other how Paizo does. They seem like nice people. But I also think people attribute way more foresight and ability to what was just a damn lucky break. Yes, they've done a masterful job of exploiting that-- if the Paizo leadership were a little less agile they'd be in the same boat as Green Ronin.

I also think people are making the mistake that their customer base is all that loyal.  Back in 2008, people would have said the same thing about D&D customers.  It's mad world and all bets are off.

Chance favors the prepared mind.

You can have all the "lucky breaks" in the world and not be successful if you do not produce a good product and supplant it with good customer support. Paizo shouldn't be sold short on their success.

Also, your customer loyalty comment is misplaced. The customers were loyal to the RPG system that had been providing them good entertainment value for the previous 8 years. The customers didn't leave WotC, WotC left the customers when they made 4E.

Really, Paizo only needs to worry if 5E is a better product than Pathfinder, which is looking like less and less of a possibility.

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;685293Really, Paizo only needs to worry if 5E is a better product than Pathfinder, which is looking like less and less of a possibility.

JG

I like it better. So do my players. But we'll see what the market decides in a year or so.

Paizo is not in a good place long term if they stay as a RPG company. If they deviate beyond 3.75, they will lose the 3.5 audience who really, really like to buy 3.5 stuff. They can't really do a true 2e, just a 1.1e cleanup without risking their core audience.

So they are in the Palladium problem. Innovate and anger the core OR keep cranking out books to the same (eventually dwindling) group of gamers and non-gaming collectors who keep buying books faithfully.

But Paizo is smart. I suspect their real move is to expand the Pathfinder IP and move into electronic games. That's where the real dollars lie and after that, the a paper RPG just doesn't matter.

I am very happy for Pathfinder. It keeps 3e players away from my games at cons and game days. All the rules lawyers can monkey spank to their hearts content, as long as their spunk doesn't stain my table.

Quote from: James Gillen;685293Really, Paizo only needs to worry if 5E is a better product than Pathfinder, which is looking like less and less of a possibility.

Next will be a different game with a different focus - far less crunchy. So Paizo only needs to worry if a less crunchy version of D&D proves more popular or accessible to new players, and chokes off the supply of new players to Pathfinder.

Quote from: Haffrung;685376Next will be a different game with a different focus - far less crunchy. So Paizo only needs to worry if a less crunchy version of D&D proves more popular or accessible to new players, and chokes off the supply of new players to Pathfinder.

I think a lot of people confuse (1) Relatively successful (i.e. best in the market) with (2) Actually successful in bottom line sales terms.

As far as I can tell only people on the interwebs actually care about (1)- hence the widespread belief that this is all zero-sum game where multiple companies can't succeed at the same time and the focus on whose "winning" in sales- when (2) is what actually matters if you enjoy a game.

Next succeeded is not inherently a problem or even necessarily a relevant factor for Paizo (and vice versa), especially if they're designed to appeal to different groups.

Quote from: tanstaafl48;685379I think a lot of people confuse (1) Relatively successful (i.e. best in the market) with (2) Actually successful in bottom line sales terms.

As far as I can tell only people on the interwebs actually care about (1)- hence the widespread belief that this is all zero-sum game where multiple companies can't succeed at the same time and the focus on whose "winning" in sales- when (2) is what actually matters if you enjoy a game.

Next succeeded is not inherently a problem or even necessarily a relevant factor for Paizo (and vice versa), especially if they're designed to appeal to different groups.

I agree. Not only do the interwebs crowd only think about the current market, but they let the tribes and factions of the interwebs convince them that it's a market of fixed loyalists. The possibiliy that a lot of customers for Next may come from people with no existing D&D allegience, and who may never have played the game at all, does not occur to grizzled edition warriors. It's kind of sad that the notion of actually growing the hobby doesn't occur to so many D&D fans.

Quote from: Haffrung;685382I agree. Not only do the interwebs crowd only think about the current market, but they let the tribes and factions of the interwebs convince them that it's a market of fixed loyalists. The possibiliy that a lot of customers for Next may come from people with no existing D&D allegience, and who may never have played the game at all, does not occur to grizzled edition warriors. It's kind of sad that the notion of actually growing the hobby doesn't occur to so many D&D fans.

Probably that's because they'd gotten so used to their own insular groups that it never occurred to them to do some outreach.

I just realized the two likely reasons I might buy 5E.

1) So many players flock to it that it becomes difficult to get people to play anything else. (Currently I have that problem with Pathfinder and 4E)

2) 5E is actually 'rules' lite, or 'sleek' enough that the rules fade into the background.




If it turns out 'clunky' I will not gm it, but might play it.

Quote from: JonWake;684946Let me rephrase this question:

Why is Pathfinder more successful than any of the other OGL hanger's on?

I don't have numbers to back this up, but there is some history and market positioning that may have been pivotal. But they were also the publishing house with enough experience and people to take advantage of the mess WotC was making in the 3.5 era.

in my mind, 3 pivotal events happened that delivered Paizo a larhe chunk of WotC's audience.

Before Paizo made Pathfinder RPG, they published Dungeon and Dragon. Wizards cancelled the print magazines, pissing off a lot of long time fans. This was well in advance of publishing 4e.

Paizo offered fans with remaining subscriptions the option of taking remaining issues in their new Pathfinder AP periodical. This was event #1.

Event #2 was that Paizo knocked the APs out of the park. They assembled (or rather, retained) the staff to put together and excellent product, and in delivering got both a good reputation and many ongoing subscribers well in advance of the publication of 4e.

Event #3 was that Wizards produced their gaming licence too slow, and when it did show up, it had the fingerprints of Hasbro corporate lawyers all over it. It was risky for a good sized publisher like Paizo to accept. This motivated Paizo to make the risky move of making their own 3e follow-on.

But they already had the kernel of an installed customer base ready to jump ship from WotC, and as the edition wars heated up and more players didn't like what they were seeing in the 4e preview (or quite simply didn't want to change systems at all), their customer base only grew.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;685631I don't have numbers to back this up, but there is some history and market positioning that may have been pivotal. But they were also the publishing house with enough experience and people to take advantage of the mess WotC was making in the 3.5 era.

in my mind, 3 pivotal events happened that delivered Paizo a larhe chunk of WotC's audience.

Before Paizo made Pathfinder RPG, they published Dungeon and Dragon. Wizards cancelled the print magazines, pissing off a lot of long time fans. This was well in advance of publishing 4e.

Paizo offered fans with remaining subscriptions the option of taking remaining issues in their new Pathfinder AP periodical. This was event #1.

Event #2 was that Paizo knocked the APs out of the park. They assembled (or rather, retained) the staff to put together and excellent product, and in delivering got both a good reputation and many ongoing subscribers well in advance of the publication of 4e.

Event #3 was that Wizards produced their gaming licence too slow, and when it did show up, it had the fingerprints of Hasbro corporate lawyers all over it. It was risky for a good sized publisher like Paizo to accept. This motivated Paizo to make the risky move of making their own 3e follow-on.

But they already had the kernel of an installed customer base ready to jump ship from WotC, and as the edition wars heated up and more players didn't like what they were seeing in the 4e preview (or quite simply didn't want to change systems at all), their customer base only grew.

I'd add one more to that:

Event #4 was that during the development of Pathfinder, Paizo let the fans have a big say in the rules and editing of what was finally released.  This engendered a lot of goodwill between them and their customer base.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;685597Probably that's because they'd gotten so used to their own insular groups that it never occurred to them to do some outreach.

It isn't so much that they don't make efforts to grow the game themselves; it's that it doesn't occur to them that attracting new and lapsed players is how WotC intends to build the 5E player base.

Quote from: Haffrung;685638It isn't so much that they don't make efforts to grow the game themselves; it's that it doesn't occur to them that attracting new and lapsed players is how WotC intends to build the 5E player base.

Given how grumpy some old timers have gotten at the recent explosion in Gen Con attendance, I'm sure they're rehearsing their "get offa my lawn!" routines right now.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;685631Paizo offered fans with remaining subscriptions the option of taking remaining issues in their new Pathfinder AP periodical. This was event #1.

I seem to recall an interview with Lisa Stevens where she said that the key moment in the launching of Paizo was when WotC let them take the Dungeon and Dragon subscription lists with them.

She basically said that those lists were worth their weight in pure gold. Probably more, since being electronic the lists probably didn't weigh very much.:)

The first game you play with your friends can have a huge influence on what you keep playing later on. It used to be D&D or WoD. Nowadays a lot of people's first RPG is Pathfinder. What makes people think they'll switch to 5E if their friends have already moved to PF?

Quote from: Dimitrios;685650I seem to recall an interview with Lisa Stevens where she said that the key moment in the launching of Paizo was when WotC let them take the Dungeon and Dragon subscription lists with them.

She basically said that those lists were worth their weight in pure gold. Probably more, since being electronic the lists probably didn't weigh very much.:)

Reminds me of Xerox giving Apple the mouse for free.

Quote from: JongWK;686012The first game you play with your friends can have a huge influence on what you keep playing later on. It used to be D&D or WoD. Nowadays a lot of people's first RPG is Pathfinder. What makes people think they'll switch to 5E if their friends have already moved to PF?

DMs often get tired of crunchy games as they reach a stage in their life when they have less time and energy to run them. Can't play Pathfinder without a DM.

However, just as 3x/Pathfinder is known as the edition everybody wants to play and nobody wants to DM, I could see Next criticized as the edition nobody wants to play and everybody wants to DM. In my world, the DM makes the call on these thing, or someone else can step up and DM. But apparently, in this day and age a lot of DMs run systems they don't like in order to keep their players happy. Which is pathetic.

Quote from: Haffrung;686016DMs often get tired of crunchy games as they reach a stage in their life when they have less time and energy to run them. Can't play Pathfinder without a DM.

However, just as 3x/Pathfinder is known as the edition everybody wants to play and nobody wants to DM, I could see Next criticized as the edition nobody wants to play and everybody wants to DM. In my world, the DM makes the call on these thing, or someone else can step up and DM. But apparently, in this day and age a lot of DMs run systems they don't like in order to keep their players happy. Which is pathetic.

You have a point, but what I meant was that if a game "clicks" with a new player, to the point that he decides to stick with the hobby, then it is going to be his default go-to game in the years to come.

(In my personal experience, those were D&D and Shadowrun)

Quote from: Haffrung;686016DMs often get tired of crunchy games as they reach a stage in their life when they have less time and energy to run them. Can't play Pathfinder without a DM.

However, just as 3x/Pathfinder is known as the edition everybody wants to play and nobody wants to DM, I could see Next criticized as the edition nobody wants to play and everybody wants to DM. In my world, the DM makes the call on these thing, or someone else can step up and DM. But apparently, in this day and age a lot of DMs run systems they don't like in order to keep their players happy. Which is pathetic.

Yes, but players continually playing a game they don't like in order to constantly placate the DM is even more pathetic.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;686027Yes, but players continually playing a game they don't like in order to constantly placate the DM is even more pathetic.

I think players should be more open to playing a variety of systems than the gm, simply because the gm generally has a lot more work to do.

For example, I will gladly play any version of dnd.

But I would not want to gm 3X.

But as a player, I am hard pressed to justify why I would refuse to play any version.

Quote from: Haffrung;686016DMs often get tired of crunchy games as they reach a stage in their life when they have less time and energy to run them. Can't play Pathfinder without a DM.

However, just as 3x/Pathfinder is known as the edition everybody wants to play and nobody wants to DM, I could see Next criticized as the edition nobody wants to play and everybody wants to DM. In my world, the DM makes the call on these thing, or someone else can step up and DM. But apparently, in this day and age a lot of DMs run systems they don't like in order to keep their players happy. Which is pathetic.

I am one of those chumps that runs games for players even if its a system I don't really want to gm.

Yes, it is pathetic.

However, one group has finally come around to the startling new never before conceived idea of letting the gm pick the system.

Quote from: Bill;686028I think players should be more open to playing a variety of systems than the gm, simply because the gm generally has a lot more work to do.

For example, I will gladly play any version of dnd.

But I would not want to gm 3X.

But as a player, I am hard pressed to justify why I would refuse to play any version.

Players should not "be more open to playing a variety of systems than the gm". They should only play the games they want to play. Period.

I'll play games I don't like once or twice. After that, forget it. Life is too short for me to be a gaming martyr and torture myself needlessly. Gaming is not a moral obligation for me, but something I do for fun.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;686030Players should not "be more open to playing a variety of systems than the gm". They should only play the games they want to play. Period.

I'll play games I don't like once or twice. After that, forget it. Life is too short for me to be a gaming martyr and torture myself needlessly. Gaming is not a moral obligation for me, but something I do for fun.

My point is that when you have a gamer group of friends that enjoy playing rpgs together, and some players decide they only want to play different specific rpgs, they are not really being reasonable.

Its not like we are going to kick people out of the group, or not play.

A game system must be chosen.

Quote from: Bill;686035My point is that when you have a gamer group of friends that enjoy playing rpgs together, and some players decide they only want to play different specific rpgs, they are not really being reasonable.

Yeah. My group is just happy someone is willing to step up and DM, period. They've pretty much said what we play is up to me, because I'm the one doing the work.

Of course, I want everyone to have a good time, so I'm not going to run something people will hate. I told one guy whose favourite game is 1E AD&D that I just didn't want to run it anymore. He was okay with that. But the guy is a huge Tolkien fan, so I suggested the One Ring. We played for a few months, and everyone else seemed to like it, but I found it quite frustrating to GM. Then I suggested we try the D&D Next playtest, one of the other players downloaded the rules and said he thought they looked good, so that's what we've been playing for the last few months. Works for everybody.

But if one of my players said he wanted to play Pathfinder or 4E, I'd say sure, if you run it. And if he ran it, we'd play. If he didn't, we wouldn't.

Quote from: Haffrung;686040Yeah. My group is just happy someone is willing to step up and DM, period. They've pretty much said what we play is up to me, because I'm the one doing the work.

Of course, I want everyone to have a good time, so I'm not going to run something people will hate. I told one guy whose favourite game is 1E AD&D that I just didn't want to run it anymore. He was okay with that. But the guy is a huge Tolkien fan, so I suggested the One Ring. We played for a few months, and everyone else seemed to like it, but I found it quite frustrating to GM. Then I suggested we try the D&D Next playtest, one of the other players downloaded the rules and said he thought they looked good, so that's what we've been playing for the last few months. Works for everybody.

But if one of my players said he wanted to play Pathfinder or 4E, I'd say sure, if you run it. And if he ran it, we'd play. If he didn't, we wouldn't.

The issue I run into with one of my game groups is that two or three people will invariably dig in their heels and 'not want to do' whatever someone else proposes :)

Its a great group, we have a blast playing, but when we switch games its 'crisis mode'

We play so many games that this is a null point.

We just hung up AD&D 1e, now we're in nWoD Mage.  From what I have read, most groups wouldn't make that leap as readily as we have, forwards or backwards.

Yet, at the end of the year we're playing Rise of the Runelords, and the club owns every hardcover that Paizo has ever published, including the Psionics kickstarter book (when it gets here).

I don't understand the mentality.  Every game is a new opportunity, a way to check out new material and explore new worlds with impudence.  Why not just throw it all in there?  Play every game with gusto?  If you don't like it, you can always scrap it after a few weeks, or pull the rules or whatever.

It's your game.

Quote from: Bill;686035My point is that when you have a gamer group of friends that enjoy playing rpgs together, and some players decide they only want to play different specific rpgs, they are not really being reasonable.

Its not like we are going to kick people out of the group, or not play.

A game system must be chosen.

Sure, but who decides which people are being "unreasonable"? Being a good GM means choosing a game that the group doesn't hate. The GM needs to be reasonable too.

Do you ascribe to the belief that a game group should only have "one" game?

That's what it seems like, or there wouldn't be an argument.

If you look at Pathfinder and 3e as different games, both of which simply exist as larger buoys in a sea of gaming options...well the argument loses it's relevance.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;686049Sure, but who decides which people are being "unreasonable"? Being a good GM means choosing a game that the group doesn't hate. The GM needs to be reasonable too.

Its not a matter of hate. Its a matter of stubborness.

As for who decides what is reasonable, sometimes its obvious, sometimes its not.

When the gm proposes a system and setting that everyone at the table is happy with, but one player says 'no' what do you do?

The more stubborn and 'unreasonable' individuals are, the harder it is to select a system and setting for the campaign.

We are a group of gms and trade off fairly often the gm spot.

Quote from: Blackhand;686052Do you ascribe to the belief that a game group should only have "one" game?

That's what it seems like, or there wouldn't be an argument.

If you look at Pathfinder and 3e as different games, both of which simply exist as larger buoys in a sea of gaming options...well the argument loses it's relevance.

This particular group plays a great variety of games. The problem is stubborness about which one to use when we change over.

Two things are relevant in this discussion: Pathfinder Beginner game and OGL.
If DDNext is a problem for Paizo, they will immediately launch a public playtest based on the Pathfinder beginner box game targeting towrads the creation of a modular game that will aim to please anyone from OD&D to 4e fans and it will be OGL.

You didn't really ask me, Bill...but I'm going to share this anyway.

Quote from: Bill;686058Its not a matter of hate. Its a matter of stubborness.

Are your players being stubborn?  About changing systems in general or only when specific concepts get dropped on the table?

Quote from: Bill;686058As for who decides what is reasonable, sometimes its obvious, sometimes its not.

In our group, I'd like to say it's a democracy.  We vote.  Yet...*continued below*

Quote from: Bill;686058When the gm proposes a system and setting that everyone at the table is happy with, but one player says 'no' what do you do?

The vote occurs, and if that player is still unhappy we revert from democracy to what the group calls "benevolent dictatorship" - that is, the GM is empowered by the group and a single player who says no can leave at his leisure.  Players come and go all the time from our large pool, and it's a low point now - I have seven active players for Mage.  I find myself welcoming this smaller group for this game, so it's really a win-win.

Quote from: Bill;686058The more stubborn and 'unreasonable' individuals are, the harder it is to select a system and setting for the campaign.

The more stubborn and unreasonable individuals at your table are, you can politely inform them that the group is playing this game.  If they don't want to play this game, they don't have to, and if they want to play another game they are more than welcome to write some adventures and run a game themselves.  If that's not an option for some reason, that's on your stubborn individual who doesn't seem to want to play games anyway.

Quote from: Bill;686058We are a group of gms and trade off fairly often the gm spot.

This works really well, and is the model my group follows.  In this regard, we don't have the "stubborn and unreasonable" fellow you are speaking of.  It wouldn't work out for him at the table, and depending on his personality it might just be a bad night for that guy.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;686030Players should not "be more open to playing a variety of systems than the gm". They should only play the games they want to play. Period.

I'll play games I don't like once or twice. After that, forget it. Life is too short for me to be a gaming martyr and torture myself needlessly. Gaming is not a moral obligation for me, but something I do for fun.

You think playing D&D, just not your preferred version, is torture?

Shoot, I'll play anything if I know it's a good GM.  Period.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;686030Life is too short for me to be a gaming martyr and torture myself needlessly.

For one-shot evening games, "gaming martyr" types are tolerable.  (Some may constantly gripe about how the game and/or system sucks, during the entire one-shot session).

Though more generally in practice, I've found that "gaming martyr" types are the worst to play long term rpg games with.  Especially if they're doing it in return for a previous "favor" you did for them.

I've played in games where the "gaming martyr" spent entire sessions where they were "tuned out" and spending all their time watching CSI or Criminal Minds reruns on the telly.  (Especially if the game is played at the martyr's home or apartment).  Typically the martyr played a one-dimension character which didn't require much thinking, such as a fighter which only had to swing a sword and not much else.

Quote from: Mistwell;686091You think playing D&D, just not your preferred version, is torture?

Shoot, I'll play anything if I know it's a good GM.  Period.

No. I'm saying that playing a game you strongly dislike can be torture if it's done regularly. As an example, I strongly disliked 4e after DMing it....so I have refused to play or run the game since 2008.

If someone wanted to run a session or two of 4e for me, then that's fine....but it's not something I wish to make a habit of doing, because it would eventually make me unhappy. I'd be there to hang out with friends, but I'd have absolutely no mental investment in the game. If this is a game you like, then you would not want someone with my mindset present.

This isn't necessarily bad. Friends do not have to share all the same interests. Such is life.

Quote from: ggroyFor one-shot evening games, "gaming martyr" types are tolerable. (Some may constantly gripe about how the game and/or system sucks, during the entire one-shot session).

Though more generally in practice, I've found that "gaming martyr" types are the worst to play long term rpg games with. Especially if they're doing it in return for a previous "favor" you did for them.

I've played in games where the "gaming martyr" spent entire sessions where they were "tuned out" and spending all their time watching CSI or Criminal Minds reruns on the telly. (Especially if the game is played at the martyr's home or apartment). Typically the martyr played a one-dimension character which didn't require much thinking, such as a fighter which only had to swing a sword and not much else.

The only games I feel like a "gaming martyr" for are 4e and FATAL. Beyond that, I'm open.

Quote from: Blackhand;686052Do you ascribe to the belief that a game group should only have "one" game?

It's  not a belief so much as a practicality. My group meets once a month (and even that is tough sometimes). The amount of time away from the table the players are interested in devoting to RPGs is nil. So playing something everyone knows and is comfortable with is pretty important. We don't want to spend most of our very limited gaming time learning new systems.

Quote from: Blackhand;686062You didn't really ask me, Bill...but I'm going to share this anyway.

  Are your players being stubborn?  About changing systems in general or only when specific concepts get dropped on the table?

