TheRPGSite

How likely are you to drop coin and buy the Books?

I'm suspicious that a percentage of players will cling to 5E; assuming they are still rolling with D&D.

5E is more popular than 3.5 was, and people chose to cling to it.

Who can say? We have no idea what direction they'll take it.

What I am curious about is how they're going to throw 5E under the bus when the marketing for 6E gets going.

I don't think 6e will be coming all that soon. TPTB seem content to drop one official product every 6 months to a year and leave most of the work to third-parties.

That said, if they DO throw it under the bus, my guess would be something to the effect of "we made a game that was easy to sustain in a maintenance mode, but wasn't the best game we could possibly design. Now that D&D is on the upswing that's what we want to bring you."

I'd guess that they have at LEAST another 5 years before they seriously consider making 6e. There just isn't much bloat to sweep away - and Hasbro (via Wizards) seems happy to let D&D be a solid performer and maintaining the IP enough to make $ off of it.

For many game companies, 1-2 games basically ARE their business, so if they want to grow the business they have to grow the game. For Hasbro or even Wizards, D&D is a pretty small part of their portfolio. No need to upset the applecart to try to grow it when it's churning out solid profits at its current level. Just put the resources into different product lines entirely.

As much as the track record says a new edition is about due...5e has had so little printed for it that I'm thinking they're going to make this edition last. The huge production of 4e was a disaster in the end, and the massive bloat of 3.5 likewise sunk the ship. 5e, with a fairly minimal rules set is at quite playable, and while you can certainly use some rules exploits to "break" it, the DM is in a much better position to say "no" and get back to having fun.

Quote from: Razor 007;1060752How likely are you to drop coin and buy the Books?

I'm suspicious that a percentage of players will cling to 5E; assuming they are still rolling with D&D.

5E is more popular than 3.5 was, and people chose to cling to it.

I'll buy the PhB, at least. I'm not too enthralled with 5E--It's Ok, but I'm not going to cling to it. I prefer either OSR or Gurps for fantasy.

Edit: But I think it will be a while before we see a 6E.

The 5ed-6ed changeover will probably be mostly a lot of little tweaks like 1ed to 2ed or 3.0ed to 3.5ed. While the core basically works there are a lot of things that could be changed up a bit like the ranger class or the lucky feat. Also now they can file away some of the 4ed holdovers now that nobody much gives a crap about 4ed anymore.

It'll be probably be sold as being compatible with 5ed, "you'll be able to play all fo the 6ed adventures and use the splatbooks with 5ed core with this simple conversion document!" but nobody will do that much and it'll drift away from 5ed as the splatbooks come out.

Don't think it'll come out until at least a decade after 5ed dropped. No real sense of urgency from anyone about that.

I wonder if they'll first pump out a bunch of player focused classes, powers and feats books.  Then after a year to 2 years of that, then sweep it all away with 6E.  Get as much money as possible out of all the new and returning customers and then do an edition change and go back to the slower schedule?

They currently have a big success and are selling a LOT of 5e PHBs. They could easily tank that with an edition shift and harm the brand. The main role of 5e is to enhance the value of the D&D brand. So I can't see 6e coming for a long time.

Personally - if they announced 6e I would keep playing 5e for a few years. Not sure after that but on past performance I might try the new game after a while.

2e I never fully adopted.
3e I got on release and it got me back into RPGs.
4e I only went over to .ca 2010.
5e I tried mid 2014 and had campaign going 2015.

Quote from: S'mon;1060778They currently have a big success and are selling a LOT of 5e PHBs. They could easily tank that with an edition shift and harm the brand. The main role of 5e is to enhance the value of the D&D brand. So I can't see 6e coming for a long time.

Personally - if they announced 6e I would keep playing 5e for a few years. Not sure after that but on past performance I might try the new game after a while.

2e I never fully adopted.
3e I got on release and it got me back into RPGs.
4e I only went over to .ca 2010.
5e I tried mid 2014 and had campaign going 2015.

My understanding is that you're exactly right, they care about the D&D brand a whoooooole lot more than the actual D&D game.

Their corporate best case scenario (which almost certainly won't actually happen) is that the D&D game will be like Marvel comic books, a small side annex of the overall Marvel brand. They want to use the D&D brand to sell computer and board games, various bits of plastic crap, maybe an animated TV show or movie or get a successful novel line going again like in the 90's. A big nasty edition war would get in the way of that. They want to maximize the number of people who care about D&D, not rulebook sales which makes a less splatbook-focused/edition treatmill business strategy make more sense.

I'd have to get an entirely different gaming group before I got a new edition of D&D. I don't buy games to admire them on my shelf.

Will it be good?

If so, then yes.

If not, then no.

I'm not a 5e fan, but I don't see 6e coming for 5+ years and even then, it will be a 1e to 2e mostly cosmetic change.

But probably chock full of culture war idiocy.

So far seems they are not gearing for a 6e. It would be the death knell of D&D and possibly WOTC at that point depending on how severe the backlash is. Which could be considerable considering how invested they got people into 5e. A 6e might go over it it was mostly small tweaks like A to 2e.  But if they try to make it another gouging routine the backlash will not be pretty.

But so far they seem to be letting 5e chug along like the little juggernaut that could that it is.

But sadly... NEVER underestimate marketings ability to totally fuck things up.

Hmmm D&D is more a unified brand now with the various board games and all the abilities work basically the same across media.

A 6e would be needed once the podcast programs like Critical Roll get bored with 5e (though the whole thing is an act so they can just act like they aren't tired with the mechanics).

A 6e would also be needed once 5e is no longer the top brand or actually shows signs of not being the top brand. With Paizo busy shooting themselves in the foot, and the idiotic SJWs destroying every other game that tries to pander to them, I do not see anyone that is currently a threat to WotC. In a perfect world, PEG's new Savage Worlds edition (now featuring a pretty book) would be able to make a lot of ground and actually give WotC a reason to compete, but I wouldn't keep hopeful about a sudden Indie explosion.

Lastly, a 6e would be needed if the brand itself stops being profitable or begins to edge that way. In today's economic culture, if you aren't growing, the money you require to operate is a waste. So poor brand growth alone could trigger a 6e.

Hasbro is supposed to announce really low third quarter earnings on Monday due to the Toys R' Us fiasco, and announce a round of layoffs with them.  I doubt they'll spend the money on a new edition soon.

No idea.  WotC and "competence" seem to have a schizophrenic relationship.  They are fully capable of making exactly the right moves, and also fully capable of a massive screw up.  I wouldn't even begin to predict in that environment.

6E is nowhere on the horizon. 5E's PHB is still selling like hotcakes.

If/when there is a new edition of D&D, my money is on a streamlined version that's compatible with 5E. The growth in the hobby is overwhelmingly towards the casual end of the market. Just like with boardgames, this is going to influence what kinds of games get published, with ease of introduction and play at the table being paramount. 5E is actually a pretty complex game, and D&D has grown in popularity in spite of that complexity. But if Hasbro/WotC are interested in growing the market, it will definitely be with simpler, more accessible systems and products. And personally, I'd be all for that.

There won't be a 6e. This is the last full edition of D&D for the rest of our grognard lives.

Also, I wouldn't buy it. Not for any protest or indictment of its quality. I'm just not into the platform anymore. I like the "other" games.

Quote from: trechriron;1060869There won't be a 6e. This is the last full edition of D&D for the rest of our grognard lives.

Also, I wouldn't buy it. Not for any protest or indictment of its quality. I'm just not into the platform anymore. I like the "other" games.

If enough people's house rules for the game seem to be constantly converging on certain points than there'd be justification for a revised edition.