In our group, I'd like to say it's a democracy.  We vote.  Yet...*continued below*

The vote occurs, and if that player is still unhappy we revert from democracy to what the group calls "benevolent dictatorship" - that is, the GM is empowered by the group and a single player who says no can leave at his leisure.  Players come and go all the time from our large pool, and it's a low point now - I have seven active players for Mage.  I find myself welcoming this smaller group for this game, so it's really a win-win.

The more stubborn and unreasonable individuals at your table are, you can politely inform them that the group is playing this game.  If they don't want to play this game, they don't have to, and if they want to play another game they are more than welcome to write some adventures and run a game themselves.  If that's not an option for some reason, that's on your stubborn individual who doesn't seem to want to play games anyway.

This works really well, and is the model my group follows.  In this regard, we don't have the "stubborn and unreasonable" fellow you are speaking of.  It wouldn't work out for him at the table, and depending on his personality it might just be a bad night for that guy.

When we change campaigns, people get stubborn about what they will play, and no one agrees, and what people will play, is mutually exclusive.

We don't like to exclude anyone, so thats not really a option.

The group is theoretically coming around to the 'gm gets to pick the system'. We wills ee how that works soon. Settings are not really a problem.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;686110No. I'm saying that playing a game you strongly dislike can be torture if it's done regularly. As an example, I strongly disliked 4e after DMing it....so I have refused to play or run the game since 2008.

I can surely see refusing to run a system you don't like.  But if you like the GM, and your friends want to play it, you won't even play it? That I don't understand.  A good GM can make any system work for the group of player's he has.  

QuoteIf someone wanted to run a session or two of 4e for me, then that's fine....but it's not something I wish to make a habit of doing, because it would eventually make me unhappy. I'd be there to hang out with friends, but I'd have absolutely no mental investment in the game. If this is a game you like, then you would not want someone with my mindset present.

Maybe change your mindset to not be so fucking childish?

QuoteThis isn't necessarily bad. Friends do not have to share all the same interests. Such is life.

Your interest is getting together with friends to game.  You pouting over the system being used, despite having a good GM and good friends to game with, is your issue, not anyone elses.  You're incredibly lucky to have those things, and you're shitting it all away out of petulance.

Quote from: Bill;686136We don't like to exclude anyone, so thats not really a option.

We used to ascribe to this as well.

Yet I've come to learn that it's not the group that's excluding them, they themselves are the ones excluding themselves from the group's activity.

Quote from: Mistwell;686155I can surely see refusing to run a system you don't like.  But if you like the GM, and your friends want to play it, you won't even play it? That I don't understand.  A good GM can make any system work for the group of player's he has.  



Maybe change your mindset to not be so fucking childish?



Your interest is getting together with friends to game.  You pouting over the system being used, despite having a good GM and good friends to game with, is your issue, not anyone elses.  You're incredibly lucky to have those things, and you're shitting it all away out of petulance.

Lighten up, White Knight. The world is not all about you and your precious butthurt.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;686181Lighten up, White Knight. The world is not all about you and your precious butthurt.

I always know when I make you uncomfortable...you come out with these non sequitur rote responses.  I'm not butthurt over anything...it's not my group or game, and I'm not involved in any way.  And who am I white knighting there, your group for not having the privileged of having your entitled ass playing with them? Hardly.

Naw, I must have hit a nerve.  This has been an issue for you with your group in the past, hasn't it? They moved on to a system you didn't like and you threw a hissy fit, didn't you?

Quote from: Haffrung;685376Next will be a different game with a different focus - far less crunchy. So Paizo only needs to worry if a less crunchy version of D&D proves more popular or accessible to new players, and chokes off the supply of new players to Pathfinder.

It can't be that different of a game from 3e/Pathfinder.

That's what got them into trouble when they went to 4e!

Quote from: tanstaafl48;685379Next succeeded is not inherently a problem or even necessarily a relevant factor for Paizo (and vice versa), especially if they're designed to appeal to different groups.

I don't think that 5e will be aimed to a different group,  it will be trying to fix the epic mistake of 4e.

Only the most fanatical edition warrior would not concede that 3e has its long term play issues...

4e was supposedly the answer to those issues, but it missed the mark badly. And the player base did not follow the official version of D&D – they stayed with the version that even with all its issues still felt like D&D even though it had a different logo on the book.

Wotc and Pazio are in direct competition.

 Yes the overall player base can be grown, but make no mistake; they are competing for the same general group of players.

And if 5e does what 4e should have...  Then Pazio will have to react to the new "official" version of D&D.

.

Quote from: Jaeger;686190It can't be that different of a game from 3e/Pathfinder.

That's what got them into trouble when they went to 4e!



I don't think that 5e will be aimed to a different group,  it will be trying to fix the epic mistake of 4e.

Only the most fanatical edition warrior would not concede that 3e has its long term play issues...

4e was supposedly the answer to those issues, but it missed the mark badly. And the player base did not follow the official version of D&D – they stayed with the version that even with all its issues still felt like D&D even though it had a different logo on the book.

Wotc and Pazio are in direct competition.

 Yes the overall player base can be grown, but make no mistake; they are competing for the same general group of players.

And if 5e does what 4e should have...  Then Pazio will have to react to the new "official" version of D&D.

.

Keep an eye on 13th Age. It may be a serious contender.

Quote from: Jaeger;686190Yes the overall player base can be grown, but make no mistake; they are competing for the same general group of players.

Have you actually read the Next playtest rules? They offer very little for character optimizers. And char op is the bread and butter of Pathfinder.

Quote from: Haffrung;685376Next will be a different game with a different focus - far less crunchy. So Paizo only needs to worry if a less crunchy version of D&D proves more popular or accessible to new players, and chokes off the supply of new players to Pathfinder.

Even in that case, they're better off sticking with Pathfinder and the niche that they've captured.

They don't have the brand recognition (even after all the missteps of TSR/WotC) of D&D, and so competing head-on for the same players is a pretty terrible idea for them.

If Next does well, and has a huge following, it increases the RPG market, and it's likely that Pathfinder gets some benefit from spillover.  At any rate, the people who still like the 3.x playstyle will stick with it.

If Next does poorly, Paizo just consolidates their hold on the market that they have, and possibly increase it if Hasbro decides to just ditch this D&D crap (which is actually unlikely, if anything they'll sell the brand).

If they try to match Next's strategy, they'll alienate a lot of their customers (who *went* to them because they felt alienated in the first place), and put themselves in a head-to-head battle with an ostensibly larger company that has brand recognition and almost certainly has better retail channels.

And if Next's strategy fails, then they've done that at the cost of alienating their current customer base.

Changing their game to compete with Next is flat-out stupid for them.

Even producing a Next competitor as a second line is questionable.  It calls their long-term plans into question (remember those alienated fans?  Think they'll like that?), and will cost additional resources on an unproven strategy.

In a lot of ways, the best result of Next, from Paizo's perspective, is that it's a runaway hit.  Some of those customers will decide they want more complex games, with more emphasis on character builds and strict tactical combat.  And Paizo is in a perfect place to deliver to those folks.

Also, we don't really know how crunchy DDN will be when it's finally published. We know we're a couple packets behind WotC, we know that there is still a long time for extra development before they go to print, and we know that the playtest was focused on the 'feel' of the game rather than the maths. Moreover, WotC's entire business model for over a decade has been 'release books full of crunch mostly aimed at players'. Let's see how the core game and the first handful of supplements go before we make any assumptions.

Pathfinder is sort of the third party candidate that got lucky and found themselves winning the election. They'd be crazy to try to compete with wizards on their own terms by developing a whole new edition. Their customer base consists primarily of people who are happy with 3x, don't want to see any big changes, and are actively annoyed with WotC. Paizo's best move is to keep doing what they're already doing and maybe release some glossy new supplement to capitalise on the whole 'fuck WotC' protest vote crowd.

Quote from: jadrax;684947They also got a good reputation while inside the WotC umbrella which was pretty much enhanced when WotC cut them loose as part of the transition over to 4th edition, which lets face it did not make WotC many friends.

I think this is a sorely underestimated aspect. Thanks to their custodianship of Dragon and Dungeon - at which I understand they did quite a credible job - Paizo created a sense of legitimacy about themselves which other OGL companies didn't have. They were basically the officially-endorsed third party publishers with Wizards' blessing - that, plus the wave of outrage at the way Wizards high-handedly pulled the plug on them, was enough I reckon.

Quote from: Spinachcat;685298I am very happy for Pathfinder. It keeps 3e players away from my games at cons and game days. All the rules lawyers can monkey spank to their hearts content, as long as their spunk doesn't stain my table.

Best comment ever. You are today's winner of the internet.

Incidentally, after reading the remainder of the thread I have come to the conclusion that Paizo are at a dead-end. Perhaps a profitable one, and a dead-end that has yet to come, but the world is moving on from D20 and the OGL.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;686214Best comment ever. You are today's winner of the internet.

Incidentally, after reading the remainder of the thread I have come to the conclusion that Paizo are at a dead-end. Perhaps a profitable one, and a dead-end that has yet to come, but the world is moving on from D20 and the OGL.

The question is whether it will move on to a different form of RPG, or just away from D20.

I have no doubt that WotC killed 3x because they weren't getting the adoption they felt they should have with a brand as famous as D&D.  Moves like 4e are almost invariably because of that.  The question is whether or not *any* RPG, in today's world, can get the kind of foothold that Hasbro wants.

It'll be interesting to see what WotC does with D&D if Next "fails".

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;686214Incidentally, after reading the remainder of the thread I have come to the conclusion that Paizo are at a dead-end. Perhaps a profitable one, and a dead-end that has yet to come, but the world is moving on from D20 and the OGL.

This makes me smile because so far the OGL has not only spread like a virus, but demonstrated that it can adapt and overcome the competition. It allows for more dynamic evolution of a game system so why do you think that is a dead-end?

It's not the OGL per se, I just feel that Pathfinder will be surpassed. There was a comment earlier that mentioned PF players loving their optimisation and crunch. Another comment suggested moving too far away from 3.x.x would have a negative impact on Paizo.

It is a tricky path. It seems as though the Pathfinder market is painted as disenfranchised D&D 3.5 players, while opting for other games they have 3.x/PF as their 'go to system, of choice'.

As new players emerge and games develop, do Paizo continue to cater for this core market (using the OGL and keeping the 3.x/PF 'sacred cows' and all that stuff) or do they diversify and spread their resources over a large range of products, in the hope to engage and draw in newer blood/revenue? Is Paizo = OGL or Paizo =/= OGL?

I don't have any answers to my ponderings, but it will be interesting to see if we are at the 'high tide mark' as far as 3.x/PF and others are concerned.

Quote from: Spinachcat;685298But Paizo is smart. I suspect their real move is to expand the Pathfinder IP and move into electronic games. That's where the real dollars lie and after that, the a paper RPG just doesn't matter.

I am very happy for Pathfinder. It keeps 3e players away from my games at cons and game days. All the rules lawyers can monkey spank to their hearts content, as long as their spunk doesn't stain my table.

I agree wholeheartedly. Pathfinder is everything I find bland about modern fantasy. Its existence provides me with a pretty good heuristic for determining who I'm likely to get along with and who I want to game with.

I think Paizo is doing fine and won't need a new edition. If this info is accurate, they'll just sell 5e stuff and keep making money:

http://www.inc.com/profile/paizo-publishing

That's a listing for companies that have grown the fastest over the past three years. Paizo was 2370. Paizo is listed as a retail company. Be interesting to see if they make the list again next year for 2010 to 2014.

The growth is nice, but $12M is still a drop in the bucket to a big company like Hasbro.  They're not interested in that size of a market.

Hasbro, as a company, has 6,000 employees.  Assuming a relatively low cost of 100,000 per employee (after benefits, facilities, etc.), that would give them a $600M a year budget just on their employees.  $12M revenue in a market sector that isn't growing isn't worth the risk of keeping those people employed.

I just looked up Hasbro's revenues... their 2012 revenues are $4B.

And I don't really know if PF can really grow past the niche market.  I don't think it's accessible enough to new players.  I think the emphasis on charop and rules-lawyering is a turn off to non-RPG vets, and I think that the linear format promoted by adventure paths has a tendency to remove real consequences in the game.

Most people like playing games that they can lose, because that's where real tension comes from.  Winning all the time, to most people, is boring.

I think Hasbro wants the big play.  They want a hundred million dollar market at a minimum.  Certainly more than 12.  And they know that to do that they need to *grow* the market, and they pretty clearly didn't think that 3.x (however much people liked it) would grow the market.

4e was an attempt to do so.  I think it was a fine game, personally, just not a very awesome D&D game.  But it clearly didn't give them the results or even the trajectory they wanted.

So I think they're mostly going back to basics.  They want to make a game that's easy for people to pick up, and that focuses less on number crunching.  They're trying to figure out why people liked D&D, and hit those marks, rather than put out more of what the existing niche wants (which is basically Paizo's strategy).

Don't get me wrong - Paizo's strategy is perfectly sound - for Paizo.  And this isn't meant as an indictment of Pathfinder in any way.  I think it's a great game at what it does.

I think getting rid of the linear story path think is actually pretty important as well, but I don't know that they agree with me.  Which is fine, it's their money on the line, not mine.  But I do think that if they don't get some serious traction with Next, that Hasbro will ditch the D&D brand.

Does nobody else agree with me that D&D is at the moment stuck in a deeply uninteresting and pretty uncool (I hate that word, but bear with me) rut? Fantasy/SF is probably at a decades-long high at the moment in terms of popularity - in fact it may be more popular than it has ever been, with the success of Harry Potter, Game of Thrones/SoIaF, Hunger Games, etc. - but the Dragonlance style high fantasy tropes and orcs, elves, dragons and whatnot definitely don't seem to be part of the zeitgeist at the moment. Everything is either grimdark (SoIaF), weird (China Mieville, etc.) or rooted in the real world (Harry Potter).

It seems like D&D could ride the wave of the genre's increasing presence on the mainstream, but it might need to ditch a lot of sacred cows to get there.

Quote from: robiswrong;686446The growth is nice, but $12M is still a drop in the bucket to a big company like Hasbro.  They're not interested in that size of a market.

Hasbro, as a company, has 6,000 employees.  Assuming a relatively low cost of 100,000 per employee (after benefits, facilities, etc.), that would give them a $600M a year budget just on their employees.  $12M revenue in a market sector that isn't growing isn't worth the risk of keeping those people employed.

I just looked up Hasbro's revenues... their 2012 revenues are $4B.

And I don't really know if PF can really grow past the niche market.  I don't think it's accessible enough to new players.  I think the emphasis on charop and rules-lawyering is a turn off to non-RPG vets, and I think that the linear format promoted by adventure paths has a tendency to remove real consequences in the game.

Most people like playing games that they can lose, because that's where real tension comes from.  Winning all the time, to most people, is boring.

I think Hasbro wants the big play.  They want a hundred million dollar market at a minimum.  Certainly more than 12.  And they know that to do that they need to *grow* the market, and they pretty clearly didn't think that 3.x (however much people liked it) would grow the market.

4e was an attempt to do so.  I think it was a fine game, personally, just not a very awesome D&D game.  But it clearly didn't give them the results or even the trajectory they wanted.

So I think they're mostly going back to basics.  They want to make a game that's easy for people to pick up, and that focuses less on number crunching.  They're trying to figure out why people liked D&D, and hit those marks, rather than put out more of what the existing niche wants (which is basically Paizo's strategy).

Don't get me wrong - Paizo's strategy is perfectly sound - for Paizo.  And this isn't meant as an indictment of Pathfinder in any way.  I think it's a great game at what it does.

I think getting rid of the linear story path think is actually pretty important as well, but I don't know that they agree with me.  Which is fine, it's their money on the line, not mine.  But I do think that if they don't get some serious traction with Next, that Hasbro will ditch the D&D brand.

Let's be honest with ourselves for a moment.

Those 6k employees at Hasbro aren't at factories.  Those folks are completely corporate.  A few engineers, a few designers, but mostly they're management, whether they manage a business division or a factory or their outsourcing teams, they're all management.  Hasbro isn't using their own factories, they outsourced that stuff overseas ages ago.  If they haven't outsourced IT and everything else that hasn't been nailed down, I'd be shocked.  The big joke about GE and all the profit it made during the Jack Welch era was that it was made on the backs of outsourcing everyone and everything.  At GE Aircraft Engines, it used to be the case that there were 3-4 contractors for every GE employee, and I'm sure that hasn't changed.

What Hasbro did to Kenner is the stuff of legends in Cincinnati; you used to see the Nerf teams "testing" their designs in the Kenner parking lot, and the kids who were lucky enough to have a relative working at Kenner used to test out a lot of the Star Wars designs before they hit the market.  I knew people in high school and college who co-oped in Kenner's engineering department, and they used to rave about how awesome a place it was to work for; you might not have gotten the same amount of money that you did at other companies, but the corporate culture was second to none.  When Hasborg came in and gutted the place, it was a sad day.

All Hasbro cares about is the big kill, the 100 million dollar brand that you hear some people talk about.  WotC was bought for Pokemon.  Not Magic.  Not D&D.  Pokemon.  WotC is stuck as a boutique (to Hasbro) company trying to justify its existence beyond the intellectual property it brings to the table.  No matter what it does as a division, there's simply no way that WotC is going to grow D&D into that overnight.  Even if everything broke the right way, like if by some miracle a good D&D movie were released and not the smoldering piles of lion crap that Courtney Solomon has been involved with, it would still be a stretch to make D&D a 100 million dollar brand.

By looking at the numbers, then, D&D looks like it is toast, doomed to be shelved by a corporate entity that doesn't give a fuck beyond the piles of cash that D&D Monopoly or "Forgotten Realms Monopoly -- Now With 100% More Drizzt!" might generate.  Paizo, with its 12 million dollars, will then become the RPG industry's Big Dog.

If Paizo keeps doing their thing and maintains their momentum, the RPG community will be better off than relying upon the whims of Hasbro's bean counters to survive.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686475If Paizo keeps doing their thing and maintains their momentum, the RPG community will be better off than relying upon the whims of Hasbro's bean counters to survive.

Too right. On which note we can safely say that our entire hobby is a niche, and enjoy it..

Quote from: noisms;686455Does nobody else agree with me that D&D is at the moment stuck in a deeply uninteresting and pretty uncool (I hate that word, but bear with me) rut? Fantasy/SF is probably at a decades-long high at the moment in terms of popularity - in fact it may be more popular than it has ever been, with the success of Harry Potter, Game of Thrones/SoIaF, Hunger Games, etc. - but the Dragonlance style high fantasy tropes and orcs, elves, dragons and whatnot definitely don't seem to be part of the zeitgeist at the moment. Everything is either grimdark (SoIaF), weird (China Mieville, etc.) or rooted in the real world (Harry Potter).

Totally.  Ironically, early D&D tended to be grimdark, and I think an interesting strategy for revitalizing the brand would be to re-emphasize that aspect of the game - which would also appeal to traditionalists.

My hope is that Next leans this direction, but I haven't read the rules really well enough to make that judgement.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686475Let's be honest with ourselves for a moment.

I'm sure they'd care about a $50M brand.  And I think D&D can be at least a $50M brand, if managed properly.  A large part of that may be just the IP value of the brand.  Keeping the RPG current in many ways may be a loss leader to license the brand for computer/video games.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686475If Paizo keeps doing their thing and maintains their momentum, the RPG community will be better off than relying upon the whims of Hasbro's bean counters to survive.

Meh.  I'm not a 3x fan, and I think that, in the larger scope, PF will maintain itself as a niche.  I think there's just too much barrier to entry.

What I see as more likely is that Hasbro decides to sell off either WotC or just D&D, and a smaller shop that *will* be happy with smaller numbers ends up buying it and running with it.  I don't know if that's Paizo, for the reasons I've given above.

Quote from: robiswrong;686446I think Hasbro wants the big play.  They want a hundred million dollar market at a minimum.  Certainly more than 12.  And they know that to do that they need to *grow* the market, and they pretty clearly didn't think that 3.x (however much people liked it) would grow the market.

4e was an attempt to do so.  I think it was a fine game, personally, just not a very awesome D&D game.  But it clearly didn't give them the results or even the trajectory they wanted.

So I think they're mostly going back to basics.  They want to make a game that's easy for people to pick up, and that focuses less on number crunching.  They're trying to figure out why people liked D&D, and hit those marks, rather than put out more of what the existing niche wants (which is basically Paizo's strategy).

Great post.

You can see WotC's change of strategy as far back as Essentials. They knew 4E wasn't growing the market. Maybe they hoped for a big uptake of WoW players and that didn't materialize. Whatever the reason, with Essentials they were already looking to the two most promising pools of potential players: lapsed TSR D&D players (or whom there are literally millions), and casual gamers. That's why Essentials character options were simplified. That's why the books were cheaper. That's why the core classes were made more traditional. That's why the red box cover was lifted from the TSR era.

When Essentials didn't revive 4E, it was canned so WotC could put a new edition on the market whose core design and market principle was to appeal to those two groups. Going after existing D&D players is a secondary consideration. And in fact, listening too closely to hardcore players will hurt their primary goal of growing the game. And WotC has more or less admitted as much.

Quote from: noisms;686455Does nobody else agree with me that D&D is at the moment stuck in a deeply uninteresting and pretty uncool (I hate that word, but bear with me) rut? Fantasy/SF is probably at a decades-long high at the moment in terms of popularity - in fact it may be more popular than it has ever been, with the success of Harry Potter, Game of Thrones/SoIaF, Hunger Games, etc. - but the Dragonlance style high fantasy tropes and orcs, elves, dragons and whatnot definitely don't seem to be part of the zeitgeist at the moment. Everything is either grimdark (SoIaF), weird (China Mieville, etc.) or rooted in the real world (Harry Potter).