Quote from: Haffrung;10608586E is nowhere on the horizon. 5E's PHB is still selling like hotcakes.

Pricing on that thing is bizarre.  Fifty bucks retail.  Guys on eBay selling it for $65 - and getting that.  I bought a brand new copy for $22 shipped.  It’s all over the map.

Quote from: trechriron;1060869There won't be a 6e. This is the last full edition of D&D for the rest of our grognard lives.

Yeah, this.  I wouldn't even think of buying another edition unless it was sold off to someone else than wotc.

I'd wait to read the reviews before committing to anything.  5e works well enough with some house-ruling.  A 6e is far off into the future, so long as 5e sales continue to remain strong.  And they are strong.

I'm pretty happy with 5e for what it is.
If WotC were to announce 6e tomorrow for example. No I'd probably not buy into it, well at least not for a long while and after I'd taken a good long look at it and see it if was any better than 5e.

I expect there WILL be a 6e at some stage. But TBH, 5e pretty much fulfills what I expect from Dungeons and Dragons. If there were never another edition, I'd be ok with it.

Still, if a new version came out in a few years and it was just a refined version of 5e, it's likely I'd buy into it, as the outlay of money vs reward for DnD and RPGs in general is very good.
So eventually buying a 6e of DnD would be something I'd probably buy on a whim at some stage unless it was really awful, such as going back to something like 4e.

IF they did a new edition I do not think they would actually replace the one they have, rather, I think they might try to do an "advanced" version, a new AD&D, if you will.

There's no need for a new edition, ever, because the system isn't a hot mess anymore. They'll do a big update the art at some point to keep up with trends and rewrite some of the text, but you're not going to see an overhaul as radical as the last several. What would the point be?

Quote from: Razor 007;1060752How likely are you to drop coin and buy the Books?

I'm suspicious that a percentage of players will cling to 5E; assuming they are still rolling with D&D.

5E is more popular than 3.5 was, and people chose to cling to it.

Nerds will buy into the latest version of anything.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060918There's no need for a new edition, ever, because the system isn't a hot mess anymore. They'll do a big update the art at some point to keep up with trends and rewrite some of the text, but you're not going to see an overhaul as radical as the last several. What would the point be?

Something like 2e AD&D's Revised version seems more likely than a 6e, yes. Something that sells more books but doesn't prompt current players to stop playing.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060918There's no need for a new edition, ever, because the system isn't a hot mess anymore.

Strongly disagree. I find it MORE of a hot mess than any other edition, but I focus on higher level play and 5e breaks down sooner than other editions and when it breaks the answer is always "make custom monsters"

I do not even find 5e higher level combats to be shorter, the rounds are shorter and sure it may not last as long as some 4e combats, but dang if I am going to lose the mechanical depth of 3.X, I expect things to proceed faster and be more balanced.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060952Strongly disagree. I find it MORE of a hot mess than any other edition, but I focus on higher level play and 5e breaks down sooner than other editions and when it breaks the answer is always "make custom monsters"

Obviously, not enough people agree with you to keep Pathfinder from dying.

Quote from: Rhedyn;10609525e breaks down sooner than other editions

Weird.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060955Obviously, not enough people agree with you to keep Pathfinder from dying.

Hey Paizo killed Pathfinder by focusing on 2e rather than Pathfinder support.

"Why are most of our players playing 5e after we spent 2 years focusing on a new edition and producing crap like the Shifter?"

They also thought going full SJW thought police on their forums was a good idea and still use their forums as their main source of feedback, or you know being stupid. WotC had the good sense to just kill their forums so they have to get feedback elsewhere. Sadly Mearls seems to only browse TBP.

Now 2e looks like a hot mess of a not-D&D rpg and the SJWs still hate them.

And to be fair, low level Pathfinder sucks (which further boggles my mind as to why Paizo focused on PFS and makes both 2e and SF just low levels stretched out to 20). Of course, I generally dislike low levels, but in 5e low levels are better. And since most people play there, 5e was poised to already be a threat without Paizo blasting off their own feat.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060961Hey Paizo killed Pathfinder by focusing on 2e rather than Pathfinder support.

"Why are most of our players playing 5e after we spent 2 years focusing on a new edition and producing crap like the Shifter?"

They also thought going full SJW thought police on their forums was a good idea and still use their forums as their main source of feedback, or you know being stupid. WotC had the good sense to just kill their forums so they have to get feedback elsewhere. Sadly Mearls seems to only browse TBP.

Now 2e looks like a hot mess of a not-D&D rpg and the SJWs still hate them.

And to be fair, low level Pathfinder sucks (which further boggles my mind as to why Paizo focused on PFS and makes both 2e and SF just low levels stretched out to 20). Of course, I generally dislike low levels, but in 5e low levels are better. And since most people play there, 5e was poised to already be a threat without Paizo blasting off their own feat.

Are you one of those "High-level fighters shouldn't be any good!" people?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060965Are you one of those "High-level fighters shouldn't be any good!" people?

No (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1By01KCl-oeDaH1G3QjX9kkm2zruyjMd9F_NuBvS2K88/edit) Not (https://docs.google.com/document/d/18L4ysghuLs9CcXcJhOBkviXM9zf6wPtUXADhDnX91VY/edit)  At (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mfycq-30A6-AU7yKlC-sa-YaIP-kNYh-2KVbS8VxbAE/edit) All (https://docs.google.com/document/d/17l76D0lZ6JLhTR8r9TkyYMqi-qUiYg-KoEjwrn9-HYs/edit)

Quite the opposite. Paizo didn't buff martials in 2e or Starfinder, they just nerfed casters, so high level fighters still aren't any good and casters are less good.

5e managed to make Fighters sort of decent at high levels, but they don't do anything that a sufficiently optimized Pathfinder fighter couldn't do. They just produce so much raw damage that you want to have them. You know, unless the casters can actually use summoning, animate undead, planar binding, henchmen, etc. Because enough guys with pointy sticks replace anything the fighter is bringing to the table.

Quote from: Razor 007;1060752How likely are you to drop coin and buy the [6e] Books?

Almost no chance. I haven't bought the books for a new edition since 3e. I didn't buy 3.5, 4e, or 5e. I took a look at all of them. Played them/tried them out with people who'd bought them. But I didn't see any reason to buy any of them, or continue to play them. I like my preferred editions better (original D&D or 1e AD&D). I suppose 6e could surprise me and deliver something I like better than what I already play, but I think that's unlikely.

High level play has always been its own kind of game, and it's been pretty poor in every edition. IMHO, one of the mistakes WotC made with 5E was to keep the level 1-20 thing. I doubt it would make a dent in the game's popularity if the level cap was 14. Pretending level 15-20 is even a viable game is kinda dishonest.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060968No (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1By01KCl-oeDaH1G3QjX9kkm2zruyjMd9F_NuBvS2K88/edit) Not (https://docs.google.com/document/d/18L4ysghuLs9CcXcJhOBkviXM9zf6wPtUXADhDnX91VY/edit)  At (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mfycq-30A6-AU7yKlC-sa-YaIP-kNYh-2KVbS8VxbAE/edit) All (https://docs.google.com/document/d/17l76D0lZ6JLhTR8r9TkyYMqi-qUiYg-KoEjwrn9-HYs/edit)

Quite the opposite. Paizo didn't buff martials in 2e or Starfinder, they just nerfed casters, so high level fighters still aren't any good and casters are less good.

5e managed to make Fighters sort of decent at high levels, but they don't do anything that a sufficiently optimized Pathfinder fighter couldn't do. They just produce so much raw damage that you want to have them. You know, unless the casters can actually use summoning, animate undead, planar binding, henchmen, etc. Because enough guys with pointy sticks replace anything the fighter is bringing to the table.

I think you're confusing your preferences with facts and seem unaware of when your preferences don't reflect most people's. You are also extremely muddled in your thinking...you claim that a high-level 5e wizard is far more powerful relative to a high-level 5e fighter than a 3.5 wizard is to a 3.5 fighter, yet you just listed a bunch of things a 3.x wizard can do and then some. You also don't seem to understand that nerfing something overpowered increases the relative value of less powerful things.

I'm going to have to agree with Rhedyn on high-level 5e, it has some pretty awful mechanical holes that mostly go unnoticed because few games that start at levels 1-3 actually reach the level 15+ where those really start to show up. Throw in the nearly useless monster CR guidelines and my experience is that 5e is held together more by the duct tape of DM rulings and goodwill than it's actual mechanical robustness.

The thing is; goodwill and DM rulings can make ANY game system passable. Other than the name D&D, a general feel from very familiar takes on races/classes/monsters and excellent production values, 5e doesn't really have that much to recommend it over any other fantasy RPG on the market. Other than the name, it's a pretty mediocre RPG.

All that said, I still stand by my original assessment that 6e is a long ways off because 5e isn't being marketed on its mechanical robustness; it's being marketed on "This is a D&D that feels like D&D."

If I were running WotC, I'd put out a new game entirely--with just enough overlap with D&D to piggyback off of the brand recognition. In all their monkeying around with the last three editions, they must have the germs of some ideas that were good but not a fit for the main game.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060972I think you're confusing your preferences with facts and seem unaware of when your preferences don't reflect most people's. You are also extremely muddled in your thinking...you claim that a high-level 5e wizard is far more powerful relative to a high-level 5e fighter than a 3.5 wizard is to a 3.5 fighter, yet you just listed a bunch of things a 3.x wizard can do and then some. You also don't seem to understand that nerfing something overpowered increases the relative value of less powerful things.

I think you are having an overly emotional response to me not liking the things you like.

We all recognize that the 3.5 Fighter had problems compared to the 3.5 wizard. Pathfinder did more to address that than 3.5, but the problem was still a problem. My favorite build for a PF Fighter includes the abilities to craft magic armor to fly, high saves to magic, the ability to not touch spells out of the air, and the ability to sunder spells. It's only viable because of anti-magic and the ability to craft most of his own magic items.

For raw Fightering, I think the Cavalier does a better job because you can get a cool flying mount and certain other features that just have more utility without having to be effectively magic.

Now why do I value things like flying and anti-magic so much for 3.X? Well because high level combat require these things for a melee character. Your job is to get in close and kill, but much of the game at that point is devoted to preventing that from happening. It's a complicated magical dual and you showed up with a knife.
Should we perhaps add equally complex amazing martial abilities and tighten up the rules at higher levels so turns don't take forever?

Both WotC and Paizo said, "Nahh". Paizo decided to nerf casters and just make their games more boring. WotC pretended to nerf casters but instead just nerfed monsters a lot and heavily nerfed the Fighters ability to get the magic items to compete. WotC then made higher levels "simpler" with the concentration mechanic, which only makes the game tactically simpler but still allowed for Caster strategic prowess and vast arrays of Caster-unique tools. I will give WotC props that a high level Fighter is part of most meta-comps unless massive armies are an option. For most campaigns, your fighter with one of THE FEATS and magic weapons/advantage is going to evaporate a lot of HP fast.

If Paizo wasn't full of idiots and kept Pathfinder going strong, they might be in a much better position now and WotC would have had to actually compete with a successful game that had happy fans.

Quote from: Haffrung;1060971High level play has always been its own kind of game, and it's been pretty poor in every edition. IMHO, one of the mistakes WotC made with 5E was to keep the level 1-20 thing. I doubt it would make a dent in the game's popularity if the level cap was 14. Pretending level 15-20 is even a viable game is kinda dishonest.

I think I said in another thread that the flattened progression curve was the one thing that I changed right out of the box when 3e first came out. I haven't played outside of my own long running group for a while. Has this made for a generation gap? I could see pretty different expectations from folks who started gaming in the TSR era and rarely played at high levels and considered high level play its own distinct type of game vs people who started in the WotC era and always considered 1-20 in a 6-12 month campaign to be the norm.

Quote from: Razor 007;1060752How likely are you to drop coin and buy the Books?

The last three editions have largely ruined the brand for me. Not to mention I have no intention of supporting WotC.

Quote from: Razor 007;1060752I'm suspicious that a percentage of players will cling to 5E; assuming they are still rolling with D&D.

5E is more popular than 3.5 was, and people chose to cling to it.

Probably true. I'm more likely to go OSR/Fantasy Heartbreaker than to continue with the D&D's brand's slow cruise over the edge.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060965Are you one of those "High-level fighters shouldn't be any good!" people?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060972I think you're confusing your preferences with facts and seem unaware of when your preferences don't reflect most people's. You are also extremely muddled in your thinking...you claim that a high-level 5e wizard is far more powerful relative to a high-level 5e fighter than a 3.5 wizard is to a 3.5 fighter, yet you just listed a bunch of things a 3.x wizard can do and then some. You also don't seem to understand that nerfing something overpowered increases the relative value of less powerful things.

Quote from: Chris24601;1060977I'm going to have to agree with Rhedyn on high-level 5e, it has some pretty awful mechanical holes that mostly go unnoticed because few games that start at levels 1-3 actually reach the level 15+ where those really start to show up. Throw in the nearly useless monster CR guidelines and my experience is that 5e is held together more by the duct tape of DM rulings and goodwill than it's actual mechanical robustness.

Rhedyn's issues with 5e are generally legit, and he's gotten much better at expressing them. I think they a bit of selective focus (Pathfinder having huge issues, and BECMI, which he also talks well of, having redonkulous imbalances at high level), so it feels like he is cherry picking-attacking a specific edition when they all have problems. That does not mean he's one of those guys who think fighters should just make way for spellcasters after level 11 or the like.

I have played 5e to high level (18-20) a few times and while some spells had issues it still worked ok.

Pathfinder at double digit by contrast is a steaming pile of shit, far worse than 3.5e. I ran it to 14th and the Summoned so totally dominated that he STOPPED BOTHERING TO LEVEL UP.  He also stopped BOTHERING with his eidolon even though it is insanely powerful. He could just summon enough octopi to lock down the battlefield.

Quote from: S'mon;1061011I have played 5e to high level (18-20) a few times and while some spells had issues it still worked ok.

Did you/your GM make custom monsters?

Quote from: S'mon;1061011Pathfinder at double digit by contrast is a steaming pile of shit, far worse than 3.5e. I ran it to 14th and the Summoned so totally dominated that he STOPPED BOTHERING TO LEVEL UP.  He also stopped BOTHERING with his eidolon even though it is insanely powerful. He could just summon enough octopi to lock down the battlefield.

The summoner is so badly designed that the Unchained version was just nerfs. The Unchained summoner is a decent class.

Giant Octopi: +13 to-hit and +21 grapple broke your game? How? At level 14?

Quote from: S'mon;1061011I have played 5e to high level (18-20) a few times and while some spells had issues it still worked ok.

Pathfinder at double digit by contrast is a steaming pile of shit, far worse than 3.5e. I ran it to 14th and the Summoned so totally dominated that he STOPPED BOTHERING TO LEVEL UP.  He also stopped BOTHERING with his eidolon even though it is insanely powerful. He could just summon enough octopi to lock down the battlefield.