It seems like D&D could ride the wave of the genre's increasing presence on the mainstream, but it might need to ditch a lot of sacred cows to get there.

Quote from: robiswrong;686503Totally.  Ironically, early D&D tended to be grimdark, and I think an interesting strategy for revitalizing the brand would be to re-emphasize that aspect of the game - which would also appeal to traditionalists.

My hope is that Next leans this direction, but I haven't read the rules really well enough to make that judgement.

Yeah, it's baffling. When I see the artwork that Paizo and WotC put out, I just shake my head. Aren't they aware of AGoT? Even LotR game art tends to be a lot darker than D&D or Pathfinder. Where are they getting their memes from? Obviously not the massive, mainstream fantasy realm of #1 bestsellers and blockbuster movie franchises.

Quote from: Haffrung;686509Yeah, it's baffling. When I see the artwork that Paizo and WotC put out, I just shake my head. Aren't they aware of AGoT? Even LotR game art tends to be a lot darker than D&D or Pathfinder. Where are they getting their memes from? Obviously not the massive, mainstream fantasy realm of #1 bestsellers and blockbuster movie franchises.

Some of the art seems to be catering to anime fans, but I don't really know what I am talking about.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686475If Paizo keeps doing their thing and maintains their momentum, the RPG community will be better off than relying upon the whims of Hasbro's bean counters to survive.

Quote from: tzunder;686499Too right. On which note we can safely say that our entire hobby is a niche, and enjoy it..

Thing about niches is without new blood they tend to get smaller. Just look at the historical hex and counter wargame hobby. Used to be massive. Games selling 200,000+ units. Clubs in every college. Then the publishers kept catering to the same aging demographic of hardcore players until it become a totally inaccessible hobby, with three map and 2,000 counter games that take 12-40 hours to play. Print runs of 1,000, mostly bought by solo collectors. RPGs are heading off the same cliff without popular commercial revitalization.

Quote from: Haffrung;686514Thing about niches is without new blood they tend to get smaller. Just look at the historical hex and counter wargame hobby. Used to be massive. Games selling 200,000+ units. Clubs in every college. Then the publishers kept catering to the same aging demographic of hardcore players until it become a totally inaccessible hobby, with three map and 2,000 counter games that take 12-40 hours to play. Print runs of 1,000, mostly bought by solo collectors. RPGs are heading off the same cliff without popular commercial revitalization.

Exactly.  This happens a lot in video games, too.  I call it the genre lifecycle, and it goes something like this:

1) New game idea comes out, is refreshing and innovative if a bit clunky.  Picks up some fans
2) Someone else (usually Blizzard) takes the ideas of step 1, and refines the hell out of them.  This game becomes a breakout hit.
3) People now start making more games in this mold.  Since most of the game designers are also players, they try to "advance" the genre by adding new features.  This keeps the old players happy, and the game is still accessible enough for new people.
4) The new features start adding up, and the genre becomes less accessible to new players.  Old players become highly discriminatory towards even minor differences
5) Natural attrition starts taking the players of the genre.  With no new players, the genre starts to dwindle in sales and eventually becomes a minor niche

This has happened with a ton of video game genres.  It can be countered, but doing so takes a lot of deliberate, thoughtful work.  I see a lot of the same thing with RPGs.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686475Even if everything broke the right way, like if by some miracle a good D&D movie were released and not the smoldering piles of lion crap that Courtney Solomon has been involved with, it would still be a stretch to make D&D a 100 million dollar brand.

If they can't make any headway with the D&D ip, will they sell it or shelve it?

All the while with Courtney Solomon continuing to destroy the value of the D&D ip.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: noisms;686455Does nobody else agree with me that D&D is at the moment stuck in a deeply uninteresting and pretty uncool (I hate that word, but bear with me) rut? Fantasy/SF is probably at a decades-long high at the moment in terms of popularity - in fact it may be more popular than it has ever been, with the success of Harry Potter, Game of Thrones/SoIaF, Hunger Games, etc. - but the Dragonlance style high fantasy tropes and orcs, elves, dragons and whatnot definitely don't seem to be part of the zeitgeist at the moment. Everything is either grimdark (SoIaF), weird (China Mieville, etc.) or rooted in the real world (Harry Potter).

It seems like D&D could ride the wave of the genre's increasing presence on the mainstream, but it might need to ditch a lot of sacred cows to get there.

Completely.

A lot of the "nu-D&D" fanatics who berate TSR fans for being "suck in the 80's" and "out of touch with modern kids" seem unaware that they're stuck in the late 90's.

Quote from: Haffrung;686509Yeah, it's baffling. When I see the artwork that Paizo and WotC put out, I just shake my head. Aren't they aware of AGoT? Even LotR game art tends to be a lot darker than D&D or Pathfinder. Where are they getting their memes from? Obviously not the massive, mainstream fantasy realm of #1 bestsellers and blockbuster movie franchises.

This is what you mentioned in a post earlier:

Quote from: Haffrung;686504Maybe they hoped for a big uptake of WoW players

So, it is pretty obvious isn't it?

Quote from: robiswrong;686517...5) Natural attrition starts taking the players of the genre.  With no new players, the genre starts to dwindle in sales and eventually becomes a minor niche

This has happened with a ton of video game genres.  It can be countered, but doing so takes a lot of deliberate, thoughtful work.  I see a lot of the same thing with RPGs.

I wonder how Games Workshop manages it with its warhammer games.

Quote from: xech;686522I wonder how Games Workshop manages it with its warhammer games.

Not sure.  I haven't looked at that hobby enough to really gauge it.

The key with genre lifecycle is the increasing complexity of the game, generally to appease the old players of the genre.  If the complexity isn't significantly increasing, then there's not an issue.

At a minimum, the complexity for entry into the hobby/genre needs to be kept low, even if there are ways to increase the complexity for more 'advanced' players.

Quote from: soviet;686199Pathfinder is sort of the third party candidate that got lucky and found themselves winning the election. They'd be crazy to try to compete with wizards on their own terms by developing a whole new edition. Their customer base consists primarily of people who are happy with 3x, don't want to see any big changes, and are actively annoyed with WotC. Paizo's best move is to keep doing what they're already doing and maybe release some glossy new supplement to capitalise on the whole 'fuck WotC' protest vote crowd.

There was no luck involved at all. There was a lot of worry and concern once Dragon and Dungeon was yanked from them. They made the call to stick with what they could (they didn't have the option to "go 4e" like many people believe - since they were still neck deep in producing 3.x stuff with a lot of their freelancers - me being one of them.) It wasn't about competing with WotC (backed by Hasbro). It *never* was. It was purely about survival.

They certainly had *no idea* that Pathfinder was going to take off like it did. Take a look back at their publishing history - they were doing AP's for 3x for some time, it was the bread-and-butter of the whole venture. When Dragon and Dungeon got yanked, they joined the rest of the crowd with creating their own 3.x kitchen-sink campaign world with some rules adjustments (not nearly enough imo).

And this resonated with the 3.x crowd for all the reasons already mentioned: Good customer service, good production, good quality art, good feedback with the fans.... compared to WotC.

FWIW - I like Golarion fine. I don't like the Pathfinder system (and I've run it since before the public beta. With several multi-year campaigns.) The system has rot still in it.

Quote from: tenbones;686524When Dragon and Dungeon got yanked, they joined the rest of the crowd with creating their own 3.x kitchen-sink campaign world with some rules adjustments (not nearly enough imo).

Who else published a 3.x kitchen-sink campaign world, during the 4E D&D era?

Quote from: xech;686522I wonder how Games Workshop manages it with its warhammer games.

It basically doesn't cater to older players. The whole business works on sucking in new players, selling them a lot of expansive items, and then discarding them in favour of new customers.

Quote from: ggroy;686527Who else published a 3.x kitchen-sink campaign world, during the 4E D&D era?

Not in the 4e era (though I'm sure I could dig one or two up) but in general.

Green Ronin
Malhavoc
Kenzer and Co.

oh you know the list...

They took advantage of the OGC - and Paizo *followed* suit. The best thing that *ever* happened to Paizo was 4e. If 4e never happened, Paizo would be around, certainly, but Pathfinder would have had a rougher start.

I'm sure one could argue the same thing for the rest of the "indie" gaming industry. My opinions is the rise of all these other cool (and not-so-cool) gaming systems is reactionary to the thing that is 4e. It shocked a lot of people that were mired in 3.x to go out and look at other things. Some went out and invented new things in the hobby.

4e was great for some people. Not for D&D. IMO<--- naturally.

Quote from: Haffrung;686514Thing about niches is without new blood they tend to get smaller. Just look at the historical hex and counter wargame hobby. Used to be massive. Games selling 200,000+ units. Clubs in every college. Then the publishers kept catering to the same aging demographic of hardcore players until it become a totally inaccessible hobby, with three map and 2,000 counter games that take 12-40 hours to play. Print runs of 1,000, mostly bought by solo collectors. RPGs are heading off the same cliff without popular commercial revitalization.

There is a wargame out there that sells well year in and year out.  Axis and Allies.  It's just that to the grognards, it's anathema.

Quote from: jadrax;686529It basically doesn't cater to older players. The whole business works on sucking in new players, selling them a lot of expansive items, and then discarding them in favour of new customers.

Like a "teen idol" rock star?

(ie. New Kids on the Block, Leif Garrett, N'Sync, Tiffany, Justin Bieber, etc ...).

:rolleyes:

Quote from: ggroy;686518If they can't make any headway with the D&D ip, will they sell it or shelve it?

All the while with Courtney Solomon continuing to destroy the value of the D&D ip.  :rolleyes:

Tell me about it.  Maybe he thinks his movies are cool to himself and his posse of yes men, but to the greater population those things are drek.  And worse than that, they make the RPG hobby look even worse because he keeps putting that crap out.

If he hasn't learned that hackneyed dialogue and terrible plot won't work by now, he'll never learn.  He has to let the IP go, or we'll end up with more movies that make the Battleship flick look like the work of genius.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686534There is a wargame out there that sells well year in and year out.  Axis and Allies.  It's just that to the grognards, it's anathema.

I can see axis and allies catching the players that like wargames but arn't into the really hardcore wargames like advanced squad leader, longest day, star fleet battles; etc...

I am a huge fan of wargames and I also love axis and allies and shogun, that entire series of games.

Quote from: robiswrong;686503Totally.  Ironically, early D&D tended to be grimdark, and I think an interesting strategy for revitalizing the brand would be to re-emphasize that aspect of the game - which would also appeal to traditionalists.

My hope is that Next leans this direction, but I haven't read the rules really well enough to make that judgement.



I'm sure they'd care about a $50M brand.  And I think D&D can be at least a $50M brand, if managed properly.  A large part of that may be just the IP value of the brand.  Keeping the RPG current in many ways may be a loss leader to license the brand for computer/video games.



Meh.  I'm not a 3x fan, and I think that, in the larger scope, PF will maintain itself as a niche.  I think there's just too much barrier to entry.

What I see as more likely is that Hasbro decides to sell off either WotC or just D&D, and a smaller shop that *will* be happy with smaller numbers ends up buying it and running with it.  I don't know if that's Paizo, for the reasons I've given above.

Paizo isn't going to buy D&D; that'd be like killing off Pathfinder.  If anything, I'd expect WotC and/or D&D would be sold to a partnership of rich geeks (like Silicon Valley rich) who want to rescue the brand.  That's probably the best result, but I'm not exactly counting on it.  What would be most likely would be that Hasbro will shelve the brand for a decade, putting out D&D themed Monopoly and ilk, and then revive it some years later.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686540Paizo isn't going to buy D&D; that'd be like killing off Pathfinder.  If anything, I'd expect WotC and/or D&D would be sold to a partnership of rich geeks (like Silicon Valley rich) who want to rescue the brand.  That's probably the best result, but I'm not exactly counting on it.  What would be most likely would be that Hasbro will shelve the brand for a decade, putting out D&D themed Monopoly and ilk, and then revive it some years later.

How much would it cost to 'Buy' DND?

Maybe I'll win $400 million at powerball.

Quote from: Bill;686539I can see axis and allies catching the players that like wargames but arn't into the really hardcore wargames like advanced squad leader, longest day, star fleet battles; etc...

I am a huge fan of wargames and I also love axis and allies and shogun, that entire series of games.

While I like Axis and Allies, it's one of two of that old Gamesmaster line that still published by Hasbro.  Shogun is now called Ilkusa.)  They farmed out the IP for Fortress America to FFG and Conquest to Glenn Drover of Eagle Games (now out of print again), and Broadsides & Boarding Parties has been mouldering since the mid-80s.

Hasbro never seemed to truly understand what they had in terms of games outside of A&A, which they've leveraged to the hilt.

And let's not talk about all the old Avalon Hill IP they're sitting on, just because they can.

Quote from: Bill;686543How much would it cost to 'Buy' DND?

Maybe I'll win $400 million at powerball.

I doubt Hasbro is selling it any time soon.  They'd need to a big amount of cash dangled in front of their faces to consider it, and any partnership willing to buy D&D would probably want M:tG along for the ride.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686546I doubt Hasbro is selling it any time soon.  They'd need to a big amount of cash dangled in front of their faces to consider it, and any partnership willing to buy D&D would probably want M:tG along for the ride.

Unless it was an idiot like me that won powerball and just wanted dnd and not magic :)

Quote from: jadrax;686529It basically doesn't cater to older players. The whole business works on sucking in new players, selling them a lot of expansive items, and then discarding them in favour of new customers.

Case in point: they produced $202,564,792 in revenue


$4,174,999 - was paints alone in the month of April of last year.

$29,379,626 - in total profits after everything else is accounted for.

But they have nice perks for their store managers who meet their quotas - profit sharing, manager bonuses, at least according to their investment packets. But it also explains why *everything* is aggressively pushed at you when you walk in the door.

And frankly I think their stores generally suck. But I'm spoiled by my own FLGS.

Quote from: xech;686522I wonder how Games Workshop manages it with its warhammer games.

GW ruthlessly targets a certain demographic, 13-20 year old men, to the exclusion and even near hostility to older players.

In short, GW fires it's fan base every 5-7 years like clockwork.

The joke used to be that GW had to get as much money out of someone as possible before they discovered girls.

Quote from: Piestrio;686553GW ruthlessly targets a certain demographic, 13-20 year old men, to the exclusion and even near hostility to older players.

In short, GW fires it's fan base every 5-7 years like clockwork.

The joke used to be that GW had to get as much money out of someone as possible before they discovered girls.

 It's a tough choice. Assembling a painted squad of Dark Eldar and dominating in combat or....girls.

Quote from: tenbones;686552And frankly I think their stores generally suck. But I'm spoiled by my own FLGS.

It is a mistake to view them as just stores. They are essentially a babysitting service that will take your annoying kid off you while you go shopping in exchange for a ton of cash spent on bits.

Well, first off, the currency I would use to buy D&D from Hasbro is the next hot toy.  You'd hit the point where you'd need their resources to take it to the next level anyhow.  And I'd ask for all properties tied to TSR, not just D&D.  Magic and Pokemon they can keep.

There'd be a D&D basic set that would look a lot like The Practical Guide to Dragons very shortly thereafter.  Mechanically it would be pretty close to red book basic but with a few more spells and hitpoints at first level.

As for Games Workshop, I expect them to really start hurting from Kickstarter driven competition in the next year or two.  Sooner or later someone will do it better, cheaper, slicker and without all the baggage and they won't have the capacity to respond to it.  Mantic might even get there though I think there'd need to be a new edition of Kings of War that patches some things for that to happen.

However, I'll go out on a limb and guess that the winner will be the first one to bring a functional and physically attractive wargame to market that appeals to boys and girls.  Jetisoning half the population is madness.

Quote from: David Johansen;686566Well, first off, the currency I would use to buy D&D from Hasbro is the next hot toy.  You'd hit the point where you'd need their resources to take it to the next level anyhow.  And I'd ask for all properties tied to TSR, not just D&D.  Magic and Pokemon they can keep.

There'd be a D&D basic set that would look a lot like The Practical Guide to Dragons very shortly thereafter.  Mechanically it would be pretty close to red book basic but with a few more spells and hitpoints at first level.

As for Games Workshop, I expect them to really start hurting from Kickstarter driven competition in the next year or two.  Sooner or later someone will do it better, cheaper, slicker and without all the baggage and they won't have the capacity to respond to it.  Mantic might even get there though I think there'd need to be a new edition of Kings of War that patches some things for that to happen.

However, I'll go out on a limb and guess that the winner will be the first one to bring a functional and physically attractive wargame to market that appeals to boys and girls.  Jetisoning half the population is madness.

Yeah, those bra manufacturers are crazy the way they jettison half the population... ;)

Quote from: noisms;686567Yeah, those bra manufacturers are crazy the way they jettison half the population... ;)

Is it really half? How many women don't wear bras, and how many men do?

Quote from: Bill;686568Is it really half? How many women don't wear bras, and how many men do?

Is there something you want to tell us, Bill?

Quote from: Bill;686568Is it really half? How many women don't wear bras, and how many men do?

Only women wear bras, you transphobic freak!

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686534There is a wargame out there that sells well year in and year out.  Axis and Allies.  It's just that to the grognards, it's anathema.

So what's the RPG equivalent of A&A?

Quote from: jadrax;686560It is a mistake to view them as just stores. They are essentially a babysitting service that will take your annoying kid off you while you go shopping in exchange for a ton of cash spent on bits.

There's a good point here, too - if you can give a benefit to the parents, they're more willing to shell out cash.

Quote from: noisms;686569Is there something you want to tell us, Bill?

Embrace your feminine side.

Quote from: Bill;686577Embrace your feminine side.

It's alright thanks, I prefer embracing somebody feminine.

Quote from: noisms;686579It's alright thanks, I prefer embracing somebody feminine.

Ever see the Crying Game?

Quote from: Bill;686583Ever see the Crying Game?

You mean 4E?

Quote from: robiswrong;686576There's a good point here, too - if you can give a benefit to the parents, they're more willing to shell out cash.

That's how many a FLGS stay afloat. One of the busiest times at my old FLGS is weekdays from about 3-5 as kids come in and play games until their folks get home.

Quote from: Bill;686583Ever see the Crying Game?

Yes. Does that count as a spoiler in the context of this conversation? ;)

Quote from: jeff37923;686586You mean 4E?

I cry inside each time I hear the words 'Healing Surge'

Quote from: robiswrong;686576So what's the RPG equivalent of A&A?

I believe that's Pathfinder, and has been for the past few years.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686604I believe that's Pathfinder, and has been for the past few years.

I don't think so.  I don't think Pathfinder is really beginner-friendly enough to serve as a gateway game.

It may often *be* the gateway game, but I don't think it does a particularly good job of it.

To me, a gateway game would be something that's easy for beginners to pick up and start playing with minimal investment of finances and time, and with a pretty easy learning curve, compared to the hobbyist-focused games.  And I see PF as being a hobbyist-focused game, personally.

Quote from: robiswrong;686611I don't think so.  I don't think Pathfinder is really beginner-friendly enough to serve as a gateway game.

It may often *be* the gateway game, but I don't think it does a particularly good job of it.

To me, a gateway game would be something that's easy for beginners to pick up and start playing with minimal investment of finances and time, and with a pretty easy learning curve, compared to the hobbyist-focused games.  And I see PF as being a hobbyist-focused game, personally.

Pathfinder is a Character Optimiser game. It does not HAVE to be, but certainly offers that to anyone that wants it.

Quote from: robiswrong;686611I don't think so.  I don't think Pathfinder is really beginner-friendly enough to serve as a gateway game.

It may often *be* the gateway game, but I don't think it does a particularly good job of it.

To me, a gateway game would be something that's easy for beginners to pick up and start playing with minimal investment of finances and time, and with a pretty easy learning curve, compared to the hobbyist-focused games.  And I see PF as being a hobbyist-focused game, personally.

Pathfinder can be a gateway game, courtesy of their Beginner Box.

Anything simpler than the Beginner Box (or D&D Next's Basic version, assuming they follow the modular pattern), and you're into the FATE and Savage Worlds areas of "rules lite".

In the short term, Paizo doesn't really need to do anything.  They're well established and are largely successful with what they're doing.  Any major changes show a lack of confidence with their current model and threatens disruption with their existing customers.  

In the long run, 3.x had a lot of problems.  Structural problems.  Paizo went in and changed some curtains, threw on a little spackling, and upgraded the countertops.  It looks a little nicer now, but in the long term, the structural issues they inherited from 3.x will need to be addressed.  

Since so many of their customers weren't ready for the wholesale abandonment of 3.x (it was too soon) and the radical changes envisioned for 4th edition, this isn't something that they need to rush into.  They don't want to 'push for a new edition'.  They want to get to the position where the fans are 'clamoring for a new edition'.

In the long term, Paizo will want to make a 'unique' game - but they're going to involve their fans every step of the way.  They're going to make the development a lot more transparent than D&D Next, and they're going to ask for feedback on specific aspects - through their vibrant online community.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686616Anything simpler than the Beginner Box (or D&D Next's Basic version, assuming they follow the modular pattern), and you're into the FATE and Savage Worlds areas of "rules lite".

Which is probably where I think an entry game needs to be.  Maybe even something like Dungeon World.