After my 3-year long Pathfinder/3.x Hybrid game that got to 20th level... I've never wanted to pick up 3.x again. I ran 5e for a good bit when it launched... it didn't stick. LOL the Summoner was the 80-ton anvil on the already overloaded camel's back. It pretty much ended my 40-years of D&D playing.

That takes an awful lot of suckage to break that streak. Yet here we are.

Quote from: tenbones;1061015That takes an awful lot of suckage to break that streak. Yet here we are.

No one in my group wants to run Pathfinder and only half like playing it.

I've personally had far more success running 3.5 with noobs than ever running Pathfinder or 5e. I think Pathfinder is better, but my 3.5 group did get to epic levels plus divine ranks without the game breaking down.  (I think a level 36 swashbuckler/fighter was my highest level PC I ever GM'd for)

Mathfinder has an issue of every PC being it's own seperate math engine and it's just really hard to handle and low levels kind of suck.

It doesn't matter to me whether teenage 3.*/PF "works" or not.  It's such an annoying thing to run, and a play style that I detest, that even if they made it work, I wouldn't run it.  I don't have that issue with 5E.  Whether it "works" because I make it work or something inherent in the system, I can have a fun game with it.  

I think Rhedyn would be happier running something like GURPS or Hero or the like.

Well this may be a little Meta...

But I don't think WotC gives a flying shit about what any of us think. Nor do I think any of their designers other than to pretend to do lip-service. 5e is an excellent example of that.

I have *zero* reason to believe 6e will do anything challenging, kill off some sacred cows. etc. They have no reason to.

Quote from: Razor 007;1060752How likely are you to drop coin and buy the Books?

I'm suspicious that a percentage of players will cling to 5E; assuming they are still rolling with D&D.

5E is more popular than 3.5 was, and people chose to cling to it.

It depends on why they make a 6E and what the design goals are, and what I'm currently interested in at the time. Money on the TTRPG scale isn't really an issue for me but time is and emotional energy is. I continue to buy 5E books like Xanathar's and Mordenkainen's because I find 5E an interesting combat system and an intriguing basis for a CRPG (current hobby: prototyping an adaptation of the Bard's Tale built on top of the 5E combat engine/classes instead of the native Bard's Tale classes; I've shelved my 5E/XCOM prototype for now). But 5E isn't a good TTRPG compared to the other systems I know (GURPS, AD&D, early D&D, DramaSystem, Shadowrun). It can be made into one but it takes a ton of work by the DM, you have to rewrite some rules, augment a lot of monster statistics, create your own game structures and adventures, etc., etc. I think the only reason I'd want to run a 5E campaign would be if I wanted to hybridize it with a computer game, so I could run roleplaying sessions in person but the players could get together for hack-and-slash dungeon crawls online, and then in person we'd do overland/social/wilderness adventures where they get to actually DO DRAMATIC THINGS with the cool loot they found in their dungeon crawls. Essentially I'd want to offload everything combat-related onto the computer (with an option for ad hoc DM alterations of game state) and only DM the out-of-combat bits--but outside of combat, 5E doesn't really even have a system.

So, yeah, I might potentially spend some time and money on it, but I wouldn't expect WotC to produce anything really innovative. Their track record does not inspire confidence. I was perfectly fine ignoring WotC's 3E and 4E and I might very well do the same thing to 6E and maybe even 5E after a while.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1061018It doesn't matter to me whether teenage 3.*/PF "works" or not.  It's such an annoying thing to run, and a play style that I detest, that even if they made it work, I wouldn't run it.  I don't have that issue with 5E.  Whether it "works" because I make it work or something inherent in the system, I can have a fun game with it.  

I think Rhedyn would be happier running something like GURPS or Hero or the like.

Oh it works because you make it work. That's the whole point of 5e. Ignore Sage Advice, official rulings, errata, etc, all that just get in the way of what 5e is suppose to do, act as a platform for the DM to run D&D how they feel D&D should be like, while at the same time giving the players enough "bits" that they feel like they can engage.

GURPS is a fine system. One of my favorites. Savage Worlds is my favorite though because it combines ease of play with "rules for things", along with starting and stopping at a competence level I like. I do miss some of the crazy intricate magic, but my Rifts, Shaintar, or Supers campaigns can scratch that itch. No dungeon crawler needs anything like greater teleport. (And well Savage Worlds magic still ends up being cooler than PF2e magic somehow, at least with the no PP variant)

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061013Did you/your GM make custom monsters?

The summoner is so badly designed that the Unchained version was just nerfs. The Unchained summoner is a decent class.

Giant Octopi: +13 to-hit and +21 grapple broke your game? How? At level 14?

I was running Curse of the Crimson Throne. 3 octopi meant 17 x3 = 51 attack rolls per round. 24 tentacle attack followed by 24 tentacle grapple and 3 bites. They could easily immobilize any foe with the grapples. The adventure expected F8 Gray Maidens to be threatening; it was a joke. The PCs were actually several levels lower than the adventure assumed at the end and I heavily buffed the opposition but there was no way to threaten them without blatant cheating.

5e custom monsters - not really. First campaign the demigod Kainos was an Empyrean with double attacks and a +3 shield for 5 better AC. Second campaign was converted Runelords and I converted some stat blocks from PF. But I used plenty of MM stats too, along with Tome of Beasts.

Quote from: S'mon;1061026I was running Curse of the Crimson Throne. 3 octopi meant 17 x3 = 51 attack rolls per round. 24 tentacle attack followed by 24 tentacle grapple and 3 bites. They could easily immobilize any foe with the grapples. The adventure expected F8 Gray Maidens to be threatening; it was a joke. The PCs were actually several levels lower than the adventure assumed at the end and I heavily buffed the opposition but there was no way to threaten them without blatant cheating.

So level 14, superior augmented summons, rolled a 2 on his d3 to get 3 octopi with 8 tentacle attack and a bite.

You realize grab only activates on a hit right? So its not 17 attacks, it's 9 attacks.

Still, level 8 fighters with NPC gear are a complete joke to a single level 14 PC. I never really like Paizo APs, but that encounter seems extra borked. (By level 14, I assume any optimized party is handling APL+4 encounter and nothing CR 18 cares about Giant octopi)

Just because I find Pathfinder more workable than 5e does not mean I find Pathfinder perfect or even satisfactory. It is a very interesting puzzle, less so RPG or Wargame. It's a math puzzle to me.

The enemy had ca AC20 and I don't recall any tentacles ever missing. They seemed to really like those Gray Maidens... cue the hentai jokes from the female player of the Ranger (not broken like the Summoner, but doing a couple hundred damage a round it was like the German MG42s at the start of Saving Private Ryan).
The only CR 18 in the AP was Queen Ileosa, and only then because I doubled her regen from 25 to 50 a round. I gave her a lot more minions too in the final battle but it was still a cakewalk.

For the record; I like D&D 5E a lot, as presented in the Core 3 Books plus Volo's and Xanathar's.  It doesn't have to be perfect, to be a great game.  There is a lot there that I like.  The climb through the first 11 levels or so seems about right to me.  I can't speak with great authority beyond that though.  I'm not a fan of complexity.

Quote from: S'mon;1061026I was running Curse of the Crimson Throne. 3 octopi meant 17 x3 = 51 attack rolls per round. 24 tentacle attack followed by 24 tentacle grapple and 3 bites. They could easily immobilize any foe with the grapples. The adventure expected F8 Gray Maidens to be threatening; it was a joke. The PCs were actually several levels lower than the adventure assumed at the end and I heavily buffed the opposition but there was no way to threaten them without blatant cheating.

So level 14, superior augmented summons, rolled a 2 on his d3 to get 3 octopi with 8 tentacle attack and a bite.

You realize grab only activates on a hit right? So its not 17 attacks, it's 9 attacks.

Still, level 8 fighters with NPC gear are a complete joke to a single level 14 PC. I never really like Paizo APs, but that encounter seems extra borked. (By level 14, I assume any optimized party is handling APL+4 encounter and nothing CR 18 cares about Giant octopi)

Just because I find Pathfinder more workable than 5e does not mean I find Pathfinder perfect or even satisfactory. It is a very interesting puzzle, less so RPG or Wargame. It's a math puzzle to me.

Quote from: S'mon;10610265e custom monsters - not really. First campaign the demigod Kainos was an Empyrean with double attacks and a +3 shield for 5 better AC. Second campaign was converted Runelords and I converted some stat blocks from PF. But I used plenty of MM stats too, along with Tome of Beasts.

1. Edited a monster

2. I would consider these just custom monsters.

3. Someone else made custom monsters for you.

Our group of 7 ran out of anything useful in the MM by level 8. I think the MM is one of the worst books in 5e. It's where all the system problems really come to a head. If DM can make custom monster to make their campaigns work and 3rd party can as well. It's just WotC that doesn't know what it is doing.

Quote from: S'mon;1061029The enemy had ca AC20 and I don't recall any tentacles ever missing. They seemed to really like those Gray Maidens... cue the hentai jokes from the female player of the Ranger (not broken like the Summoner, but doing a couple hundred damage a round it was like the German MG42s at the start of Saving Private Ryan).
The only CR 18 in the AP was Queen Ileosa, and only then because I doubled her regen from 25 to 50 a round. I gave her a lot more minions too in the final battle but it was still a cakewalk.

Based on my rough CR math, anything less than a thousand Gray Maidens per player should have been a cake walk for a level 14 party.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061033Based on my rough CR math, anything less than a thousand Gray Maidens per player should have been a cake walk for a level 14 party.

The adventure had something like 8 at a time in patrols - these had not been threatening even when the PCs were 8th themselves. Backed up by a horned devil and such.

Easy fights combined with rocketing up levels every 2 sessions for much of the AP.

Edit: To be fair the last Gray Maidens were at 13th level. The PCs hit 14 at Ileosa's ziggurat.

Quote from: S'mon;1061034The adventure had something like 8 at a time in patrols - these had not been threatening even when the PCs were 8th themselves. Backed up by a horned devil and such.

Easy fights combined with rocketing up levels every 2 sessions for much of the AP.

Idk why Paizo gets so make credit for their "amazing" APs, I've never been that impressed with them. I guess they are still better than WotC at it? But is that an accomplishment?

I guess for an industry that for the most part will focus on at most two companies, that can be good enough.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061031So level 14, superior augmented summons, rolled a 2 on his d3 to get 3 octopi with 8 tentacle attack and a bite.

You realize grab only activates on a hit right? So its not 17 attacks, it's 9 attacks.

Still, level 8 fighters with NPC gear are a complete joke to a single level 14 PC. I never really like Paizo APs, but that encounter seems extra borked. (By level 14, I assume any optimized party is handling APL+4 encounter and nothing CR 18 cares about Giant octopi)

Just because I find Pathfinder more workable than 5e does not mean I find Pathfinder perfect or even satisfactory. It is a very interesting puzzle, less so RPG or Wargame. It's a math puzzle to me.



1. Edited a monster

2. I would consider these just custom monsters.

3. Someone else made custom monsters for you.

Our group of 7 ran out of anything useful in the MM by level 8. I think the MM is one of the worst books in 5e. It's where all the system problems really come to a head. If DM can make custom monster to make their campaigns work and 3rd party can as well. It's just WotC that doesn't know what it is doing.

I think the 5e MM is definitely skimpy at the high end. But I have used a Lich and an ancient black Dragon to good effect. Some demons like the Nalfeshnee are quite nasty.  It certainly works way better than PF for me anyway.

There are definitely problems with 5e MM monsters. I just find these easy to fix. I don't find 3e/PF structural problems fixable.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060983Both WotC and Paizo said, "Nahh". Paizo decided to nerf casters and just make their games more boring. WotC pretended to nerf casters but instead just nerfed monsters a lot and heavily nerfed the Fighters ability to get the magic items to compete. WotC then made higher levels "simpler" with the concentration mechanic, which only makes the game tactically simpler but still allowed for Caster strategic prowess and vast arrays of Caster-unique tools. I will give WotC props that a high level Fighter is part of most meta-comps unless massive armies are an option. For most campaigns, your fighter with one of THE FEATS and magic weapons/advantage is going to evaporate a lot of HP fast.

If Paizo wasn't full of idiots and kept Pathfinder going strong, they might be in a much better position now and WotC would have had to actually compete with a successful game that had happy fans.

Or both Paizo and WotC recognized that it's impossible to provide both both low-level low-powered play and high-level mega powerful play using the same system. Honestly, I don't know why fans of high-level play can't recognize that D&D isn't the game they're looking for, and probably never has been.

Quote from: S'mon;1061037I think the 5e MM is definitely skimpy at the high end. But I have used a Lich and an ancient black Dragon to good effect. Some demons like the Nalfeshnee are quite nasty.  It certainly works way better than PF for me anyway.

There are definitely problems with 5e MM monsters. I just find these easy to fix. I don't find 3e/PF structural problems fixable.

There is definitely something to be said for incomplete but simple, over comprehensive but complex and busted:

-- GURPS or Hero -- There are some good ways to handle complex things once you understand what you doing.  These things generally work.  When they don't work, you usually understand how to fix them, because you had to get over the learning curve to use the system at all.

-- 5E, BECMI/RC -- A lot of stuff simply isn't there.  You are on your own.  However, this is clear, and you can extrapolate from what is there to how you want to do things.

-- 3E, 3.5, PF -- There is this huge pile of stuff, and before you can fix anything in it, you need to untangle and shed all the problem bits, and then rebuild from the ground up.  If that even works, because it might be so hopelessly mixed up in some other subsystem that it's a fool's errand.  

Granted, there is room for different personalities to put a somewhat different slant on the relative balance of those tendencies.  I'm really annoyed by complex, tangled things that only sort of work.  Missing or incomplete, I can tolerate a lot more.

AD&D is an interesting thing on that scale.  It's got a lot of complex pieces with a learning curve that make them a little hard to grasp (though maybe due to presentation more than the material).  However, you don't necessarily get the tangled aspect.  It's an imperfect system that will handle a lot of change without falling completely apart.

Quote from: Haffrung;1061040Honestly, I don't know why fans of high-level play can't recognize that D&D isn't the game they're looking for, and probably never has been.

So then the question becomes: What is the game they're looking for?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1061045There is definitely something to be said for incomplete but simple, over comprehensive but complex and busted:

-- GURPS or Hero -- There are some good ways to handle complex things once you understand what you doing.  These things generally work.  When they don't work, you usually understand how to fix them, because you had to get over the learning curve to use the system at all.

-- 5E, BECMI/RC -- A lot of stuff simply isn't there.  You are on your own.  However, this is clear, and you can extrapolate from what is there to how you want to do things.

-- 3E, 3.5, PF -- There is this huge pile of stuff, and before you can fix anything in it, you need to untangle and shed all the problem bits, and then rebuild from the ground up.  If that even works, because it might be so hopelessly mixed up in some other subsystem that it's a fool's errand.  

Granted, there is room for different personalities to put a somewhat different slant on the relative balance of those tendencies.  I'm really annoyed by complex, tangled things that only sort of work.  Missing or incomplete, I can tolerate a lot more.