To me, an entry game is something that a *player* (not necessarily GM, though that's bonus) can get up and playing within 30 minutes, and has rules in the area of 50 pages.

(Gee, sounds a lot like Basic D&D, huh?)

Dungeon World, Savage Worlds, and Fate don't quite fit in this category.  I think DW could be pared down to that, especially if you could give players just their appropriate character packet.  Fate has FAE, which could probably work, but is a kinda different style of game.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;686619In the long run, 3.x had a lot of problems.  Structural problems.  Paizo went in and changed some curtains, threw on a little spackling, and upgraded the countertops.  It looks a little nicer now, but in the long term, the structural issues they inherited from 3.x will need to be addressed.  

I think many people would deny that those are problems.  I think lots of people think that what you consider "problems" are in fact features.

I mean, I'm not one of them, but I know enough people that think that 3.x is the BESTEST GAME EVAR to recognize it.

If you're into heavy charop, especially, it's hard to beat 3.x.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;686619Since so many of their customers weren't ready for the wholesale abandonment of 3.x (it was too soon) and the radical changes envisioned for 4th edition

I think there were two big issues with 4e.

1) It fell into the D&D Uncanny Valley.  There were things that sorta kinda looked like D&D things, but worked totally differently.  Saving Throws existed in name, but meant totally different thing.  "How close you are to losing the combat" and "health attrition over the day" got split from HP to HP and healing surges.  You couldn't get unlimited heals, regardless of potions.  All character abilities were in the same format.  Spells were divided into spells and rituals.  "Regular" saving throws were gone and replaced with non-armor defenses.

Even if in a lot of cases there wasn't a practical difference, it just felt wrong.  I had this experience the first few times I played, so I'm not knocking anyone here.

2) It targeted a different set of needs than 3.x did.  It de-emphasized character op.  It focused on tactical movement and combat.  It got rid of the "out-clever the GM" game with spells.  Spellcasters couldn't have near-limitless spellbooks any more, so the 'pick your spells' game went away.  The game didn't try to give you tools to model anything, it was clear about the general purpose of the system.  The higher end abilities that made you more like fantasy superheroes went away.

I think the second one is actually the bigger issue - if 4e had targeted the same player needs, I think the uncanny valley issues wouldn't have been as pronounced.

But the combination was deadly for any chance of winning over 3.x fans.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;686619In the long term, Paizo will want to make a 'unique' game - but they're going to involve their fans every step of the way.  They're going to make the development a lot more transparent than D&D Next, and they're going to ask for feedback on specific aspects - through their vibrant online community.

I really don't think it's in their best interest.  3.x/PF satisfy a very particular set of needs, and I don't know many games that satisfy that set of needs better than 3.x.  I see little advantage for them in making a new game that targets the same design space as PF.  If they do make their own game, I think it would be better for them to branch out and hit other targets, and just iterate and refine PF.

I don't care much for 3.x, because I don't really have the needs that it primarily targets.  But I can recognize those needs, and understand that 3.x does a fantastic job of meeting them.

Quote from: Mistwell;686187I always know when I make you uncomfortable...you come out with these non sequitur rote responses.  I'm not butthurt over anything...it's not my group or game, and I'm not involved in any way.  And who am I white knighting there, your group for not having the privileged of having your entitled ass playing with them? Hardly.

Naw, I must have hit a nerve.  This has been an issue for you with your group in the past, hasn't it? They moved on to a system you didn't like and you threw a hissy fit, didn't you?

You're either confused (vaguely possible) or being disingenuous (again), so let me give you a little help. Remember when you told me to not to be so "fucking childish"? Then you started getting more uppity because I wouldn't play a certain game? You conveniently ignored this part of my earlier statement:

Quote from: Sacrificial LambThe only games I feel like a "gaming martyr" for are 4e and FATAL. Beyond that, I'm open.

So that's it. 4e and FATAL. There's no crying here. No hissy fits (other than by you). I will try these games, but I won't get excited about them. A session or two I can tolerate, but only tolerate....so that means that I'm unwilling to play in a long-term campaign of 4e and FATAL.

I am open to other games. So please spare me your precious butthurt. It gets tiring after a while.

Quote from: robiswrong;686630I think many people would deny that those are problems.  I think lots of people think that what you consider "problems" are in fact features.

Or they just play in such a way that those "problems" don't manifest.

If you play 3.x like TSR D&D with brawny fighters, blaster wizards and healy clerics then a lot of the so-called "broken" parts never come up.

Quote from: robiswrong;686630I think many people would deny that those are problems.  I think lots of people think that what you consider "problems" are in fact features.

I mean, I'm not one of them, but I know enough people that think that 3.x is the BESTEST GAME EVAR to recognize it.

If you're into heavy charop, especially, it's hard to beat 3.x.

I'm one of the people that say 3.x is hte 'BESTEST GAME EVAR', but I recognize the problems.  It's possible to keep a lot of the things that make 3.x attractive and still fix issues.  

Another way to say it: 3.0 was a pretty big departure from earlier versions of D&D.  I never played Spells and Powers, and I'm sure I was in a big part of the 2nd edition player base in that.  Our splats were limited to some of the Complete books.  3.x refined some things, but in a minor way.  

The next version will be 'more' of what makes 3.x fun - because they've had plenty of time to experiment.  You're going to see MORE feats, not less, but reducing the 'char-op' because feats will be more freely available with less 'non-organic' character design.  You'll also see a whole bunch of feats just become something everyone can do.  There are a lot of Feats that should be universal options, but they were created in an environment when 'making a feat' was seen as a solution.  

People like me admire 3.x because it has more of what I like than any other system - but it's not perfect.

Quote from: Piestrio;686634Or they just play in such a way that those "problems" don't manifest.

If you play 3.x like TSR D&D with brawny fighters, blaster wizards and healy clerics then a lot of the so-called "broken" parts never come up.

Pretty much.

Once the optimization genie is out of the bottle, you can't push it back in.  4e tried to address the OP caster issue by giving everyone "powers", but we all know how well that went over.  And even then, min/maxers would tinker with data models to figure out the best exact build evah.

To borrow from the MMO genre, Blizzard found out to their dismay that all of the changes they made in the latest WoW expac didn't get rid of the theorycrafters at all, in spite of their express intention of trying to eliminate the "one true way-ism" with a radical redesign of the skill trees.

You eliminate the min/max-ers by designing your campaign where that sort of thing doesn't matter.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686647You eliminate the min/max-ers by designing your campaign where that sort of thing doesn't matter.

I do not agree. I think you eliminate min/maxers by designing a game that caters more to common sense judgement than to compile game rules to control every gaming option as 3.xe tries to do. The design philosophy of the Pathfinder begginer box is superior for tabletop gaming than the design philosophy behind Pathfinder core.
In fact, I believe that Pathfinder Next will be based upon the beginner box and offer modular rule add-ons from there.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686534There is a wargame out there that sells well year in and year out.  Axis and Allies.  It's just that to the grognards, it's anathema.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686616Pathfinder can be a gateway game, courtesy of their Beginner Box.

Anything simpler than the Beginner Box (or D&D Next's Basic version, assuming they follow the modular pattern), and you're into the FATE and Savage Worlds areas of "rules lite".

But to hobby wargamers, Axis and Allies is to real wargames as, well, I don't think there is even an equivalent in RPGs. Even Savage Worlds is a big, difficult game to learn for a 12-year old opening by himself and hoping to play with his buddy on Friday night.

The Pathfinder Beginner Box sounds like it's fine, as far as it goes. It still asks a lot of a new player. And it's a big, big jump to full Pathfinder, a jump that many casual gamers will never want to make.

A lot of D&D fans suffer from the same assumption that wargamers do: that if you want to get someone into your brain-burning, option-rich hobby, all you need is an intro game to get them hooked, and then they'll progress the way you did to the full monty. But not everyone wants more and more options, more and more complexity. Some just want something quick and accessible, and that's all they'll want. Only a small fraction of people who play Axis and Allies ever go on to World in Flames.

Quote from: Haffrung;686657But to hobby wargamers, Axis and Allies is to real wargames as, well, I don't think there is even an equivalent in RPGs. Even Savage Worlds is a big, difficult game to learn for a 12-year old opening by himself and hoping to play with his buddy on Friday night.

The Pathfinder Beginner Box sounds like it's fine, as far as it goes. It still asks a lot of a new player. And it's a big, big jump to full Pathfinder, a jump that many casual gamers will never want to make.

A lot of D&D fans suffer from the same assumption that wargamers do: that if you want to get someone into your brain-burning, option-rich hobby, all you need is an intro game to get them hooked, and then they'll progress the way you did to the full monty. But not everyone wants more and more options, more and more complexity. Some just want something quick and accessible, and that's all they'll want. Only a small fraction of people who play Axis and Allies ever go on to World in Flames.

I thought that WoTC had a really good thing going on with their Castle Ravenloft/Wrath Of Ash- box sets.  They could have leveraged those into a springboard for their rpgs.

Quote from: Haffrung;686657The Pathfinder Beginner Box sounds like it's fine, as far as it goes. It still asks a lot of a new player. And it's a big, big jump to full Pathfinder, a jump that many casual gamers will never want to make.

It's not just casual gamers - I'm not a casual gamer, and I'm more than put off by the complexity. Have you seen the Pathfinder core rules? I reckon it would be quicker to read the Bible.

Quote from: robiswrong;686630To me, an entry game is something that a *player* (not necessarily GM, though that's bonus) can get up and playing within 30 minutes, and has rules in the area of 50 pages.

The problem is that the type of "rules lite" you need to be friendly for new players is generally not the type of "rules lite" that people in the industry generally mean with that term.

People already in the industry generally use "rules lite" to mean a simple, universal mechanic that gives the GM essentially limitless flexibility in how it can be used and the situations it can be applied to.

For a new GM, that's a nightmare. No guidance. No support.

The type of "rules lite" that you need in an introductory product is one featuring a simple, complete, and robust game structure (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15126/roleplaying-games/game-structures) accompanied by a set of rules which gives explicit mechanical support for every aspect of that game structure.

The 1983 Basic Set completely and utterly nailed this product. Coincidentally, it has reportedly sold more copies than any other core rulebook for the game.

Another mistake I commonly see is people trying to figure out what systems would be good for a new player. While some consideration should be given to that, virtually any RPG that doesn't feature a lot of dissociated mechanics is very friendly to new players: The player simply describes what they want to do and the mechanical load is carried by the GM who figures out how to resolve it.

Of far more importance is the game's ability to create new GMs from people who haven't played before: The people who see the game on the shelf (whether that shelf by physical or digital), browses it over, and then decides to grab a copy because he thinks it would be fun to get his friends together and play it. Those are the mavens that the RPG industry has largely lost in the last 20 years (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4060/roleplaying-games/whither-the-new-gamers).

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;686631You're either confused (vaguely possible) or being disingenuous (again), so let me give you a little help. Remember when you told me to not to be so "fucking childish"? Then you started getting more uppity because I wouldn't play a certain game? You conveniently ignored this part of my earlier statement:



So that's it. 4e and FATAL. There's no crying here. No hissy fits (other than by you). I will try these games, but I won't get excited about them. A session or two I can tolerate, but only tolerate....so that means that I'm unwilling to play in a long-term campaign of 4e and FATAL.

I am open to other games. So please spare me your precious butthurt. It gets tiring after a while.

I'll ask again...what is it you think I am white knighting or butthurt about? You keep throwing out these bashes, unattached to anything meaningful.  Are you seriously arguing I am white knighting your own gaming group for not being able to play with you if they want to play 4e or FATAL, and do you think I am butthurt on behalf of your group? Do you even know what you're trying to say? Right now you sound like one of those stereotypical bullies in movies who tries to make a cliche threat but accidentally mixes his cliches and it comes out as nonsense.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;686675For a new GM, that's a nightmare. No guidance. No support.

The type of "rules lite" that you need in an introductory product is one featuring a simple, complete, and robust game structure (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15126/roleplaying-games/game-structures) accompanied by a set of rules which gives explicit mechanical support for every aspect of that game structure.

The 1983 Basic Set completely and utterly nailed this product. Coincidentally, it has reportedly sold more copies than any other core rulebook for the game.

Yep. I've always maintained that a new DM should be able to simply follow a set of concrete steps and produce a fun/passable game session.

The BD&D turn based exploration rules do this perfectly.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;686675The type of "rules lite" that you need in an introductory product is one featuring a simple, complete, and robust game structure (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15126/roleplaying-games/game-structures) accompanied by a set of rules which gives explicit mechanical support for every aspect of that game structure.

Yeah, as you point out, Basic D&D nailed it.  I still prefer Moldvay, but a solo adventure would have been nice.

Beyond that, if *I* were in charge (god forbid), I'd try to find out what people might be interested in trying RPGs, and what kind of things they'd be interested in.  You know, market research.  I'm pretty sure that making the game I want to play wouldn't really be a good idea.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;686675Another mistake I commonly see is people trying to figure out what systems would be good for a new player. While some consideration should be given to that, virtually any RPG that doesn't feature a lot of dissociated mechanics is very friendly to new players: The player simply describes what they want to do and the mechanical load is carried by the GM who figures out how to resolve it.

Cognitive load is a big factor.  I don't know if it's really about dissociated mechanics, but I do think it's about having the primary interaction (from a player's view) being with the GM, not being directly with the rules (and probably not a map).

Clear, concise mechanics with minimum complexity is, I think, the key, and possibly minimizing the workload by offloading more to the GM.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;686675Of far more importance is the game's ability to create new GMs from people who haven't played before:

A friend of mine was commented that he had played Palladium for years, and only after a long time realized that there was nothing in the books that actually told him how to GM.

I think a relatively prescriptive set of instructions for the new GM is important - that doesn't mean that it needs to be *totally* mechanical, but it should certainly be more than "here's a resolution mechanic, have fun."

Quote from: Piestrio;686699Yep. I've always maintained that a new DM should be able to simply follow a set of concrete steps and produce a fun/passable game session.

The BD&D turn based exploration rules do this perfectly.

I don't mind rules as a structure in general.  Newer GMs can use them as instructions, experienced ones can use them as a guide or just forget about them.  Much like drawing - yeah, you don't want to just draw perfect proportion people constantly, but you need to learn basic proportions before you go off and do crazy stuff.

Picasso is known for his Cubism, but he was a hell of a "traditional" artist as well.

If you just start off by saying "I don't need no rules!" you end up as Rob Liefeld.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;686644I'm one of the people that say 3.x is hte 'BESTEST GAME EVAR', but I recognize the problems.  It's possible to keep a lot of the things that make 3.x attractive and still fix issues.  

Another way to say it: 3.0 was a pretty big departure from earlier versions of D&D.  I never played Spells and Powers, and I'm sure I was in a big part of the 2nd edition player base in that.  Our splats were limited to some of the Complete books.  3.x refined some things, but in a minor way.  

The next version will be 'more' of what makes 3.x fun - because they've had plenty of time to experiment.  You're going to see MORE feats, not less, but reducing the 'char-op' because feats will be more freely available with less 'non-organic' character design.  You'll also see a whole bunch of feats just become something everyone can do.  There are a lot of Feats that should be universal options, but they were created in an environment when 'making a feat' was seen as a solution.  

People like me admire 3.x because it has more of what I like than any other system - but it's not perfect.

I'm with you. I also admire 3.x, but I do recognize the flaws. I think that they'd need to significantly streamline the game though, by speeding up the character creation process.

The base game for a "better D&D" can be a simple core, while specifically designing the game to be modular enough to handle increasing complexity. 3.x was designed with too much complexity at its core, and that was the real problem. If WoTC fixes that, it could make a difference in improving the game.

I think there also needs to be a substructure for controlling game balance and control the power creep that third edition saw.

Quote from: Haffrung;686657But to hobby wargamers, Axis and Allies is to real wargames as, well, I don't think there is even an equivalent in RPGs. Even Savage Worlds is a big, difficult game to learn for a 12-year old opening by himself and hoping to play with his buddy on Friday night.

The Pathfinder Beginner Box sounds like it's fine, as far as it goes. It still asks a lot of a new player. And it's a big, big jump to full Pathfinder, a jump that many casual gamers will never want to make.

A lot of D&D fans suffer from the same assumption that wargamers do: that if you want to get someone into your brain-burning, option-rich hobby, all you need is an intro game to get them hooked, and then they'll progress the way you did to the full monty. But not everyone wants more and more options, more and more complexity. Some just want something quick and accessible, and that's all they'll want. Only a small fraction of people who play Axis and Allies ever go on to World in Flames.

I'm one of those people who prefer A&A over WiF any day, and I've been to the mountain:  I've got Empires in Arms sitting around on a shelf.

The thing is, the best way to get someone into playing isn't just to make a product, it's also to provide an outlet to play the product.  When Paizo released the Beginner Box, they had a big Beginner Box Bash at a lot of FLGSs.  People who play Pathfinder Society showed up to demo the game with a very basic adventure --the players could pick from one of four adventures-- that lasted about an hour.  All it took for my kids to get hooked on Pathfinder was to go to the Bash and play for an hour to hour and a half.

As much as I like the Beginner Box, if WotC has figured out how to capture lightning in a bottle again with Next's Basic Set, they'll have the one intro game that they've been needing.  The thing is, for production values the Pathfinder Beginner Box has set a high bar.  (Hell, so did the Mouse Guard set, but I don't think Luke Crane has bothered to do a reprint.)

Quote from: David Johansen;686735I think there also needs to be a substructure for controlling game balance and control the power creep that third edition saw.

A baseball bat to hit 'power creeps' with?

But seriously, how would that work? Would this be just clearer design guidelines as to what damage/bonus/whatever abilities should give, so newly made thingies don't drift upward in power over time?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;6866750The 1983 Basic Set completely and utterly nailed this product. Coincidentally, it has reportedly sold more copies than any other core rulebook for the game.

I also prefer Moldvay to Mentzer, and even Holmes was not terrible at this job.  I also think that it is easy to understate just how critical Keep on the Borderlands was to my figuring out how to play the game.  It's not that the module is perfect, but that it gives a lot of choices up front and makes it obvious what the key tropes of the genre really are.  A surprising number of clichés show up, but that is perfect for an introductory product.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;686644The next version will be 'more' of what makes 3.x fun - because they've had plenty of time to experiment.  You're going to see MORE feats, not less, but reducing the 'char-op' because feats will be more freely available with less 'non-organic' character design.  You'll also see a whole bunch of feats just become something everyone can do.  There are a lot of Feats that should be universal options, but they were created in an environment when 'making a feat' was seen as a solution.  

People like me admire 3.x because it has more of what I like than any other system - but it's not perfect.

Why?? How?? Cite your sources! You've made a big man cry now! (I am taking my ball and going home......) ;)

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686540Paizo isn't going to buy D&D; that'd be like killing off Pathfinder.  If anything, I'd expect WotC and/or D&D would be sold to a partnership of rich geeks (like Silicon Valley rich) who want to rescue the brand.  

This is basically what happened after the Hero Games/R. Talsorian/Cybergames deal fell through, except that the Hero Games partnership wasn't quite rich enough. ;)

JG

Quote from: flyerfan1991;686742I'm one of those people who prefer A&A over WiF any day, and I've been to the mountain:  I've got Empires in Arms sitting around on a shelf.

The thing is, the best way to get someone into playing isn't just to make a product, it's also to provide an outlet to play the product.  When Paizo released the Beginner Box, they had a big Beginner Box Bash at a lot of FLGSs.  People who play Pathfinder Society showed up to demo the game with a very basic adventure --the players could pick from one of four adventures-- that lasted about an hour.  All it took for my kids to get hooked on Pathfinder was to go to the Bash and play for an hour to hour and a half.

As much as I like the Beginner Box, if WotC has figured out how to capture lightning in a bottle again with Next's Basic Set, they'll have the one intro game that they've been needing.  The thing is, for production values the Pathfinder Beginner Box has set a high bar.  (Hell, so did the Mouse Guard set, but I don't think Luke Crane has bothered to do a reprint.)

Empires in Arms and World in Flames :)  I forgot about those two.

I realy love Empires in arms, but it takes literally longer than a human lifespan to play.

I have been tempted to buy the computer game version.

Quote from: Bill;686827.I realy love Empires in arms, but it takes literally longer than a human lifespan to play.

Me and some friends have a plan to play the big EiA campaign when we get older and the kids move out. Unfortunatly, at that time, we will not have enough lifetime left to finish it.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;686832Me and some friends have a plan to play the big EiA campaign when we get older and the kids move out. Unfortunatly, at that time, we will not have enough lifetime left to finish it.

I was fortunate to play about five grand campaign games when I was a student and therefore able to simply not go to class and flunk out to have time for Empires in Arms.

The campaign games were glorious, and we even had seven players.

In one game the main Russian army starved to death trying to march into sweden when a british army snuck in by fleet transport and cut the russian supply lines.

Moral of the story is protect your supply lines, and don't march into sweden in the winter :)

Anyone who thinks Paizo's just going to go on as-is indefinitely in an endless golden age is just fooling themselves.  Sooner or later they have to change, and that's a stickier wicket for them than most because their whole marketing strategy with Pathfinder was based on NOT changing.

Quote from: RPGPundit;687398Anyone who thinks Paizo's just going to go on as-is indefinitely in an endless golden age is just fooling themselves.  Sooner or later they have to change, and that's a stickier wicket for them than most because their whole marketing strategy with Pathfinder was based on NOT changing.