AD&D is an interesting thing on that scale.  It's got a lot of complex pieces with a learning curve that make them a little hard to grasp (though maybe due to presentation more than the material).  However, you don't necessarily get the tangled aspect.  It's an imperfect system that will handle a lot of change without falling completely apart.

Yes, agreed, good post. AD&D is notorious for having un-connected complicated subsystems that can easily be ignored, and new ones plugged in. 3e/PF is highly interconnected. I put a LOT of effort into fixing it but I don't think I ever came close. Eg I made saves easier at high level, because of the save or suck issue, and found this made Rogues immune to dragon breath, completely unintended.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060983I think you are having an overly emotional response to me not liking the things you like.

No, I'm actually irritated that you seem unable to separate your personal preferences from market success. It's really common to run into enthusiasts who think that what they, personally, like is the key to success. This is almost never the case. Want to know how to make successful audio equipment? Don't talk to an audiophile. Want to sell cars? Don't talk to an autocross driver. Want to sell RPGs? Don't talk to a 3.5 enthusiast. I like a lot of things that aren't popular, but I'm conscious that the things I like about them are often why they're not popular...you, by contrast, seem to think the key to (more) success is reintroducing 3.5's monster-building tools and bringing feat chains back. And that's what annoying. You can't say, "I like monster feats & classes, but I recognize how that added a lot of complexity that turned off a lot of people." You've gone on and on about 3.5 monster-building with zero awareness of how taking hours to stat out monsters is something a lot of people actively don't want to do. e.g. this statement:

QuoteIf Paizo wasn't full of idiots and kept Pathfinder going strong, they might be in a much better position now and WotC would have had to actually compete with a successful game that had happy fans.

Only someone who confuses their personal love of 3.x with mass market demand could think this. Paizo was screwed the moment 5e hit the shelves. There wasn't anything they could do. PF2 is going to fail. PF2 could be the most brilliant RPG system ever devised, and it will fail. It could be everything that I, personally, or you, personally, want out of an RPG, and it will fail.

Your lengthy explanations of how you spelunked expansions to build a 3.5 fighter that wasn't totally useless by 12th level just illustrate my point. Robust products do not need expert knowledge in order to make them work to the customer's satisfaction. You can get 5 people who are literally learning D&D as they go, and by 15th level, it will mostly be fine. Write "Human Fighter," "halfing rogue," "dwarven cleric," and "half-elf wizard" on your sheets, and you'll be fine. It doesn't need to be perfect. A few wonky things will show up, but nowhere near on the scale that the wheels fly off 3.5 by that point. The measure of a product isn't how well the expert consumer can use it, but on how satisfied the average consumer is.

Quote from: Apparition;1061047So then the question becomes: What is the game they're looking for?

Godbound by Sine Nomine / Kevin Crawford. It's High Level D&D cooked in Exalted sauce with Kevin's secret blend of herbs and spices and the end result is freaking awesome. It's a shame he doesn't have a stronger offline marketing for the game because it kicks so much ass. Build a floating castle over your own kingdom? Yeah, no problem. Wanna build a heavenly domain in your image? Sure can!

Godbound takes high level play...to a very high level!

Here's the free PDF
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/185959/Godbound-A-Game-of-Divine-Heroes-Free-Edition

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061057Paizo was screwed the moment 5e hit the shelves. There wasn't anything they could do. PF2 is going to fail. PF2 could be the most brilliant RPG system ever devised, and it will fail.

If "fail" means "sell more than 5e", then I agree. I don't support 5e, but I acknowledge its sales success.

However, I don't believe PF2 will be a failure compared to Starfinder or other 2nd tier RPGs (RuneQuest, CoC, Shadowrun, etc).

Also, we are several years into 5e so PF2 might represent something new and interesting to new gamers who began with 5e who may never have played PF1e or any other RPG.

I am NO fan of Paizo, but their artwork is far superior to WotC and their stuff grabs eyeballs.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061057...The measure of a product isn't how well the expert consumer can use it, but on how satisfied the average consumer is.

This was a measured, thoughtful and spot-on response.

It's absolutely OK to recognize something we may want is not what most people want. It's also completely understandable to be disappointed about that. In that disappointment however, we should remember that there's hundreds of games to appeal to all our wants/opinions. The existence of a new game does not invalidate the old game. I don't like D&D (d20, class, level, HP) systems. I also recognize that is not a popular opinion. :-D

Quote from: Spinachcat;1061065I am NO fan of Paizo, but their artwork is far superior to WotC and their stuff grabs eyeballs.

They've always had great art direction. I remember during the 4e D&D era, people would point out shitty 4e art and great PF art...
 ...by the same artist.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1061065If "fail" means "sell more than 5e", then I agree. I don't support 5e, but I acknowledge its sales success.

However, I don't believe PF2 will be a failure compared to Starfinder or other 2nd tier RPGs (RuneQuest, CoC, Shadowrun, etc).

Also, we are several years into 5e so PF2 might represent something new and interesting to new gamers who began with 5e who may never have played PF1e or any other RPG.

I am NO fan of Paizo, but their artwork is far superior to WotC and their stuff grabs eyeballs.

PF2 will do fine compared to CoC and the rest but it'll never come close to PF1's sales. It'll be hard to do that without WotC sniffing glue.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061057No, I'm actually irritated that you seem unable to separate your personal preferences from market success. It's really common to run into enthusiasts who think that what they, personally, like is the key to success. This is almost never the case. Want to know how to make successful audio equipment? Don't talk to an audiophile. Want to sell cars? Don't talk to an autocross driver. Want to sell RPGs? Don't talk to a 3.5 enthusiast. I like a lot of things that aren't popular, but I'm conscious that the things I like about them are often why they're not popular...you, by contrast, seem to think the key to (more) success is reintroducing 3.5's monster-building tools and bringing feat chains back. And that's what annoying. You can't say, "I like monster feats & classes, but I recognize how that added a lot of complexity that turned off a lot of people." You've gone on and on about 3.5 monster-building with zero awareness of how taking hours to stat out monsters is something a lot of people actively don't want to do. e.g. this statement:



Only someone who confuses their personal love of 3.x with mass market demand could think this. Paizo was screwed the moment 5e hit the shelves. There wasn't anything they could do. PF2 is going to fail. PF2 could be the most brilliant RPG system ever devised, and it will fail. It could be everything that I, personally, or you, personally, want out of an RPG, and it will fail.

Your lengthy explanations of how you spelunked expansions to build a 3.5 fighter that wasn't totally useless by 12th level just illustrate my point. Robust products do not need expert knowledge in order to make them work to the customer's satisfaction. You can get 5 people who are literally learning D&D as they go, and by 15th level, it will mostly be fine. Write "Human Fighter," "halfing rogue," "dwarven cleric," and "half-elf wizard" on your sheets, and you'll be fine. It doesn't need to be perfect. A few wonky things will show up, but nowhere near on the scale that the wheels fly off 3.5 by that point. The measure of a product isn't how well the expert consumer can use it, but on how satisfied the average consumer is.

This response is either overly emotional or insane because you are arguing against things I never said.

You took, "I don't like 5e. It is a mess of a system at higher levels" and "I find Pathfinder more tolerable" and "PF2e looks like garbage", and then you extrapolated this strawman to argue against who was advocating monster feats or some other nonsense.

Quote from: Daztur;1061081PF2 will do fine compared to CoC and the rest but it'll never come close to PF1's sales. It'll be hard to do that without WotC sniffing glue.

I am unsure about "never" because 5e has brought in a new generation of gamers. Just as a certain set of AD&Ders enjoyed the system wonkery of 3e, there may be subset of 5e fans who would be drawn to PF2e. Also, I wonder about the PF1e crowd. Its conceivable they will migrate to PF2e.