They are doing a lot more though than just rules. They have:

• Book franchises around Golorian (and other book stuff)
• Various figure deals
• Card game - in the works or whatever, I didn't get a good look at it at Paizocon
• This online game thing with cross ownership between companies

I imagine they will do a 2nd edition at some point; there are just so many other things they are working on that isn't directly dependent on the current rules set.

Quote from: RPGPundit;687398Anyone who thinks Paizo's just going to go on as-is indefinitely in an endless golden age is just fooling themselves.  Sooner or later they have to change, and that's a stickier wicket for them than most because their whole marketing strategy with Pathfinder was based on NOT changing.

I am under no delusion that Pathfinder is in some 'golden age'. I will support Paizo so long as they continue to produce material I like. The day they stop doing that, I will walk away. They haven't done that yet. Paizo's model has been based on supporting the fans of the OGL that Wizbro threw under the bus.

Quote from: RPGPundit;687398Anyone who thinks Paizo's just going to go on as-is indefinitely in an endless golden age is just fooling themselves.  Sooner or later they have to change, and that's a stickier wicket for them than most because their whole marketing strategy with Pathfinder was based on NOT changing.

Well, sure. And the sun will go supernova, and we'll all eventually die. So it can't go on forever. But 3.x (in one form or another) has been pretty much dominating gaming for 13 years, (except for a brief blip with 4.x) and I don't really see that changing any time soon. Paizo might publish another iteration of (mostly compatible) 3.x at some point, but to just abandon it? Now? In 2 years? In 5 years? Honestly, it will still be going strong even 5 years from now. In fact, Pathfinder will probably still be going super-strong when WoTC is talking about 6e (yes, 6e). They've got a winning formula going on here, and it's stronger than ever. Why agonize about 5e, when it will possibly be replaced by 6e via the "planned obsolescence model" in only a few years after that?

The rpg hobby is more fragmented now than ever before. Do you think 5e will magically fix that and change that? I don't. WoTC would have to adopt some startlingly different business philosophies for that to happen, but they no longer have it in them to do that. 5e is a weak band-aid for a cancer of their own creation. At this point, WoTC would be better off selling D&D to someone who actually knows how to manage it. Now....will they do that? Fuck, no. That would be too sensible for them to consider. :pundit:

Anyway, Paizo and Pathfinder has been continually providing tons of gamers with material that they actually want. So yeah, Paizo's gonna do fine. :cool:

P.S. And for the record, I also think that the OSR and "old school" games have more of a future than 5e ever will. Just throwing that out there.

I believe they will announce Pathfinder Next in three-four years, but not before they actively support Pathfinder Beginner and see how that goes.

Quote from: RPGPundit;687398Anyone who thinks Paizo's just going to go on as-is indefinitely in an endless golden age is just fooling themselves.  Sooner or later they have to change, and that's a stickier wicket for them than most because their whole marketing strategy with Pathfinder was based on NOT changing.

However, they don't necessarily have to change the game in the radical way WOTC has done with every edition. They could a new edition that was fairly compatiable with the current edition like TSR did with AD&D 2e. Or one that expands but is mostly compatible with what they have now as TSR did when moved from B/X to BECMI.

Is there any need for a pathfinder next? RPG systems have an infinite shelf life, wheeling out edition after edition is just fragmenting your market and creating those delightful edition wars we all know and love. And for what? The old system was probably just as good as your new one, maybe even better in ways.

It's applying the software life cycle to pen and paper books, pretty stupid.

I'm not overly familiar with Pathfinder but as far as I can see they're cranking out interesting settings and modules in lieu of new versions of their core system, which is exactly what they should be doing. Plus someone in Paizo really knows their way around the marketing circuit, a few of their moves have been quite clever.

Put those two together and I can see Pathfinder outliving and indeed outgrowing D&D, if they don't succumb to any 'new editions arms race' foolishness.

Quote from: RPGPundit;687398Sooner or later they have to change

No, they really don't.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;687406P.S. And for the record, I also think that the OSR and "old school" games have more of a future than 5e ever will.

Can you elaborate on this?

Quote from: ggroy;687416Can you elaborate on this?

Yeah, I'm curious too. The OSR is NOT a market competitor for D&D or Pathfinder. I'm not even sure it's an untapped market. The best selling OSR books sell a tiny percentage of what The Complete Book of Dangling Schlongs made.

Sac Lamb sounds like a complete full-on Paizo fan-boi WOTC hater.  Good to know.

What would be amusing is if there will exist a few retirement/nursing homes in the late 2020's (or 2030's), which are dedicated to a clientele of old hardcore grognard type gamers.  :rant:

Quote from: RPGPundit;687398Anyone who thinks Paizo's just going to go on as-is indefinitely in an endless golden age is just fooling themselves.  Sooner or later they have to change, and that's a stickier wicket for them than most because their whole marketing strategy with Pathfinder was based on NOT changing.

A funny thought occurred to me - what if they pull a Steve Jackson Games and shift from RPGs to card games?

Every GURPS fan I know bemoans the rise of Munchkin and longs for the ancient days when your typical game store had a huge shelf of GURPS sourcebooks. Nowadays, everyone knows SJG as the company that does Munchkin.

At GenCon, Paizo was flogging the hell out of their card game. It looks like it's doing pretty well.

Meanwhile, their Mythic book for Pathfinder is... Kind of doing nothing. I checked Amazon for the card game, and noticed that the Mythic book is like #11 in gaming, and around 3000 overall. I buy a lot if gaming stuff on Amazon, and that's far lower than any new Paizo book I've seen. They're usually at or near the top and ranked around 1000.

I wonder if their plan is to simply sidestep D&D. I would be a really smart, long term move. They wouldn't compete directly with D&D, and if Munchkin is any example it's a better business to be in.

Quote from: JonWake;687434Yeah, I'm curious too. The OSR is NOT a market competitor for D&D or Pathfinder. I'm not even sure it's an untapped market. The best selling OSR books sell a tiny percentage of what The Complete Book of Dangling Schlongs made.

I think the OSR is its own thing that's basically web-centric, with blogs and G+ and so on. This cottage industry is not and never will be a threat to Paizo and WotC. I do believe there is an untapped market for old school games and play styles in general, and I do think it has good days ahead. It's not specifically dependant on what we think of as "the OSR" today, though.

I think there will be people playing old school vintage games long after 5th edition has come and gone. Whether the latter is going to be played after as well will depend on its own inherent quality, whether it attracts new gamers of its own whom, like those gamers introduced to RPGs with 3rd ed, will play other games for a while to ultimately play it again after going full circle, whether it is OGL-compatible and/or can easily be cloned under the OGL (not for its own sake, because retroclones are worth jack and shit in and of themselves, but are means to produce new stuff, modules etc for those games instead), and so on.

Quote from: Mistwell;687437Sac Lamb sounds like a complete full-on Paizo fan-boi WOTC hater.  Good to know.

What would have been to D&D if there were not Paizo as of now?

Quote from: Benoist;687478I think the OSR is its own thing that's basically web-centric, with blogs and G+ and so on. This cottage industry is not and never will be a threat to Paizo and WotC. I do believe there is an untapped market for old school games and play styles in general, and I do think it has good days ahead. It's not specifically dependant on what we think of as "the OSR" today, though.

I think there will be people playing old school vintage games long after 5th edition has come and gone. Whether the latter is going to be played after as well will depend on its own inherent quality, whether it attracts new gamers of its own whom, like those gamers introduced to RPGs with 3rd ed, will play other games for a while to ultimately play it again after going full circle, whether it is OGL-compatible and/or can easily be cloned under the OGL (not for its own sake, because retroclones are worth jack and shit in and of themselves, but are means to produce new stuff, modules etc for those games instead), and so on.

Now, what could be interesting for the OSR is if 5e becomes a kind of lingua franca for groups like FLAILSNAILS. They don't need to use it in particular, but if a GM can take a look at a 3e character and mentally port them into the same system as a BECMI character, that might make the system have some viability with the OSR.

On the other hand, most everyone in the OSR has been playing their game of choice for years and years, and can do all the porting and conversions in their heads.

Interesting times-- there are a lot of unknown unknowns, as Dick Cheney would say shortly after shooting a motherfucker in the face.

I believe it was Rumsfeld who talked about "unknown unknowns and known unknowns", but yeah, these are definitely interesting times for the D&D game at large, for sure. :)

Quote from: Benoist;687512I believe it was Rumsfeld who talked about "unknown unknowns and known unknowns", but yeah, these are definitely interesting times for the D&D game at large, for sure. :)

Flubbed my History check.

Quote from: JonWake;687434Yeah, I'm curious too. The OSR is NOT a market competitor for D&D or Pathfinder. I'm not even sure it's an untapped market. The best selling OSR books sell a tiny percentage of what The Complete Book of Dangling Schlongs made.

Do we have figures for that? What does an average Paizo or D&D splatbook sell in comparison to what, say, Lamentations of the Flame Princess has sold?

Vincent Baker's games, as of March 2013, had sold about 8000 copies combined (http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/thread/707 (http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/thread/707)). Those are the only RPG sales figures I can remember seeing anywhere.

I haven't been over to the Paizo boards in a long time, but it used to be that it would list your subscriber status when you posted.  If you look around at the registered users and review that, it'll give you a sense of the minimum orders for each product - and since they sell a lot of product direct through subscriptions, it seems a more reliable gauge than Amazon sales figures.

Quote from: Benoist;687512I believe it was Rumsfeld who talked about "unknown unknowns and known unknowns", but yeah, these are definitely interesting times for the D&D game at large, for sure. :)

You go to market with the game you have, not the game you wished you had.

JG

Quote from: Sacrificial LambP.S. And for the record, I also think that the OSR and "old school" games have more of a future than 5e ever will.

Quote from: ggroy;687416Can you elaborate on this?

I'll try. For nearly 40 years, "old school" or "vintage" games have been created and played. They're still going strong. Obviously, not as strong as 3.x or 4.x, but the potential market was and is still there. Granted, there may have been a major lull in their superficial popularity during the "d20 Boom", but people were still playing Basic D&D, 1e, and other such games all along.

Unlike the potential 5e market (or future 6e market for that matter), the "vintage" gamers simply do not have to worry about the "planned obsolescence model" due to not being beholden to any one company. Wanna write something for OSRIC, or Labyrinth Lord, or Swords & Wizardry? Go for it.

Many gamers like constancy, and the convenience of an open gaming license that lets them publish material for the types of games that they're actually interested in. I don't think 5e will be as open as 3.x (if at all), and if it isn't, then practically speaking, it's like having a poison pill in your gaming license. The genie is out of the bottle, and WoTC would be foolish to try to stuff it back in at this point. Of course, WoTC will probably try to indirectly eradicate the OGL (by not supporting it)....because they have people with a different type of corporate philosophy running the show right now.

Quote from: BenoistI think the OSR is its own thing that's basically web-centric, with blogs and G+ and so on. This cottage industry is not and never will be a threat to Paizo and WotC. I do believe there is an untapped market for old school games and play styles in general, and I do think it has good days ahead. It's not specifically dependant on what we think of as "the OSR" today, though.

I don't know, Ben. While there is no single company that acts as a threat to WoTC or Paizo....collectively, all these "vintage games" and retro-clones add up in diluting the D&D brand, and diverting many potential customers away from the "Big Two" gaming companies. However, WoTC will probably be damaged by this far worse than Paizo ever will, if only because Paizo seems to more greatly value and understand customer service and public relations than WoTC does. I would also say that Paizo is far less likely to completely embrace the "planned obsolescence model" [POM], than WoTC ever will.

Rightly or wrongly, gamers strongly prefer games that are provided with support. Since WoTC embraces "POM", 5e will likely be fully supported by WoTC (and in print) for only a few years....just like 4e.

Quote from: BenoistI think there will be people playing old school vintage games long after 5th edition has come and gone. Whether the latter is going to be played after as well will depend on its own inherent quality, whether it attracts new gamers of its own whom, like those gamers introduced to RPGs with 3rd ed, will play other games for a while to ultimately play it again after going full circle, whether it is OGL-compatible and/or can easily be cloned under the OGL (not for its own sake, because retroclones are worth jack and shit in and of themselves, but are means to produce new stuff, modules etc for those games instead), and so on.

I agree. People will be playing these "old school/vintage games" long after 5e is gone.

Back in 2008-2009, I discussed the "planned obsolescence model". I said that WoTC embraced this concept...and in 2009, I predicted 5e. Here are some threads and posts where this subject (and related material) is discussed:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=14595&page=2

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb (posted 07-02-2009)The 5e threads on ENWorld get heated because many of the posters over there don't want others acknowledging the "planned obsolescence model" adopted by WoTC. In the past, discussing a new edition shortly after one was just released sounded silly. Now, not so much. I think people suspect that any edition released by WoTC is just temporary now, which it is. The EN mods are trying to avoid an Internet flamefest (hence the closing of the 5e threads before they really even started), and can try to fight this rampant speculation for a little while, but not for too long. They'll just be unintentionally diverting the 5e speculation to other non-related threads, and if they were smart, they'd just let it run its course. The harder you try to slap something down, the harder it bounces back up. But you know what? It's their forum.

If you discuss 5e without any hint of humor or sarcasm, people will eventually get pissed off. Why? Because the discussion is an acknowledgement that 4e will eventually go out of print, and many gamers refuse to play games that they feel are going out of print soon, or aren't officially supported at all. For a long time, WoTC hid the fact they were releasing 4e, because they feared too early an announcement of 4e would have hurt their 3.5 sales. So if we have people saying:

"In 5e, I'd like WoTC to replace Hit Points with a condition track, and have a spell point system, and ditch Alignment, and reintroduce Tinker Gnomes, and blah, blah, blah..." :blahblah:

You'll have other people reacting like this:

"Shut the fuck up! If you talk about 5e, people will reject 4e because they'll be afraid of it being out of print soon." :rant:

It really is that simple. They're not exactly saying it in those words, but that's the gist of the conversation. Basically, many gamers stop playing an rpg if they think that it'll soon be dropped by the publisher, and people over there know it, so any 5e discussion will put some of the more zealous 4e fans on the attack. It might seem silly, but that's just the way of things.

Anyway....can we all admit there's been a negative change in the atmosphere of ENWorld? Something's up. The posters are more passive-aggressive, and the moderators are more tight-fisted than before. Basically, posters and mods alike are crankier now, and with the "Eric's Grandma" rule, there's no real way to vent. I still visit there, but ENWorld isn't quite the same...

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=14595&page=3

Quote from: ggroy (posted 07-02-2009)I wouldn't be surprised if WotC is already working on a 5E D&D.

Based on historical precedent, work on 4E was already underway in early 2005, which was a bit over a year after the 3.5E core books were released in July 2003.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb (posted 07-02-2009)I don't think they're actually working on 5e yet, but they probably will pretty soon. They've certainly got a plan for 5e already though. History supports this. I know talking about this on ENWorld gets people riled up, but we all have to face some facts.

Gamers want a roleplaying game that is supported. If an rpg is not supported, then by the "rules of gaming culture", gamers will often reject it. If people talk about 5e, then that's a statement that 4e won't be supported for very long. In eight years, we went from 2e, to 3e, to 3.5, and then to 4e. What makes 4e immune to the "planned obsolescence model"? Nothing. This is the way WoTC operates, like it or not. The fact there are so many fucking arguments on ENWorld about this tells me that the people there don't like this at all. So what do we do about it? Fuck if I know. When Pathfinder comes out, the arguments will probably double for the next year. The EN mods will have their hands full..

I could keep going on about this topic, but the whole "planned obsolescence" discussion merits a thread of its own....

Yup. For all its talk about big tent and bringing back the fans and all, Next will suffer the same fate. And the FR "canon" is going to get changed again. And WotC will talk about learning from its mistakes and fixing the game with 6th ed. And so on.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;687406Well, sure. And the sun will go supernova, and we'll all eventually die.

It's not massive enough for that. It will expand to a red giant (probably eating the Earth), then collapse to a white dwarf, then sort of just fade out.

(Sorry, but that was my college major)

Quote from: JeremyR;687689It's not massive enough for that. It will expand to a red giant (probably eating the Earth), then collapse to a white dwarf, then sort of just fade out.

(Sorry, but that was my college major)

I will have an open seat for you at my Traveller game, should you ever be in my area.

I believe that if it were possible for Wotc to license the development and property of the tabletop roleplaying game rules without putting in risk their control of the value of the intellectual property of the settings it would offer such license pronto.

Or, if they could ever manage to disconnect the value and its property of the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance and what have you from the D&D tabletop roleplaying game, they would simply stop producing the D&D tabletop roleplaying game.
There is a reason why the warhammer rpg did not go D20 via the OGL. If it did and were successful in the market , Wotc would never abandon the OGL. The problem of it was the glut that it eventually seemed to offer more trouble than value for the setting intellectual properties.

Contrary to what has been said by ex employee(s) on various internet blogs and sites I do not believe what they want is that 10  million dollar target for the tabletop rpg. They just need a solution that will not cost them money or cause trouble to the value of the settings, directly or indirectly. The OSR is no threat to them. Contrary, the OSR helps the D&D setting intellectual properties keep their importance and value. And this is the major reason why they have not legally acted against it.

Quote from: xech;687875And this is the major reason why they have not legally acted against it.

(Back in the 1990's).

TSR = "They Sue Regularly"

:rolleyes:

Quote from: ggroy;687878(Back in the 1990's).

TSR = "They Sue Regularly"

:rolleyes:

Different times. Back at TSR time the D&D game rules were considered where the value was. After the effect that MtG and the digital evolution had on the value of the tabletop game along the rising importance and size of the video game market and that of D&D novel lines after their commercial success, the setting properties became where the real value was.

Quote from: JeremyR;687689It's not massive enough for that. It will expand to a red giant (probably eating the Earth), then collapse to a white dwarf, then sort of just fade out.

(Sorry, but that was my college major)

What star mass is required for it to go supernova?

Quote from: ggroy;687924What star mass is required for it to go supernova?

about 8 to 50 times Sol's.

Quote from: Benoist;687688Yup. For all its talk about big tent and bringing back the fans and all, Next will suffer the same fate. And the FR "canon" is going to get changed again. And WotC will talk about learning from its mistakes and fixing the game with 6th ed. And so on.

So basically the best we can hope for it that it won't suck AS bad as what we've seen lately.

JG

Quote from: The Traveller;687412No, they really don't.

They do; because of the way their system is and the type of products they've chosen to make.  Sooner or later rules bloat and/or waning sales will require that they do a new edition.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;688640They do; because of the way their system is and the type of products they've chosen to make.  Sooner or later rules bloat and/or waning sales will require that they do a new edition.

RPGPundit

Or expand the setting.

Where did this idea of Paizo "expanding basic" come from?

From what I can tell, Basic was their 4e.  They tried it, didn't like the result, and have now moved on.

Did I miss something?

Quote from: mcbobbo;688648Where did this idea of Paizo "expanding basic" come from?

Wishful thinking.

QuoteFrom what I can tell, Basic was their 4e.  They tried it, didn't like the result, and have now moved on.

OTOH, I don't know where you got that idea from, either. The Pathfinder Beginner Box was designed to be an introductory product for Pathfinder. It was never meant to be a separate product line nor was it designed to be so. According to all reports it's been a success and, AFAIK, it's still in print and will continue to be in print.

Quote from: mcbobbo;688648Where did this idea of Paizo "expanding basic" come from?

From what I can tell, Basic was their 4e.  They tried it, didn't like the result, and have now moved on.

Did I miss something?

As a smart publisher, they recognized if they want Pathfinder to have legs, they needed an introductory product. Pathfinders isn't exactly newbie-friendly. They never intended to expanded the Beginner's Set into the full game - that would split their product line. However, it was very well received, and sold well. Where did you get the idea Paizo didn't like the results? Lots of people on the Paizo forums have called for it to be extended to full level range. Some have even come up with their houserules for doing so.

However, games as complex as Pathfinder inevitably decline in popularity through attrition without an easy access point. New gamers will muddle through with Pathfinder for now (with the help of expert GMs and players), but if Next gets real traction with new and casual players, Pathfinder will be stuck with hardcores only. If that happens, I could see them reluctantly extending the Beginner game to the full level scope.

Quote from: JeremyR;687689It's not massive enough for that. It will expand to a red giant (probably eating the Earth), then collapse to a white dwarf, then sort of just fade out.

(Sorry, but that was my college major)

By the time it does that, unless we nuke/zap/consume/borgise ourselves out of existence, we'll probably be Star - hopping anyway, draining stars on planet - vessels for energy.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;688658OTOH, I don't know where you got that idea from, either. The Pathfinder Beginner Box was designed to be an introductory product for Pathfinder. It was never meant to be a separate product line nor was it designed to be so. According to all reports it's been a success and, AFAIK, it's still in print and will continue to be in print.

Word on the street is, it's out of print - http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pz9v?Should-I-wait-to-get-the-new-printing

Paizo has some stock left, but they appear to be letting that run through.

Many FLGS's are out of stock, Amazon definitely doesn't have any, and the online price has crept up over $60 for the box.

As further lack of support, I'd point out that they have refused to add it to their Compatibility page and have since released their Transitions (http://paizo.com/products/btpy8uqm?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Beginner-Box-Transitions) document instead of any further BBox content.

From my view they tried it and didn't like something about what they saw.

Maybe '4e' isn't the best comparison, but it stinks of 'failed experiment' to me.

Quote from: mcbobbo;688679Word on the street is, it's out of print - http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pz9v?Should-I-wait-to-get-the-new-printing

Paizo has some stock left, but they appear to be letting that run through.