Additionally, there's the PF2e Org Play via Pathfinder Society. It is conceivable their Org Play may do something to draw away 5e AL players even if WotC doesn't drop the ball.

But none of that happens without a notable marketing push. Right now, there are no major D&D or PF video games. If a PF game came out that kicked ass (not just a tired fantasy retread using the license), I could see PF2e riding high on that.

But without major marketing? Then Paizo will do well against the 2nd tier who also don't do any meaningful marketing, but not achieve PF1e sales. Though, if they strip down the company to a minimal staff as cost control, they can keep cranking for the next decade.

Pathfinder 2 will find a very small audience compared to PF1.

Quote from: Thornhammer;1060903Pricing on that thing is bizarre.  Fifty bucks retail.  Guys on eBay selling it for $65 - and getting that.  I bought a brand new copy for $22 shipped.  It's all over the map.

Thats allways the case. Ebay is never an indicator of anything other than how stupid some buyers or especially sellers can be. You have to sort out the dross to get to the real sales.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1060918There's no need for a new edition, ever, because the system isn't a hot mess anymore. They'll do a big update the art at some point to keep up with trends and rewrite some of the text, but you're not going to see an overhaul as radical as the last several. What would the point be?

I am actually surprised that in the 11+ printings and updates that they have not actually tweaked any art far as can tell. The reason may be simple. Cost. Its easier to go with what you have rather than blowing it on new art and likely having to retool some plates which is more cost. and it might cause confusion as to if a book is legit or not if someone found new art in a print un-announced. Sone get a little confused when they discover the corrections in later prints. So new art is unlikely.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1060919Nerds will buy into the latest version of anything.

Except that people are still clinging to 3e in the form of 3e itself and more prominently Pathfinder which is 3e+. Players deserted 4e en-mass to cling to 3e. And still do well into 5e.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1061084Then Paizo will do well against the 2nd tier who also don't do any meaningful marketing, but not achieve PF1e sales. Though, if they strip down the company to a minimal staff as cost control, they can keep cranking for the next decade.

This seems like the plausible best case scenario for them, assuming they don't start producing 5e compatible material via the OGL. It looks like they think PF2 can make them competitive with 5e, but that's not going to happen. The only way PF2 can be a huge success is if WoTC announced 6e - and 6e was rejected like 4e.

The number 1 reason PF2e will be a failure is that it needs to support a significant amount of full time staff in Seattle office spaces.

Paizo needs to compete with 5e just to keep the doors open in their RPG department.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061145The number 1 reason PF2e will be a failure is that it needs to support a significant amount of full time staff in Seattle office spaces.

Paizo needs to compete with 5e just to keep the doors open in their RPG department.

This is definitely the big problem for them, they grew to be a lot bigger than WoTC's D&D department and are not set up to be a second tier publisher.

Success for PF2 means, at minimum, stopping Paizo's customer base from shrinking. It will fail to do this. The problem Paizo faces is that they are no longer the torch-bearers for the definitive version of D&D, and the traditional market for fantasy heartbreakers is tiny. Enough of the market rejected 4e to allow them to steal the crown from WotC for a while, but it's embraced 5e, so there is simply nowhere for Paizo to go, i.e.

Quote from: S'mon;1061130The only way PF2 can be a huge success is if WoTC announced 6e - and 6e was rejected like 4e.

At this point, there is less reason than ever for a radical revision of the D&D rules. 5e rules are not everyone's cup of tea (e.g. Rhedyn and tenbones), but sufficiently many people like them sufficiently well enough, and this far in, there aren't crippling systemic issues driving players away or keeping players from starting.  PF2 won't immediately crash down to 2% of the market, but Paizo is going to struggle and decline.

About the only hope Paizo has of staying a top-tier publisher is if a couple popular nerd celebrities start streaming sessions of Pathfinder. But why would those celebrities turn their backs on D&D when D&D is the most popular game and they themselves are chasing subscribers? Digital streaming has only amplified D&D's front-runner advantage at drawing in casuals, lapsed players, and newbs. The only way I can see a tabletop RPG challenge D&D at this point is if it's appreciably easier to play and run at the table. And that's not Pathfinder.

Not really interested in a 6e DnD right now. Wouldn't hurt to have a nice fire sale on 5e stuff, considering I've bought no WotC products for it. But that's just my hoarder greed... it's not like my house needs more chapels to gaming.

As for PF2, not even remotely interested... but I don't wish them ill. Some people enjoy the badwrongfun because they live in a state of ignorance or apostacy. :p I keeed, I keeeed! :D

Quote from: Spinachcat;1061084I am unsure about "never" because 5e has brought in a new generation of gamers. Just as a certain set of AD&Ders enjoyed the system wonkery of 3e, there may be subset of 5e fans who would be drawn to PF2e. Also, I wonder about the PF1e crowd. Its conceivable they will migrate to PF2e.

Additionally, there's the PF2e Org Play via Pathfinder Society. It is conceivable their Org Play may do something to draw away 5e AL players even if WotC doesn't drop the ball.

But none of that happens without a notable marketing push. Right now, there are no major D&D or PF video games. If a PF game came out that kicked ass (not just a tired fantasy retread using the license), I could see PF2e riding high on that.

But without major marketing? Then Paizo will do well against the 2nd tier who also don't do any meaningful marketing, but not achieve PF1e sales. Though, if they strip down the company to a minimal staff as cost control, they can keep cranking for the next decade.

Well I wouldn't hold out too much hope for a PF computer game with Pathfinder Online looking like vaporware but good point about 5ed growing the market enough that a smaller section of the pie can generate more sales.

Just haven't seen any significant flow of 5ed newbies to Pathfinder. Pathfinder's model of "3ed with more bells and whistles" seems pretty impenetrable if you don't already know 3ed. In my local community PF seems to have dried up nearly as much as 4ed leaving 5ed clearly dominant with a smattering of OSR and non-D&D stuff.

PF did get new people via friends of people who were already playing PF.

PF players tended to be content hungry and very profitable because of that.

Paizo spent much of 5e's lifecycle focused on making new games and new editions rather than producing content for Pathfinder. Naturally, many of Pathfinder's fans got bored with the content and moved to something else (many even went to 5e because hey it had new content). And with them went Paizo's main source of new Pathfinder players. Now they are in position to compete with Pathfinder anymore and will sink or swim off of PF2e, which just isn't good.

Quote from: Daztur;1061224In my local community PF seems to have dried up nearly as much as 4ed leaving 5ed clearly dominant with a smattering of OSR and non-D&D stuff.

That fits my experience. But there are still lots of people out there in their 30s who got into D&D 2000-2007 who see 3e D&D as ur-D&D, and are happy playing Pathfinder in their home groups til the cows come home. Pathfinder was never very successful in bringing in new players even in 2009-2013 but it retains a solid base of support to whom they can still sell stuff.

Edit: With the Great Wars of 2003-2008, 3e-PF seems to have a particularly strong play base in the US military, at least veterans of that era who spent long hours playing it on base. Isaac Arthur (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g) plays Pathfinder. :)

Selling more and more product to your most dedicated users is one of those things that sounds smart to MBAs but kills your business over the long term. But Paizo never had anywhere else to go. They don't sell their own RPG; they sell a legacy version of somebody else's. That's not the kind of thing that naturally has a large market. It lasts only until the owner of the original product gets its crap together and starts making the market happy again. Paizo sowed the seeds of its own destruction the first time they printed "3.5 THRIVES!" on a product.

Idk, if I had a few hundred people willing to subscribe to more than a thousand dollars a year to my product, I would find some way to keep them happy.