Many FLGS's are out of stock, Amazon definitely doesn't have any, and the online price has crept up over $60 for the box.

As further lack of support, I'd point out that they have refused to add it to their Compatibility page and have since released their Transitions (http://paizo.com/products/btpy8uqm?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Beginner-Box-Transitions) document instead of any further BBox content.

From my view they tried it and didn't like something about what they saw.

Maybe '4e' isn't the best comparison, but it stinks of 'failed experiment' to me.

I didn't get that from the thread at all.  Sounds like they want to deplete as much of the stock as possible before making a decision.  I look at any reprint as something like what GMT Games does with their P500; they know that if they get 500 preorders guaranteed, they'll be able to make a profit on the game and will move forward with the production of whatever it is.  That sort of thing even goes for reprints of their most popular release, Twilight Struggle.

Knowing how methodical Paizo was in producing the BB, they'll probably be analyzing things and making changes before they do a reprint.

Quote from: mcbobbo;688679ns"]Transitions[/URL] document instead of any further BBox content.

From my view they tried it and didn't like something about what they saw.

Maybe '4e' isn't the best comparison, but it stinks of 'failed experiment' to me.

You completely miss the point of the Beginner Box. It was never meant to be extended and start a new line. It's a standalone, stripped-down version of the game intended to gently introduce newbies and kids to the Pathfinder system. It succeeded just fine at its goal. It got great reviews. Guys are playing it with their kids. It sold loads of copies. Mission accomplished.

I actually own it and have ran it before.

It's way too short.

Quote from: mcbobbo;688679Word on the street is, it's out of print - http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pz9v?Should-I-wait-to-get-the-new-printing

(1) Nothing in that link says that it's out of print.

(2) It's currently available for sale directly from Paizo (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/products/beginnerbox). By definition, that means it's not out of print.

Quote from: mcbobbo;688679As further lack of support, I'd point out that they have refused to add it to their Compatibility page and have since released their Transitions (http://paizo.com/products/btpy8uqm?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Beginner-Box-Transitions) document instead of any further BBox content.

From my view they tried it and didn't like something about what they saw.

I repeat: There was never any plan on Paizo's part to "continue support" or "extend support" for the Beginner Box. It was designed as an introductory product and it tells you to go buy the core rulebook as your next stop.

You keep claiming that they were secretly trying to do something other than publish an introductory boxed set and that it "failed". Do you have an actual source for this nonsense?

Quote from: mcbobbo;688697I actually own it and have ran it before.

It's way too short.

How can an RPG, open ended by nature, be "too short"?

Just curious.

Quote from: Haffrung;688694You completely miss the point of the Beginner Box. It was never meant to be extended and start a new line. It's a standalone, stripped-down version of the game intended to gently introduce newbies and kids to the Pathfinder system.

That was my take on it as well. And I used it earlier this year for exactly that purpose.

On the OOP thing:

I read the linked thread on the Paizo forum and I am a bit confused. I've had no dealings with Paizo so far but everywhere I hear and read (even in this thread) that the major difference between WotC and Paizo is Paizo's top notch customer service and ability to communicate with their fans.

And yet, here we have a clear question ("do you plan to reprint the Beginner Box?") that could be answered really quick with a "yes - no - not decided yet - waiting for Next to decide".
The prices of remaining stock in the market seem to skyrocket, customers ask "should we buy now, is this the last opportunity to get that product at all, or should we wait for a reprint?", and Paizo says basically nothing. They even say that their standard answer (that some posters received via e-mail) was just a copy-and-paste standard answer.

Is that exemplary of Paizo's stellar customer service?

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;688761That was my take on it as well. And I used it earlier this year for exactly that purpose.

On the OOP thing:

I read the linked thread on the Paizo forum and I am a bit confused. I've had no dealings with Paizo so far but everywhere I hear and read (even in this thread) that the major difference between WotC and Paizo is Paizo's top notch customer service and ability to communicate with their fans.

And yet, here we have a clear question ("do you plan to reprint the Beginner Box?") that could be answered really quick with a "yes - no - not decided yet - waiting for Next to decide".
The prices of remaining stock in the market seem to skyrocket, customers ask "should we buy now, is this the last opportunity to get that product at all, or should we wait for a reprint?", and Paizo says basically nothing. They even say that their standard answer (that some posters received via e-mail) was just a copy-and-paste standard answer.

Is that exemplary of Paizo's stellar customer service?

That's Paizo's CS people not wanting to go on record for a decision best left to management.  I presume that they want to see what will happen with Next, too, but they're pushing full steam ahead with their Bestiary 2 Box.  I think you can say that is a direct descendent of the Beginner Box, as one of the items about the BB that got raves was the collection of pawns on heavy cardboard to use in your games.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;688721You keep claiming that they were secretly trying to do something other than publish an introductory boxed set and that it "failed". Do you have an actual source for this nonsense?

Please recall that you tend to throw a hissy fit any time anyone uses any form of hyperbole regarding what you said.  In that light, go find the word "secret" in anything I said.

I can happily rephrase though to more clearly convey what I actually meant - I expected the BBox to transition non-RPG playing 'noobs' into consuming Paizo's core product, the APs.

It doesn't do that.

Quote from: Piestrio;688723How can an RPG, open ended by nature, be "too short"?

Just curious.

Because it doesn't connect you to their core product.  It isn't the gateway drug that the Red Box was.  I don't know about you, but I was still doing a lot of things wrong after finishing my first module in the 80s.  I was in no way ready to dive in to AD&D.  And that's a bad comparison because:

1) Pathfinder is a hell of a lot more complex than AD&D.
2) There were a ton of Basic materials - B/X modules, Expert Set, Rules Cyclopedia, etc.

Looking at as an accomplished gamer it seems pretty solid.  But take all that away and I worry that a true 'noob' will walk.  They may well still keep playing RPGs, but Next/WoTC is a more logical transition for them than Pathfinder.

Could be I am just crazy and have insulted someone's sacred cow.  Apologies if so, on both counts.

Quote from: mcbobbo;688790Please recall that you tend to throw a hissy fit any time anyone uses any form of hyperbole regarding what you said.  In that light, go find the word "secret" in anything I said.

I can happily rephrase though to more clearly convey what I actually meant - I expected the BBox to transition non-RPG playing 'noobs' into consuming Paizo's core product, the APs.

It doesn't do that.



Because it doesn't connect you to their core product.  It isn't the gateway drug that the Red Box was.  I don't know about you, but I was still doing a lot of things wrong after finishing my first module in the 80s.  I was in no way ready to dive in to AD&D.  And that's a bad comparison because:

1) Pathfinder is a hell of a lot more complex than AD&D.
2) There were a ton of Basic materials - B/X modules, Expert Set, Rules Cyclopedia, etc.

Looking at as an accomplished gamer it seems pretty solid.  But take all that away and I worry that a true 'noob' will walk.  They may well still keep playing RPGs, but Next/WoTC is a more logical transition for them than Pathfinder.

Could be I am just crazy and have insulted someone's sacred cow.  Apologies if so, on both counts.

I think the goal of the pathfinder beginners box is simpler than that.
 
It's to get people that have not played an rpg interested in rpgs and ideally to buy pathfinder products.

Quote from: Bill;688792I think the goal of the pathfinder beginners box is simpler than that.
 
It's to get people that have not played an rpg interested in rpgs and ideally to buy pathfinder products.

This.

They spent time with focus groups and having a lot of kids try out the BB, tweaking it as needed to get it right.  Perhaps some people complain about the video game feel to the books, but that was done deliberately so that people familiar with video games but not pencil and paper RPGs could get up and running more quickly.  They wanted the anti-textbook, which is what RPGs too often turn into.  And, admittedly, Paizo's splatbooks are no exception.

Quote from: mcbobbo;688790Looking at as an accomplished gamer it seems pretty solid.  But take all that away and I worry that a true 'noob' will walk.  They may well still keep playing RPGs, but Next/WoTC is a more logical transition for them than Pathfinder.

If Next does prove more attractive to new players, even those who try the Pathfinder Beginner Box first, then you might see Paizo reluctantly extend the system. But they won't do it unless they feel compelled to - splitting the game into two streams is seen as a cardinal mistake in the RPG world.

Quote from: Haffrung;688816If Next does prove more attractive to new players, even those who try the Pathfinder Beginner Box first, then you might see Paizo reluctantly extend the system. But they won't do it unless they feel compelled to - splitting the game into two streams is seen as a cardinal mistake in the RPG world.

I agree.  In fact this is what I suspect they saw.  They were able to create what they intended, but it didn't have the impact they imagined.

But (hi JA!) that's just a guess on my part

Quote from: Haffrung;688816splitting the game into two streams is seen as a cardinal mistake in the RPG world.

Why?

Quote from: Piestrio;688838Why?

Lisa actually cites it as the biggest reason that TSR failed.

I understand the concept as deliberately limiting the audience for your products.  So instead of having more/new customers, you actually just split the ones you previously had.

I don't necessarily agree, particularly with something like the BBox, but they do believe it in general oved at Paizo.

Quote from: mcbobbo;688841Lisa actually cites it as the biggest reason that TSR failed.

But likewise, abandoning the simplicity and openness of the original games (OD&D, B/X, Mentzer D&D) to default with 3e onward on the notion the only version of the game there is is AT LEAST as complex as what was before labelled the ADVANCED Dungeons & Dragons game (which by the way is a notion that has become so ingrained in the mentalities at WotC you'll notice that each time they talk about the game or print reprints they talk about the 0e/1e/2e/3e/4e sequence as if the other versions of the game somehow didn't happen or even exist!), is in my opinion a HUGE MISTAKE and a cardinal sin of RPG design on WotC's, and subsequently Paizo's, since they just went on with that 3.x paradigm, parts. And the hobby's been paying for it ever since, because the game is just too complex as it is presently conceived and envisioned, and appeals to people who fundamentally already are hardcore gamers.

Quote from: mcbobbo;688841Lisa actually cites it as the biggest reason that TSR failed.

I understand the concept as deliberately limiting the audience for your products.  So instead of having more/new customers, you actually just split the ones you previously had.

I don't necessarily agree, particularly with something like the BBox, but they do believe it in general oved at Paizo.

I suppose. But looking at it as an outsider TSR was most successful when it had two lines going and had all but completely abandoned Basic by the time they went into serious decline (I think the last BD&D product was released in '93 and the line didn't get a lot of attention for several years prior).

TSR's death came years after Basic was in the dustbin so it seems odd to blame it.

Quote from: Benoist;688843But likewise, abandoning the simplicity and openness of the original games (OD&D, B/X, Mentzer D&D) to default with 3e onward on the notion the only version of the game there is is AT LEAST as complex as what was before labelled the ADVANCED Dungeons & Dragons game  is in my opinion a HUGE MISTAKE and a cardinal sin of RPG design on WotC's,

Yet somehow 3e was still one of the greatest success stories in RPG history :?

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688850Yet somehow 3e was still one of the greatest success stories in RPG history :?

3e was successful I think because it catered to a lot of different tastes at the same time.

The original game was of middling complex and pretty easy to "wing-it" and most groups I knew played it that way. Pretty loose, pretty fast.

The edition then kind of followed the overall trajectory of the industry of chasing the hardcore consumers. More splats, more feats, more classes, more rules, more, more, more...

In my experience most of the "lapsed gamers" that came back to role-playing in 2000 (and there were a lot in my neck of the woods) were gone by '03-'04. Put off by the growing complexity of the game and the 3.5 switch.

Quote from: Piestrio;688854In my experience most of the "lapsed gamers" that came back to role-playing in 2000 (and there were a lot in my neck of the woods) were gone by '03-'04. Put off by the growing complexity of the game and the 3.5 switch.

That describes me pretty well. I came back to gaming after a hiatus when 3e was released, but bailed out to Castles & Crusades because DMing D&D was becoming a chore. From there it was a short step to OSR stuff.

As for why TSR failed, I think will always be difficult to disentangle things from their overall atrocious business practices.

When you're selling products for less than it costs you to make them, it hardly matters what else you do.

Quote from: Piestrio;688854In my experience most of the "lapsed gamers" that came back to role-playing in 2000 (and there were a lot in my neck of the woods) were gone by '03-'04. Put off by the growing complexity of the game and the 3.5 switch.

Piestrio confirmed for never playing 3e ;3

None of the splats for 3e raised the games complexity in a meaningful fashion. At the game table it doesn't matter that 500 new shitty feats exist, because each player only cares about the 3-7 feats on their character sheet. The number of Classes and Prestige classes is irrelevant for much the same reason -_-

Quote from: Dimitrios;688858That describes me pretty well. I came back to gaming after a hiatus when 3e was released, but bailed out to Castles & Crusades because DMing D&D was becoming a chore. From there it was a short step to OSR stuff.

I suspect that would sound familiar to many, many gamers out there. I tired of the 3.x complexity and increasing "the rules are the game" mentality around 2006/7 myself. It was to the point where every conversation about the game revolved around "overpowered" this, "balance" that, "feat" this and "build" that. I think 4e basically proved that this approach is alienating to a lot of D&D gamers, and it started earlier, during 3.x's run.

Quote from: mcbobbo;688841Lisa actually cites it as the biggest reason that TSR failed.

I understand the concept as deliberately limiting the audience for your products.  So instead of having more/new customers, you actually just split the ones you previously had.

I don't necessarily agree, particularly with something like the BBox, but they do believe it in general oved at Paizo.

You have to be careful about how far you go or wind up with the situation that GURPS has. The core product requiring way too much investment in time compared to similar competitors.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688860None of the splats for 3e raised the games complexity in a meaningful fashion.

OK. GamerGoyf confirmed as delusional. ;)

Quote from: Benoist;688864OK. GamerGoyf confirmed as delusional. ;)

Um, yeah.  I like 3.x, and I'll freely admit that there's a lot of crunch out there that got added on by the constant "more more more" out there.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688860Piestrio confirmed for never playing 3e ;3

None of the splats for 3e raised the games complexity in a meaningful fashion. At the game table it doesn't matter that 500 new shitty feats exist, because each player only cares about the 3-7 feats on their character sheet. The number of Classes and Prestige classes is irrelevant for much the same reason -_-

I know you'll never listen because 3e is you're precious baby but believe it or not I did play 3e. A lot of 3e. From about 2001-2006 I played d20 nearly exclusively (with some GURPS here and there).

And you're right as far as it goes that I can run core 3e until the end of time. but here's the problem that folks ran into. Culture.

I can run it but will people play it? When I first started it was easy to find folks willing to just play with the core and not care about anything else. But sometime around '03-'04 those people started disappearing, either not playing D&D or (more likely) not playing RPGs at all.

Who replaced them? People with "pre-built" characters, people who show up to play with a dozen splats, people who insist on playing some deeply stupid new race, etc...

Entitled players. Hardcore players. Players that made spreadsheets. Etc...

Players who would never even think about just sitting down to play. People who had the most fun "building" characters and obsessing over rules.

The cult of RAW, the cult of the 'build'.

I put up with that shit for a couple years and saw it get worse and worse until I quit.

Groups of normal folks, families, professionals, etc... slowly disappeared and were replaced by obsessive nerds.

Quote from: Benoist;688864OK. GamerGoyf confirmed as delusional.

Benoist confirmed for illiteracy ;3

Each player is only ever going to be interacting with the small slice of the splat pile the have on their character sheet, a character sheet that has the same amount of stuff on it if use no splat books or all of them -_-

Quote from: Piestrio;688869And you're right as far as it goes that I can run core 3e until the end of time. but here's the problem that folks ran into. Culture.

No the problem was you all along, correct yourself -_-

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688875Benoist confirmed for illiteracy

You are learning from the wrong posters, dude.

3e was a huge success because it brought d&d back in from the wilderness as a brand, the existing player-base was on anti-depressants due to White Wolf and the OGL opened the game up to anyone who fancied turning their hand to game-writing for the biggest brand in the business, which coupled with improved opportunities for self-publishing resulted in the brand being front and centre and revitalising a moribund market.

3e brought back our group to playing rpg's after a long hiatus.  After several months slogging through 3e, we went on another hiatus for a few years.

All that being said, I think you have to look back at the time.  In 2000, D&D was dead- then this bright shining lamp appeared in the gloom, and all those people who were forgotten came out.  Then we got to the lamp and tried reading the instructions manual and we crawled back from whence we came.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688875No the problem was you all along, correct yourself -_-

Keep fucking that chicken dude.

Quote from: One Horse Town;6888773e was a huge success because it brought d&d back in from the wilderness as a brand

Thinking back to that time, I realize I'd forgotten how much ill will TSR had managed to generate toward themselves by the late 90s. In that context 3e was a breath of fresh air.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688875Each player is only ever going to be interacting with the small slice of the splat pile the have on their character sheet, a character sheet that has the same amount of stuff on it if use no splat books or all of them -_-

Congratulations on playing 3e from the beginning with the same party of characters, I guess. How'd that fighter/rogue/duellist turn out for you? Meanwhile in most other places people "make new characters" when their old ones "die" or "get boring" and meanwhile since it's 3e the DM has to make his own characters and be on top of the splatbooks the group is using.

(Personally, I think you can fight off cult-of-RAW/char-op types/whoever you find annoying in your gaming group quite well if you're reasonably lucky, but the administrative overload of 3e did overwhelm me eventually. I still like a lot of things about it though.)

I was a pretty solid 3e fan until some groknard on some forum somewhere educated me on the whole 'system mastery' vileness.

Quote from: mcbobbo;688929I was a pretty solid 3e fan until some groknard on some forum somewhere educated me on the whole 'system mastery' vileness.

Well I'm sorry that happened but please reconsider. Don't lets the Piestros or the Sunic's of the world get you down, the fun you have at your table is what matters not the ravings of bitter people on the internet who probably don't even play ^_^

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688934Well I'm sorry that happened but please reconsider. Don't lets the Piestros or the Sunic's of the world get you down, the fun you have at your table is what matters not the ravings of bitter people on the internet who probably don't even play ^_^

You are a delightful little troll aren't you?

I tend to think the game that rises to the top $ wise is the one with the greatest number of unified players and a company supporting those players.  As long as Paizo keeps up their Pathfinder Society they'll do fine with the existing product.  So the question is how long does it take a happy player in a system to turn into an unhappy player with the same system.  Judging by the fact we are seeing a renaissance in people playing games that came out 30-40 years ago a lifetime seems like a reasonable guess.

Quote from: Piestrio;688936You are a delightful little troll aren't you?

What's the matter bro, can't handle someone with a dissenting opinion ;3

But I digress let's talk about Pathfinder ^_^

As long as they command a substantial portion of the 3e fanbase I bet they can just keep faffing around with the 3e rules. Heck their core product is adventure paths is their any reason they can't just keep releasing them in perpetuity  ¯\(^_^)/¯

A better question is what's gonna take to pry the dead hand of 3.0 off the hobbies neck :?

Quote from: Piestrio;688844I suppose. But looking at it as an outsider TSR was most successful when it had two lines going and had all but completely abandoned Basic by the time they went into serious decline (I think the last BD&D product was released in '93 and the line didn't get a lot of attention for several years prior).

TSR's death came years after Basic was in the dustbin so it seems odd to blame it.

The problem was half of TSR's products would only be appealing to half their audience. And it could be confusing to newcomers. But D&D was so huge in the 80s that TSR could still be successful, even with the the AD&D/BD&D split. A company the size of Paizo can't afford that split. They can't make their adventure paths support the basic game, because of all the balance, math, etc. that Pathfinder fans expect. So half their audience would not longer want to buy their core line. Or they'd have to create two lines of adventure paths, and there's no way they have the resources for that.

Quote from: Piestrio;6888543e was successful I think because it catered to a lot of different tastes at the same time.

The original game was of middling complex and pretty easy to "wing-it" and most groups I knew played it that way. Pretty loose, pretty fast.

The edition then kind of followed the overall trajectory of the industry of chasing the hardcore consumers. More splats, more feats, more classes, more rules, more, more, more...

In my experience most of the "lapsed gamers" that came back to role-playing in 2000 (and there were a lot in my neck of the woods) were gone by '03-'04. Put off by the growing complexity of the game and the 3.5 switch.

Yep. For example, the Necromancer Games board was humming with activity and releases for the first couple years of 3E. Then the whole RAW/balance culture came to dominate 3E, and more and more "3rd edition rules, 1st edition feel" fans came to just want the "1st edition feel" part. The old-schoolers dropped out of the forums and the company just kind of withered away.

My current group (playtesting Next) are made of a couple players who never stopped playing AD&D, and a couple guys who played AD&D, took up 3E for a few years and then gave up out of exhaustion.

WotC knows they can't keep going to the well of the hardcore gamers. Essentials was a desperate ad hoc attempt to make D&D more accessible. Next is a more strategic and deliberate effort to do the same.

I fear Next might be too tepid in its attempt, and still too complicated for a lot of people who otherwise might like to run a D&D game, if it weren't such a pain in the ass number and feats wankfest to begin with. That's the impression I get looking at playtesting documents: that it IS better than 3/4e, but not significantly so. It kind of makes me think of a crunchier Castles & Crusades that way, which is more like a "meh" to me than anything else, having left C&C quite some time ago to get directly back to the games it tried to emulate instead, O/AD&D, or as you just said Haffrung, I stopped caring about "these different rules, 1st edition feel" and just went for the 1st edition rules and feel instead.

The final organization, the modular aspects of the final rules and the accessibility of the system might make this point entirely moot however. I guess we'll see.

Quote from: Haffrung;688961"3rd edition rules, 1st edition feel" fans came to just want the "1st edition feel" part. The old-schoolers dropped out of the forums and the company just kind of withered away.

My current group (playtesting Next) are made of a couple players who never stopped playing AD&D, and a couple guys who played AD&D, took up 3E for a few years and then gave up out of exhaustion.

WotC knows they can't keep going to the well of the hardcore gamers. Essentials was a desperate ad hoc attempt to make D&D more accessible. Next is a more strategic and deliberate effort to do the same.

Wait wat 0_0

You're asserting that they can't keep going to the well of 3e players, they need to broaden their audience to people who weren't playing when they were most successful :?

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688964Wait wat 0_0

You're asserting that they can't keep going to the well of 3e players, they need to broaden their audience to people who weren't playing when they were most successful :?

See this is this sort of remark that makes you sound very young dude. The 3rd ed era was successful for some time, but its success is nothing compared to the enormous cultural phenomenon that (A)D&D was in the 80s. I mean... nothing like. Really. We're talking of a scale of apples to peanuts, or Boing 777 to remote control model airplane, here. Wake up.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688964Wait wat 0_0

You're asserting that they can't keep going to the well of 3e players, they need to broaden their audience to people who weren't playing when they were most successful :?

Actually, WotC are quite clearly reaching back to when they really were most successful - the 80s - by designing a version of D&D that will be both familiar to that huge cohort of lapsed players, and something they can run without a big investment of time and resources.

Quote from: Benoist;688966See this is this sort of remark that makes you sound very young dude. The 3rd ed era was successful for some time, but it's success is nothing compared to the enormous cultural phenomenon that (A)D&D was in the 80s. I mean... nothing like. Really. We're talking of a scale of apples to peanuts, or Boing 777 to remote control model airplane, here. Wake up.

Tell me can you back that up with any hard data, because according to WotC 3e was the best selling edition (and this was during the 4e era when they really wouldn't want to say that) :?

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688970Tell me can you back that up with any hard data, because according to WotC 3e was the best selling edition (and this was during the 4e era when they really wouldn't want to say that) :?

So you really have no idea what it is I am talking about, whatsoever. This is actually very useful feedback. I think it just made me realize something I did not fully comprehend until now.

Thank you very much. I mean it.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688970Tell me can you back that up with any hard data, because according to WotC 3e was the best selling edition (and this was during the 4e era when they really wouldn't want to say that) :?

Best selling != cultural phenomenon.

There's a reason why D&D attracted the ire of the Fundies, and it wasn't the sales figures for 3.x.

D&D in the early 80s had a much broader spotlight in society.  It was included in movies like E.T..  Even people who didn't play D&D knew about it.  Then when the religious movement connected it to Occultism and Satanism, even people who would never have heard about it in any other context became aware of it - though not in a positive way.  

But D&D as a money-making enterprise with anything prior to 3rd edition?  That's a whole other ball of wax.  

Even if 3.x sold to half the audience of 1st edition, they sold more books to that audience.  And they sold those books at higher prices.  Benoist, you've posted your shelves of books.  How many are WotC 3.5 edition compared to how many are Advanced D&D prior to 2nd edition?  I'd wager that you have at least 1.5x as many 3.x books (don't you even have some Eberron source books?).  

The number of players isn't the only thing that goes into sales figures.  Anyone who wants to pretend that 3.x wasn't the most successful edition based on total sales is doing just that...pretending.  

Further, in earlier editions, it was pretty common for the DM to have 'all the books', with maybe the more hardcore players having their own copy of the Player's Handbook.  3.x was a big departure as far as reaching out to the players directly to purchase materials.  We had more copies at our table of the Complete Warrior when we played 3.x than we had copies of the Player's Handbook when we played 2nd edition.  

I don't think Paizo will rush into any changes.  There are a lot of people for whom 3.x is a very appealing edition, and winning them over won't be easy as long as they're generally happy.  

I think Paizo will eventually come out with a new edition that is supposed to keep the good of 3.x and provide a lot more simplicity for the DM, but they've already made some of those changes.  Skill points, for instance, in 3.x could take 2 hours or more to make sure you did correctly (which only really mattered if you were releasing your work or are a perfectionist like me) - especially if you make multiple changes (did I boost Int at 4th level or at 8th?).  But Paizo will follow the fans more than it will try to lead them.  

Shitting on what the fans were already playing is the single biggest mistake that WotC made switching to 4th edition.  Even if WotC didn't learn their lesson, Paizo did.

Quote from: Benoist;688975So you really have no idea what it is I am talking about, whatsoever. This is actually very useful feedback. I think it just made me realize something I did not fully comprehend until now.

Ok then motherfucker let's serve up some motherfucking data then

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?254013-PDFS-Of-the-WotC-Court-Case (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?254013-PDFS-Of-the-WotC-Court-Case)

These are court documents where Wizards says on the record they had 6 million players pre-4e (which sold some nebulous "hundreads of thousands"). In other words 30% of the roughly 20 million figure of "everyone who has ever played the game". That's pretty substantial given hobbies 30 year history and the fact people age out of the playerbase.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688934Well I'm sorry that happened but please reconsider. Don't lets the Piestros or the Sunic's of the world get you down, the fun you have at your table is what matters not the ravings of bitter people on the internet who probably don't even play ^_^

What's to reconsider?  WotC RnD nearly ruined D&D in order to sell more splat.  The fact that I gave them some of my dollars as fuel to do it with is pretty disgusting.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688982Ok then motherfucker let's serve up some motherfucking data then

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?254013-PDFS-Of-the-WotC-Court-Case (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?254013-PDFS-Of-the-WotC-Court-Case)

These are court documents where Wizards says on the record they had 6 million players pre-4e (which sold some nebulous "hundreads of thousands"). In other words 30% of the roughly 20 million figure of "everyone who has ever played the game". That's pretty substantial given hobbies 30 year history and the fact people age out of the playerbase.

So tell me, where was 3e's Saturday morning cartoon?  Toys in the toy isle?  BADD?

Here's a list of controversies - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_controversies

How many of those are from the 3e era?

Quote from: mcbobbo;688929I was a pretty solid 3e fan until some groknard on some forum somewhere educated me on the whole 'system mastery' vileness.

Yeah, 3E actually simplified things.  Making everything a roll-high D20 standard was simpler.  Putting things like Rogue skills on that standard was simpler than percentile.  Putting saving throws on that standard and cutting them down to three categories was simpler.  (On the other hand, having to have both bonuses for the character save and different DCs for the attempt itself is greater complexity, but complexity that works; a poison with a high DC is more dangerous than a simple -4 to saves, at least when the PC is over 10th level.)

However the fact that a lot of the mechanics of the system were finally more clear and subject to tweaking by the players is what led to that perceived complexity, not to mention all the splats.

JG

Quote from: mcbobbo;688985What's to reconsider?  WotC RnD nearly ruined D&D in order to sell more splat.  The fact that I gave them some of my dollars as fuel to do it with is pretty disgusting.

You can't ruin something by releasing something else.  Phantom Menace is a terrible movie, but it doesn't make Star Wars any worse due to its existence.  

3.x can't be ruined by the release of additional product - if the core was solid than anyone could choose to use just that.  Even when all the players have access to all the splats, the DM doesn't need to use them all when designing monsters.  Heck, he can make his own material when designing monsters.  

Personally, I think that 3.x had systemic problems (Fighters vs Wizards is exemplary of most of them), but I wouldn't count splat bloat as a problem in itself.  Player entitlement might have been an issue when combined with splat bloat, but that's a people problem, not a rules problem.

Quote from: mcbobbo;688989So tell me, where was 3e's Saturday morning cartoon?  Toys in the toy isle?  BADD?

Here's a list of controversies - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_controversies

How many of those are from the 3e era?

BADD started up when D&D had ~3 million players, I don't think this proves what you thing it proves.

Edit

Quote from: James Gillen;688991Yeah, 3E actually simplified things.  Making everything a roll-high D20 standard was simpler.  Putting things like Rogue skills on that standard was simpler than percentile.  Putting saving throws on that standard and cutting them down to three categories was simpler.

Yeah let's not pretend the AD&D era was some kind of golden age of accessibility that system was byzantine as all hell ;3

Quote from: James Gillen;688991However the fact that a lot of the mechanics of the system were finally more clear and subject to tweaking by the players is what led to that perceived complexity, not to mention all the splats.

No, I don't think it was organic at all.  I mean, it makes a nice story and it would be nice if it were true, but it doesn't explain the 'broken' aspects of the system, 'trap options', and 'uber builds'.  Those were deliberately seeded in to make those who invested more dollars/time into WotC products feel superior.

It is 'icky' black voodoo, and completely unnatural.

It's also insidious enough that I, for one, may not have ever noticed it.

Quote from: mcbobbo;688998No, I don't think it was organic at all.  I mean, it makes a nice story and it would be nice if it were true, but it doesn't explain the 'broken' aspects of the system, 'trap options', and 'uber builds'.  Those were deliberately seeded in to make those who invested more dollars/time into WotC products feel superior.

It is 'icky' black voodoo, and completely unnatural.

It's also insidious enough that I, for one, may not have ever noticed it.

You're assuming a lot. Given subsequent events it's more likely the designers we're just idiots ;3

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688996BADD started up when D&D had ~3 million players, I don't think this proves what you thing it proves.

Which is more culturally significant:

A) When the RMS Titanic sunk, roughly 1500 lives were lost.

or

B) Choking kills roughly 2500 each year.

B is nearly double the size of A.

What was the name of that choking death blockbuster staring Leo and Kate, again?? I forget.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688999You're assuming a lot. Given subsequent events it's more likely the designers we're just idiots ;3

Well, no, I'm actually taking them at their word.  We know that Spike/Timmy/etc were a factor in the design.  We know what WotC's RnD does with that paradigm.  They have said it themselves, Monte said it, and it's pretty damn obvious once you tear away the veil.

The only assumption here is 'how much influence'.  But I wouldn't call that 'a lot' by any stretch.

Quote from: mcbobbo;689000Which is more culturally significant:

A) When the RMS Titanic sunk, roughly 1500 lives were lost.

or

B) Choking kills roughly 2500 each year.

B is nearly double the size of A.

What was the name of that choking death blockbuster staring Leo and Kate, again?? I forget.

Than I don't follow your argument in 1981 D&D had 3 million players, BADD was founded in 1982 and the 80's D&D boom peaked around 1984, the story those numbers tell seems to be opposite of the one you were spinning

Quote from: mcbobbo;689001Well, no, I'm actually taking them at their word.  We know that Spike/Timmy/etc were a factor in the design.  We know what WotC's RnD does with that paradigm.  They have said it themselves, Monte said it, and it's pretty damn obvious once you tear away the veil.

The only assumption here is 'how much influence'.  But I wouldn't call that 'a lot' by any stretch.

Your're referencing Monte's "Ivory Tower Game design" post aren't you. Given how he literally can't write balance material unsupervised I think that was the designer equivalent of
(http://memeorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/lol-i-troll-you.jpg)
and he wasn't even on the team for all of 3.5

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688996BADD started up when D&D had ~3 million players, I don't think this proves what you thing it proves.

Sure it does.  More people listen to heavy metal today than in the 80's, but who got Tipper Gore so riled up that they had Congressional hearings on it?  80's metal.

Just because there were fewer absolute players doesn't mean that it was a thing.  And believe me, D&D was a cultural touchstone.  A haven for nerds and geeks and social outcasts of all sort.  Parents and Ministers --particularly in the South and Midwest-- were certain that something sinister was going on with that game, and the Pat Pulling campaign and the Michigan State steam tunnels only confirmed it.  ("Why don't you go out and play some sports instead?" my parents once asked me, forgetting that I sat on the bench in grade school basketball for four years.)

By the time D&D 3e had come out, the edginess of D&D had long since come and gone.  Vampire was the new edgy, and it got a lot of unwelcome press due to Columbine.  By comparison, D&D was rock music:  it got more listeners, but was no longer the phenomenon it was back in the 50s.

Quote from: Benoist;688966See this is this sort of remark that makes you sound very young dude. The 3rd ed era was successful for some time, but its success is nothing compared to the enormous cultural phenomenon that (A)D&D was in the 80s. I mean... nothing like. Really. We're talking of a scale of apples to peanuts, or Boing 777 to remote control model airplane, here. Wake up.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;689006Sure it does.  More people listen to heavy metal today than in the 80's, but who got Tipper Gore so riled up that they had Congressional hearings on it?  80's metal.

Just because there were fewer absolute players doesn't mean that it was a thing.  And believe me, D&D was a cultural touchstone.  A haven for nerds and geeks and social outcasts of all sort.  Parents and Ministers --particularly in the South and Midwest-- were certain that something sinister was going on with that game, and the Pat Pulling campaign and the Michigan State steam tunnels only confirmed it.  ("Why don't you go out and play some sports instead?" my parents once asked me, forgetting that I sat on the bench in grade school basketball for four years.)

By the time D&D 3e had come out, the edginess of D&D had long since come and gone.  Vampire was the new edgy, and it got a lot of unwelcome press due to Columbine.  By comparison, D&D was rock music:  it got more listeners, but was no longer the phenomenon it was back in the 50s.

There is no entertainment of the last 10 years that compares to D&D as a 'cultural touchstone', but Benoist's quote up above seemed to be saying that D&D was bigger in the early 80s.  It wasn't.  It was more noticed, but there really wasn't a lot going on.  

By the time Seinfeld went off the air in 1998, you couldn't count on finding people at the watercooler talking about the same TV shows.  There are more options, so there are more niches.  D&D was a niche hobby in 1982; it is still a niche hobby now.  The difference is that there are so many more niche hobbies, and while most people are aware of D&D on SOME level, it doesn't get as much attention as MMORGs.  But in absolute terms, it's certainly 'bigger'.  Or at least, was during the height of 3.x.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;689006Just because there were fewer absolute players doesn't mean that it was a thing.  And believe me, D&D was a cultural touchstone.  A haven for nerds and geeks and social outcasts of all sort.  Parents and Ministers --particularly in the South and Midwest-- were certain that something sinister was going on with that game, and the Pat Pulling campaign and the Michigan State steam tunnels only confirmed it.  ("Why don't you go out and play some sports instead?" my parents once asked me, forgetting that I sat on the bench in grade school basketball for four years.

Ah I missed the bus on that becaues I was still trying to deal with Haffrung et al.'s furious insistence that D&D has been losing players throughout the run of 3e. Because obviously there's no way the player base could like things they dislike ;3

You see in their dream they are the stars, It's them. Then Mike Mearls comes out for a little one-on-one. He looks deep into their eyes, longingly, and he says
"I'm sorry baby, I'm sorry that the game you love so much left you behind. I'm done with all those min-maxers and system-wankers, and they were so wrong when they said all those mean things about you on then internet. You're a beautiful angel and this game will never leave you again."
and then they fuck I guess :?

So when I come along and state inconvient facts like Mearls being a master ruseman or 3e actually being fairly popular. It sort ruins their fantasy wedding with Mike I guess ;3

Quote from: gamerGoyf;689002Your're referencing Monte's "Ivory Tower Game design" post aren't you. Given how he literally can't write balance material unsupervised I think that was the designer equivalent of ...
and he wasn't even on the team for all of 3.5

So here's your choice:

Blue pill, focus on Monte's half-assed confession and imperfect understanding of what was going on at the time.  Remember his thesis was about not paying enough attention to input, not the overall WotC RnD paradigm.  In fact, he openly mocks the concept.  A person can be comfortable in the warm and fuzzy logical wrap of this.  It's butthurt, for certain, and he took it down shortly before hopping back on the WotC bandwagon.  So maybe he never meant it.

Red pill, dig deeper (http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5).  Look into it yourself and ask yourself what this concept does to an RPG.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;688992You can't ruin something by releasing something else.  Phantom Menace is a terrible movie, but it doesn't make Star Wars any worse due to its existence.

In fact, it does.  At a minimum it requires the viewer to isolate the different films, making enjoying the original more effort.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;6889923.x can't be ruined by the release of additional product - if the core was solid than anyone could choose to use just that.

And if it was deliberately designed NOT to be that solid?  Then what?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;688992Even when all the players have access to all the splats, the DM doesn't need to use them all when designing monsters.  Heck, he can make his own material when designing monsters.

I believe a DM's role is greater than making monsters.  I'm pretty confident that you are aware of this, so I'll just assume I misunderstood you.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;688992Personally, I think that 3.x had systemic problems (Fighters vs Wizards is exemplary of most of them), but I wouldn't count splat bloat as a problem in itself.  Player entitlement might have been an issue when combined with splat bloat, but that's a people problem, not a rules problem.

I see.  So what's this mean, then, in that context:

QuoteSpike is the competitive player. Spike plays to win. Spike enjoys winning. To accomplish this, Spike will play whatever the best deck is. Spike will copy decks off the Internet. Spike will borrow other players' decks. To Spike, the thrill of Magic is the adrenalin rush of competition. Spike enjoys the stimulation of outplaying the opponent and the glory of victory.

Spike cares more about the quantity of wins than the quality. For example, Spike plays ten games and wins nine of them. If Spike feels he should have won the tenth, he walks away unhappy.

R&D makes plenty of cards for Spike. Unlike the Timmy and Johnny cards, Spike cards are relatively easy to make. Spike plays what wins, so if R&D makes a card good enough, Spike will play it. Good examples of Spike cards are Call of the Herd, Shadowmage Infiltrator, and Fact or Fiction.

I suppose WotC was not aware of their own research when designing 3e, then?  It was an unknown, uncontrollable 'people problem', was it?

I'm happy to quit this particular soapbox.  It's a sad fucking story, and it pisses me off just to explain it.  I might have been better off not to learn it myself.

Sure am glad I have always just gamed with my friends.  Do not see how anything that any game company does could possibly harm my enjoyment of the hobby.  Now, life gets in the way a lot as responsibilities wax and free time wanes.  Never had a problem with saying, "hey guys, I feel like running X."  No idea how a game company releasing whatever books they want would harm that.

Once again they would have be secretly creating a complex web system mastery in the system while at the same time everyone involved was ruseing us by looking like buffoons when they talked about the game :?

Given the output history of 3e and especially 3.5 I'd say the answer is that they just threw a bunch of shit at the wall and didn't double check it. This is just like any other conspiracy theory, assuming that people are smart and evil is never a better bet then them being well-meaning and intelligent.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;689025Once again they would have be secretly creating a complex web system mastery in the system while at the same time everyone involved was ruseing us by looking like buffoons when they talked about the game :?

Given the output history of 3e and especially 3.5 I'd say the answer is that they just threw a bunch of shit at the wall and didn't double check it. This is just like any other conspiracy theory, assuming that people are smart and evil is never a better bet then them being well-meaning and intelligent.

Amen.
this goes back to the start of the game 3e just pushed the boat a bit further.

Wizards are simplified in play because its felt that they were too weak and 'bitty' not because the desingers wanted to reward players who realised wizards were no tougher than figthers or to trap people that took figther ...

In MtG a W2 bear with no special attacks isn't deliberately weak so as to trick foolish players its just meant to be a staple for sealed deck play etc. Jace doesn't get banned sao as to trick people who spent $500 on a play set, he gets banned because they undercosted the card due to not realising its versitility.

:)

You're right.  What could I possibly have been thinking?

Carry on...

Quote from: gamerGoyf;688996Yeah let's not pretend the AD&D era was some kind of golden age of accessibility that system was byzantine as all hell ;3

As far as 1E goes, I think you are correct; it was, after all, intended as a genuinely "advanced" and standardised system for tournament play, with OD&D/BD&D for more freewheeling games, so I don't blame Gygax for designing it with the advanced player in mind.

As far as core 2E goes, I think TSR's strategy had moved on a bit - they were probably already side-eying the Basic line and wondering whether it was really worth the effort to continue supporting it, and I suspect they knew a significant portion of kids were skipping straight to Advanced (because let's face it, the last thing a tween or early teen is going to want to hear is "this is too complicated/grown-up for you"), so they adjusted accordingly. I find 2E's books much easier to navigate in and follow, and the rules really aren't that complex. Plus, in keeping with Zeb Cook's goal of making official the sort of house rules large numbers of tables were using anyway, AD&D 2E's system resembles a sort of blend of 1E AD&D with Basic D&D, with the Basic-inspired systems patched in over the parts of 1E which were held to be too complex for most tables to deal with.

So I'd say that whilst 1E wasn't very accessible, 2E wasn't that bad. It was the game I started on, for instance.

Quote from: Benoist;688966See this is this sort of remark that makes you sound very young dude. The 3rd ed era was successful for some time, but its success is nothing compared to the enormous cultural phenomenon that (A)D&D was in the 80s. I mean... nothing like. Really. We're talking of a scale of apples to peanuts, or Boing 777 to remote control model airplane, here. Wake up.

Joseph Goodman has stated that prior to getting into the publishing he was writing a book on the RPG business. That he identified two sales peaks, one in 1982 (fixed), and the other in 2001. Didn't mention which was higher.

On the Acaeum on their commentary on print runs they mention that in the late 80s there was 1,000,000 D&D basic set sold in a year.

In posts about Wizards 3.X sales I couldn't find exact figures but what was mentioned appeared to be in the high hundred thousands.

My conclusion is that Goodman is right that there are two sales peak. The late 80s one was higher but not by an order of magnitude (which means 10 times).

Culture wise 80s era D&D had a much bigger impact as far as the game itself. Circa 2001 the cultural descendants of D&D hold sway. So while the D&D game itself is out of the culture battle, it won the war. Only Star Wars and its cultural descendants hold a comparable grip.

Quote from: Warthur;689095As far as 1E goes, I think you are correct; it was, after all, intended as a genuinely "advanced" and standardised system for tournament play, with OD&D/BD&D for more freewheeling games, so I don't blame Gygax for designing it with the advanced player in mind.

From reading accounts and the books themselves I think the deluge of questions was a major factor in its development.

And the way most people in my neck of the woods played AD&D is that they used the stuff (classes, races, items, monsters) but ran combat like they did in with D&D and ignored most of what Gygax wrote in the combat chapters. I know I tried to figure it out and it was stupidly complex and not well explained. Not until the release of AD&D A.D.D.C.I.T on Dragonsfoot that I understood it.

Also since I learned more of the history its development I don't hold as much respect for AD&D as I do for OD&D now. I have come to believe that actual play translated into rules is the best way of designing a RPG. That AD&D is afflicted with too much made up shit that wasn't played enough. The Grappling, Pummeling, and Overbearing rules are a good example of this.

Still love the books tho especially the DMG.

Quote from: estar;689099Joseph Goodman has stated that prior to getting into the publishing he was writing a book on the RPG business. That he identified two sales peaks, one in 1989, and the other in 2001. Didn't mention which was higher.

On the Acaeum on their commentary on print runs they mention that in the late 80s there was 1,000,000 D&D basic set sold in a year.

In posts about Wizards 3.X sales I couldn't find exact figures but what was mentioned appeared to be in the high hundred thousands.

My conclusion is that Goodman is right that there are two sales peak. The late 80s one was higher but not by an order of magnitude (which means 10 times).

Culture wise 80s era D&D had a much bigger impact as far as the game itself. Circa 2001 the cultural descendants of D&D hold sway. So while the D&D game itself is out of the culture battle, it won the war. Only Star Wars and its cultural descendants hold a comparable grip.

Also don't forget to factor in population. It's easy to forget but in the US there were 50 million fewer people in 1981 than in 2001 (100 million fewer from '74 to today).

That makes a difference. It's largely why newer movies always blow older movies out of the water in terms of attendance.

You can have strictly MORE people buying something but have that be a smaller slice of the overall pie. So even if D&D sold the same in '81 and '01 the '81 number IS more significant because it's a smaller pond.

Quote from: estar;689099Joseph Goodman has stated that prior to getting into the publishing he was writing a book on the RPG business. That he identified two sales peaks, one in 1989, and the other in 2001. Didn't mention which was higher.

1982, actually.

Not 1989.

QuoteDungeons & Dragons has had two, and exactly two, peak years. The first was 1982. The second was 2001. The mid-80's were a declining period, and the 90's were a trough.

http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/forum/showthread.php?61346-(Joseph)-Goodman-Games-on-the-State-of-4E

Quote from: estar;689101And the way most people in my neck of the woods played AD&D is that they used the stuff (classes, races, items, monsters) but ran combat like they did in with D&D and ignored most of what Gygax wrote in the combat chapters. I know I tried to figure it out and it was stupidly complex and not well explained. Not until the release of AD&D A.D.D.C.I.T on Dragonsfoot that I understood it.

That's exactly what I was thinking about with the simplification of combat in 2E. If you compare 1E, 2E, and OD&D/Basic combat, 2E is far closer to the latter than it is to 1E in RAW - it's just that, like you say, back in the day lots of people just carried assumptions over from Basic/OD&D and ignored the complexities of it . 2E only ceases resembling Basic combat if work in some of the more complex options relating to weapon type, and most tables in my experience don't do that.

Quote from: estar;689101Also since I learned more of the history its development I don't hold as much respect for AD&D as I do for OD&D now. I have come to believe that actual play translated into rules is the best way of designing a RPG. That AD&D is afflicted with too much made up shit that wasn't played enough. The Grappling, Pummeling, and Overbearing rules are a good example of this.

This is precisely why I like 2E better in actual play! Say what you like about Zeb Cook, but if you read the intros he penned for it it's clear that even though Lorraine Williams had mostly shut down internal playtesting at TSR, Zeb still reached out to get people's feedback about the game through Dragon and in effect crowdsourced a lot of the ideas for the revisions, so he ended up proposing things which resembled what a lot of people were doing at their game tables anyway.

QuoteStill love the books tho especially the DMG.

True that, they're great resources, though I only ever use the PHB to get PC assassin and half-orc stats. (My only real gripe with the design philosophy of 2E are the concessions to family-friendliness, and even then I can swallow them as part of the process of making a "big tent" RPG and reflecting then-current tastes in fantasy, and it's so utterly trivial to bring back the nastier PC types and call a devil a devil that I don't consider it a major flaw.)

Quote from: estar;689101Also since I learned more of the history its development I don't hold as much respect for AD&D as I do for OD&D now. I have come to believe that actual play translated into rules is the best way of designing a RPG. That AD&D is afflicted with too much made up shit that wasn't played enough. The Grappling, Pummeling, and Overbearing rules are a good example of this.

I too believe that rules translated from actual play make for a better framework.

I have come to consider OD&D and AD&D as being part of the same paradigm. To me, OD&D is the starting point, the game's core, if you will, and the AD&D books are added to that (the compilation of supplements, articles from The Dragon, new additions) as a set of ADVANCED rules that are like a salad bar coming along with the guy who made the food and tasted it next to you, explaining what's in all these different bowls and what they're intended to achieve as far as your meal's concerned.

The ADVANCED books expand the framework of the original Dungeons & Dragons game, and I think that a familiarity with the original game is actually best to make the most out of them. Note the ADVANCED books don't rehash the material of The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, unless the ADVANCED material updates, expands, and/or contradicts the original.(*)

So for me, OD&D and AD&D are the same game. Whether you use the original game with or without supplements and, by extension, with or without the ADVANCED framework, will affect the feel of the game tremendously.

PS: When WotC makes an artificial separation in the evolution of the game between what it calls "0e, 1e, 2e, 3e and 4e" it has got its understanding of the game completely backwards and wrong, to me. That's a telling card, as far as I'm concerned.

PPS: (*) This is actually the reason I can't really consider Swords & Wizardry White Box to be the exact same game as OD&D. To me, the particular expression of U&WA is integral to the "lightning in a bottle" I see in the original game. The fact the detail of its contents were largely excised when the retro-clone was built (for copyright reasons, I asked Matt Finch about it) makes it a game that replicates some of the rules of the original game with a particular, personal take which to me, isn't the original game itself. I think it is enough for most people, and you certainly could project the OD&D game onto S&W rules and in effect have the same actual game play, not to mention, you can publish for S&W and have close to 100% compatibility of your supplement with the OD&D rules (which is actually the whole point of the clone in the first place), so don't read too much into it. But my personal perspective is that S&W and OD&D are distinct in their particulars and appeal. Of the three S&W versions (S&W Core, S&W White Box and S&W Complete), the one that might come the closest to what I have in mind when I think of the O/AD&D paradigm I describe here is S&W Complete Rules published by Frog God Games, and perhaps paradoxically so, because of the greater freedom of interpretation the authors injected when building the game material (see the ranger, for instance, which isn't the ranger we're accustomed to, and an awesome take in its own right, I might add). I'm actually very impressed by the results.

Quote from: Benoist;689143I too believe that rules translated from actual play make for a better framework.

I have just come to consider OD&D and AD&D as being part of the same paradigm.

My view is that everything from OD&D + Greyhawk to 2E before Skill & Powers are variations of what I call classic D&D. The differences are matter of inches.

Quote from: Benoist;689143To me, OD&D is the starting point, the game's core, if you will, and the AD&D books are added to that (the compilation of supplements, articles from The Dragon, new additions) as a set of ADVANCED rules that are like a salad bar coming along with the guy who made the food and tasted it next to you, explaining what's in all these different bowls and what they're intended to achieve as far as your meal's concerned.

Most of AD&D is like that but there is a lot of "Oh hell lets add this because it cool, or I manage to get Gary's ear on a good day." I point to the Grappling, Pummeling, and Overbearing rules as Exhibit A along with certain sections like the whole deal with segments and combat.

In addition there is too much "Oh my god we got all these letters and questions to stop" going on.  I currently view 80% of AD&D as the greatest D&D ever and the remaining 20% as poison pills that setup the major problems for D&D in later years.

Quote from: Benoist;689143So for me, OD&D and AD&D are the same game. Whether you use the original game with or without supplements and, by extension, with or without the ADVANCED framework, will affect the feel of the game tremendously.

Having played three volume only OD&D I don't agree that it is the same game as the editions between OD&D + Greyhawk and 2E without skills and Powers. The power curve is a lot flatter, the differences between character are less dramatic.  Three booklet only OD&D campaigns plays out differently than the later edition. Just like 3.X campaign plays out differently than a AD&D 1E/2E campaign.

Again I am talking something like feet here. Obviously OD&D is not miles apart from OD&D + Greyhawk.

Quote from: Benoist;689143PS: When WotC makes an artificial separation in the evolution of the game between what it calls "0e, 1e, 2e, 3e and 4e" it has got its understanding of the game completely backwards and wrong, to me. That's a telling card, as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps in the various classic edition but there are some major differences between classic, 3.X, 4e, and now 5e. Although while 5e has its own mix of mechanics that is different than it predecessors I don't see any major compatibility between using older material with 5e and hopefully vice versa. It will be a similar situation to what exist now with Castles & Crusades.

Quote from: Benoist;689143PPS: (*) This is actually the reason I can't really consider Swords & Wizardry White Box to be the exact same game as OD&D. To me, the particular expression of U&WA is integral to the "lightning in a bottle" I see in the original game. The fact the detail of its contents were largely excised when the retro-clone was built (for copyright reasons, I asked Matt Finch about it) makes it a game that replicates some of the rules of the original game with a particular, personal take which to me, isn't the original game itself.

They play out the same in the parts where they do overlap. And where they don't the original material can be used as is. To me that is the test that the retro-clones need to pass. If the only thing I have is White Box can I use it to create material or run a campaigns that Old Geezer would recognize as usable with OD&D?

While I can't answer for him, to me it been yes. I can. I have older materal like Tegal Manor that I ran and I can't see any meaningful difference.

However in a literal sense you are right. They are not the same game because the only game that can be the same as OD&D is OD&D. Not just in terms of mechanics. But because it was so poorly presented that a revised edition would make have to make decisions on how to present the ambiguous sections.  So there can never be a true OD&D 2nd edition (in the sense of a book edition).

Like the OD&D Dispel Magic spell I mention before. Is it area effect? Single spell or item? The text can be read both ways.

Quote from: Benoist;689143The closest to what I have in mind when I think of the O/AD&D paradigm I describe here is S&W Complete Rules published by Frog God Games, and perhaps paradoxically so, because of the greater freedom of interpretation the authors injected when building the game material (see the ranger, for instance, which isn't the ranger we're accustomed to, and an awesome take in its own right, I might add). I'm actually very impressed by the results.

Personally I prefer the second printing of Core with the d6s for hit points and the version I build the Majestic Wilderlands supplement off of. That and a few other thing that were changed in later printing makes the power curve closer to that of the original book. But it has more of the options I do want for a campaign. (spells, items, etc)

Quote from: Warthur;689138This is precisely why I like 2E better in actual play! Say what you like about Zeb Cook, but if you read the intros he penned for it it's clear that even though Lorraine Williams had mostly shut down internal playtesting at TSR, Zeb still reached out to get people's feedback about the game through Dragon and in effect crowdsourced a lot of the ideas for the revisions, so he ended up proposing things which resembled what a lot of people were doing at their game tables anyway.

My view of 2E in its initial release was that it was a huge cleanup of AD&D 1st. It wanted to try it but my friends and I already were heavy into GURPS for two years at point. So it never happened.

Quote from: estar;689156Most of AD&D is like that but there is a lot of "Oh hell lets add this because it cool, or I manage to get Gary's ear on a good day." I point to the Grappling, Pummeling, and Overbearing rules as Exhibit A along with certain sections like the whole deal with segments and combat.

Sure, there are rules like this. That's why I used the analogy of the salad bar. To me, the AD&D rules are ADVANCED elements that are intended as a coherent framework when compared to the disjointed, isolated Supplements and articles taken as a whole. There are still issues, things that might not mesh well in a particular game table, and yes, there are definitely elements that were not used in actual play. The DM should be the arbiter and decide which sub-system to apply, and not apply. This is the salad bar I'm referring to.

AD&D 2nd edition's take is different. It sees itself as a uniformed, streamlined set of rules apart from the D&D game first, and has some optional subsystems clearly designated as such (with the clear implication that others not designated as such aren't optional), like the NWPs and the like, added to what is thought of as the core of the Advanced game. To me, that's a completely different way of envisioning the game.

In other words, what Warthur presented as this great evolution of the game with 2E is what breaks parts of its magic, to me.

Quote from: estar;689156In addition there is too much "Oh my god we got all these letters and questions to stop" going on.  I currently view 80% of AD&D as the greatest D&D ever and the remaining 20% as poison pills that setup the major problems for D&D in later years.

These aren't a problem when you consider AD&D as a framework, a set of rules, systems and sub-systems that are predicated on the good judgment of the referee, as opposed to a set of rules to use a toaster oven.

Quote from: estar;689156Having played three volume only OD&D I don't agree that it is the same game as the editions between OD&D + Greyhawk and 2E without skills and Powers. The power curve is a lot flatter, the differences between character are less dramatic.  Three booklet only OD&D campaigns plays out differently than the later edition.

I said as much in my post: whether you apply this or that supplement to the OD&D rules, or for that matter, use the Advanced rules as your starting point itself, the game will play differently. It doesn't change the fact that the Advanced rules are "Advanced", an "Advanced" (and particular, "Gygaxian" for lack of a better word) extension of the OD&D framework, to me.

Quote from: estar;689156Perhaps in the various classic edition but there are some major differences between classic, 3.X, 4e, and now 5e. Although while 5e has its own mix of mechanics that is different than it predecessors I don't see any major compatibility between using older material with 5e and hopefully vice versa. It will be a similar situation to what exist now with Castles & Crusades.

You're talking about the rules' particulars. This is not what I was talking about. I was talking about concepts and thought patterns. I was talking of a paradigm that evolved over time. OD&D is different from AD&D when you consider both separately, but when you consider them both as part of the same evolution of thought processes and ways to envision the game, they suddenly acquire a different dimension and quality, to me.

Quote from: estar;689156They play out the same in the parts where they do overlap. And where they don't the original material can be used as is. To me that is the test that the retro-clones need to pass. If the only thing I have is White Box can I use it to create material or run a campaigns that Old Geezer would recognize as usable with OD&D?

While I can't answer for him, to me it been yes. I can. I have older materal like Tegal Manor that I ran and I can't see any meaningful difference.

I am not Old Geezer. I don't run games like Mike. It's not an indictment of the way he plays the game or whatever: it's just that we're different people with different experiences and points of view on the game. He has his own valuable point of view on the game and contributes to the gaming community in ways he sees best. The fact remains, I'm not Old Geezer. Or Ernie Gygax, or Gary Gygax, for that matter.

What I'm talking about is the way *I* comprehend the game and interpret it for myself.

Quote from: estar;689156However in a literal sense you are right. They are not the same game because the only game that can be the same as OD&D is OD&D. Not just in terms of mechanics. But because it was so poorly presented that a revised edition would make have to make decisions on how to present the ambiguous sections.  So there can never be a true OD&D 2nd edition (in the sense of a book edition).

Like the OD&D Dispel Magic spell I mention before. Is it area effect? Single spell or item? The text can be read both ways.

We've discussed about this before: I think these ambiguities and this need for the referee to take the game in charge and make it his own are a strength of the game, and part of the "lightning in the bottle" I described, as it were. I also think that's what makes AD&D shine - it also requires you to become the referee and interpret the rules in many places. It requires you to decide whether you will use the WP v. AC table, or weapon speeds, or however the Assassination tables apply to the game. That is in essence coming from the same thought process, though the needs of the game and business that TSR was evolved over time. Which is why I consider them to be part of the same paradigm. You can look at them as different games, or as part of the same evolution of thought processes. This is what I'm talking about.

Quote from: estar;689156Personally I prefer the second printing of Core with the d6s for hit points and the version I build the Majestic Wilderlands supplement off of. That and a few other thing that were changed in later printing makes the power curve closer to that of the original book. But it has more of the options I do want for a campaign. (spells, items, etc)

If I was to write a Supplement to the OD&D rules, I would base it on the White Box rules and consider the Supplement as such, with its own specific rules, Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasures, and U&WA sections, in a similar manner you did. I think the Supplement format was great for the game, and if I was to publish some rules that would actually take the game in a different direction, that's the publication path I would likely take.

Quote from: Benoist;689163We've discussed about this before: I think these ambiguities and this need for the referee to take the game in charge and make it his own are a strength of the game, and part of the "lightning in the bottle" I described, as it were.  

My view there is little object difference between OD&D plus supplement to 2E pre Skills & Powers. All the variants or editions are trying to do the same things with the same set of stuff and wind up playing mostly the same at the table.

But the differences (mechanics, presentation, tone, etc)  are very important in terms of creativity. You pointed out several times that this how you view things. And that important because we all rely on a particular way of thinking and doing to make stuff up and run sessions. And for each of us it is different and perhaps even unique in what works.

I get that for you AD&D is an advanced version of OD&D and that you feel it is a salad bar of items that you mix up to make the game you run at your table or use in your writings.

I also hope you realize that it is also NOT necessary either. That given the right circumstances ANY combination of material in your hands would result in a fun and interesting session of tabletop roleplaying. And for everybody reading this that goes for you as well.

Along with creativity where editions make a difference is in terms of communication and in terms of saving work in publishing.

By picking a edition as your foundation a referee makes it easier for the players to act within the game because they understand what rules their characters are to operate under.

For publishing by sticking with a particular edition you making it easy for referees of using that edition to use your material 'as is' saving them time and work.

Creativity, Communication, and How much Work are the only things that I will make a distinction between games and editions for. Outside of that it just doesn't matter.

Quote from: Benoist;689163I am not Old Geezer. I don't run games like Mike. It's not an indictment of the way he plays the game or whatever: it's just that we're different people with different experiences and points of view on the game. He has his own valuable point of view on the game and contributes to the gaming community in ways he sees best. The fact remains, I'm not Old Geezer. Or Ernie Gygax, or Gary Gygax, for that matter.

I am not comparing you to Old Geezer or anybody else. My point is that I were make a adventure/supplement using White Box, and you were to do the same using the three booklet. That Old Geezer or anybody else proficient in OD&D would not know the difference between the two on that basis alone. Yes White Box is a subset of OD&D so my point only pertains to where they overlap. I will add that the overlap is substantial.

Because of that I consider both White Box and OD&D to be the same game because at the table there is no difference in how a session would play out using either.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;689010By the time Seinfeld went off the air in 1998, you couldn't count on finding people at the watercooler talking about the same TV shows.

Even "who killed Laura Palmer" of 1990 was a joke to "who shot J.R. Ewing" in 1980. And does anybody even remember "Jessica Costello"? (And who is "Rosie Larsen", by the way?)

I believe that we all lose a bit by not having common experiences like that anymore. (Like in gaming, having Keeps on the Borderlands.)

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;689184Even "who killed Laura Palmer" of 1990 was a joke to "who shot J.R. Ewing" in 1980. And does anybody even remember "Jessica Costello"? (And who is "Rosie Larsen", by the way?)

I believe that we all lose a bit by not having common experiences like that anymore. (Like in gaming, having Keeps on the Borderlands.)

Yep.  There's a reason why the final episode of MASH was the highest rated episode in television.  It came right at the time when cable was starting to make huge inroads throughout the US, and before FOX launched their fourth major network.

Quote from: estar;689177I also hope you realize that it is also NOT necessary either. That given the right circumstances ANY combination of material in your hands would result in a fun and interesting session of tabletop roleplaying. And for everybody reading this that goes for you as well.

Along with creativity where editions make a difference is in terms of communication and in terms of saving work in publishing.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I am talking about my appreciation of the OD&D and AD&D game. That's my personal perspective and it doesn't preclude anyone having some other view on the topic, nor way to run a game of their own. Nor does it mean these would be the exclusive materials I'd use in a game, nor that I wouldn't run or play other games, including and not limited to other versions of the D&D game, as well as other role playing games, which I also run.

If you're trying to say something like "well you're a good DM, so anything you'd use would result in a good game anyway" I will disagree, because it's the particular presentation of the OD&D and AD&D rules that makes me think of them the way I do, and I probably wouldn't run the same games if I had not read through them, played them both, and learned from these experiences.

So this distinction I am making is significant for me, my creativity, my adjudication of game situations, and more broadly the way I envision and run my games.

Quote from: estar;689179I am not comparing you to Old Geezer or anybody else. My point is that I were make a adventure/supplement using White Box, and you were to do the same using the three booklet. That Old Geezer or anybody else proficient in OD&D would not know the difference between the two on that basis alone. Yes White Box is a subset of OD&D so my point only pertains to where they overlap. I will add that the overlap is substantial.

Well yes, S&W White Box as a publishing tool accomplishes its function: to enable you to publish game materials compatible with the original game. That's something we agree on.

Quote from: estar;689179Because of that I consider both White Box and OD&D to be the same game because at the table there is no difference in how a session would play out using either.

I think your position is predicated on your knowledge of OD&D in the first place, and you subconsciously fill in the blanks left in S&W which basically makes you consider it'd turn out all the same if you were running them side by side. Well yes. I don't think it'd turn out the same way for someone who's never heard of OD&D before.