If GURPS can maintain two full time devs/editors and crank out content, then surely Paizo could have done that for Pathfinder.

Their attempt at their own RPG has been
a sad Trainwreck.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061280Idk, if I had a few hundred people willing to subscribe to more than a thousand dollars a year to my product, I would find some way to keep them happy.

If GURPS can maintain two full time devs/editors and crank out content, then surely Paizo could have done that for Pathfinder.

Their attempt at their own RPG has been
a sad Trainwreck.

Tangentially, GURPS is now quietly down to one full time dev/editor. And Pyramid, their digital magazine, ends this year.

Back OT, with the larger playerbase and revenues, Paizo definitely had a lot of options available. PF2 demonstrates a lack of business competence - as others have commented, here and elsewhere, they drank their own kool-aid and believe that they are the Second Coming of 1970s TSR.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061277Selling more and more product to your most dedicated users is one of those things that sounds smart to MBAs but kills your business over the long term. But Paizo never had anywhere else to go. They don't sell their own RPG; they sell a legacy version of somebody else's. That's not the kind of thing that naturally has a large market. It lasts only until the owner of the original product gets its crap together and starts making the market happy again. Paizo sowed the seeds of its own destruction the first time they printed "3.5 THRIVES!" on a product.

Can't really blame them, it was a golden business opportunity and they grabbed ahold of it, it'd be crazy not to, especially as it was impossible to know at that point that 5ed wouldn't suck as well. They did get really overconfident afterwards as can be seen with idiocy like Pathfinder Online.

But like you said people nostalgic for 3ed wasn't really set up to be a growing market segment. It'd really hard for a business to say "we're making bank now but it's not going to last so we've got to prepare for our market position to contract in the mid-term and set up for that" instead of "wheeeeeee, we're the most popular RPG on the market!"

Our comment also reminds me of how a lot of newspapers have very nice profit margins they days. They do that by firing people, cutting back on content and raising prices. This drops sales but there's enough of a customer base of old people to keep on chugging with slowly declining sales every year making good (but slowly less money) year by year with no real hope of ever having any growth.

Quote from: S'mon;1061232That fits my experience. But there are still lots of people out there in their 30s who got into D&D 2000-2007 who see 3e D&D as ur-D&D, and are happy playing Pathfinder in their home groups til the cows come home. Pathfinder was never very successful in bringing in new players even in 2009-2013 but it retains a solid base of support to whom they can still sell stuff.

Edit: With the Great Wars of 2003-2008, 3e-PF seems to have a particularly strong play base in the US military, at least veterans of that era who spent long hours playing it on base. Isaac Arthur (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g) plays Pathfinder. :)

Yeah that's a safe and fairly durable market, but they might not stick around for the changeover to PF2, especially as they have a stack of PF books now and they're not going to want more forever and ever and ever.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061057Only someone who confuses their personal love of 3.x with mass market demand could think this. Paizo was screwed the moment 5e hit the shelves. There wasn't anything they could do. PF2 is going to fail. PF2 could be the most brilliant RPG system ever devised, and it will fail. It could be everything that I, personally, or you, personally, want out of an RPG, and it will fail.

I have to disagree on this point. There are still a fair number who for whatever reasons love the brokenness of 3e/Pathfinder and have not jumped on the 5e bandwagon. One of my players and the group he plays with are exactly that. They do not like 5es ease of play.

All Paizo had to do was keep Pathfinder chugging along and just wait for WOTC to sadly near inevitably screw the pooch and then present the mutant offspring as 6e. Then pick up the pieces AGAIN. They could make a 5e D&D Pathfinder and rake in the fans if WOTC screws up spectacularly.

I am hoping WOTC dodged that bullet and sticks with 5e for a good long time, updating the game with expansion books rather than killing 5e for this insane marketing obsession of edition treadmilling.

A big part of Pathfinder's appeal is their adventure paths. They've managed to create a lot of iconic campaigns that people want to be part of, and their AP subscribers form the foundation of their business model. The question is if Paizo's APs can continue to generate buzz and FOMO in a geeksphere where WotC/5E has come to dominate with live play and streaming?

Quote from: Omega;1061326...

All Paizo had to do was keep Pathfinder chugging along and just wait for WOTC to sadly near inevitably screw the pooch and then present the mutant offspring as 6e. Then pick up the pieces AGAIN. ....

Remember when 5e was first announced? It was supposed to be modular. So, you could start with an Old School basic game and add options as desired. In my opinion, the rules options offered hardly touch a modular style plug-in set. They certainly don't get you back to 3.5 levels of tactical complexity or character options. Let WOTC focus on the crowd that likes lighter games.

There's no reason Paizo can't just OGL in parts of 5e right now. It is OGL. They don't have to wait for anything. The Crunchier D&D market is already theirs.

I believe Paizo should just create Advanced "D&D" (Pathfinder) - modular plug-ins for the world's most popular roleplaying game. Take 5e base and actually create the rules modules that groups can up the complexity of D&D as desired. Paizo is already focusing on a crowd that likes a crunchier game - make the current popular game crunchier!

Then, focus on what made you good in the first place. Adventure Paths! Lots of materials that help GMs pull off amazing games. Awesome monster books! Pawns. Maps.

I agree with everyone here who finds Paizo's doubling down to be self-defeating. Be the market-savvy group of designers you were when you started.

The issue with PF2e is that it isn't doubling down on Pathfinder.

It's a crunch heavy game where Paizo has added tons and tons of useless options on top of pointless mechanics, as though their fans get off on mindless minuet fiddling with bullshit.

A good chunk of 5e abilities are cooler and 5e casters are far more interesting than their PF2e counter parts.

PF2e is a harder to play, less interesting 5e. 3.5 at least gets to claim deeper characters than 5e.

With PF2e as their main competition, WotC has no competition. Pathfinder 1e was better competition than 2e is going to be.

So a 6e is only happening if something goes wrong with 5e or a real competitor steps up.

Quote from: trechriron;1061385Remember when 5e was first announced? It was supposed to be modular. So, you could start with an Old School basic game and add options as desired. In my opinion, the rules options offered hardly touch a modular style plug-in set. They certainly don't get you back to 3.5 levels of tactical complexity or character options. Let WOTC focus on the crowd that likes lighter games.

There's no reason Paizo can't just OGL in parts of 5e right now. It is OGL. They don't have to wait for anything. The Crunchier D&D market is already theirs.

I doubt the people who care primarily about "crunch" are a large market. Pathfinder's main appeal was familiarity and support. 4e was plenty crunchy. But it wasn't familiar-feeling. Today, Pathfinder's main appeal is inertia. If you are happy in your PF game, why switch? Learning new rules is a pain in the butt!

So I think it's a mistake to think there's much money to be had by making a 5e clone with more feats and class options (most customers like the idea of many options, but never actually use them). The truth is, in a market like games, people go with the leading brand and are very unlikely to switch unless the leader is actively making them unhappy. Paizo only has a variety of bad options, all of which will force them to make cuts. I predicted they would try to make an all-new RPG because that's the option that seems like it has the most potential to keep growing, but it won't actually do that.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061425...I predicted they would try to make an all-new RPG because that's the option that seems like it has the most potential to keep growing, but it won't actually do that.

I do not imagine why you think that is the case.

Even WotC does not float on the D&D RPG alone.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061430I do not imagine why you think that is the case.

Are you asking me to explain my reasoning?

QuoteEven WotC does not float on the D&D RPG alone.

What's that have to do with Pathfinder?

As far as I can tell, Paizo is doing fine. Their user base is growing rather than shrinking. It's growing slower than 5e's is growing, but that's not all that relevant to Paizo. A rising tide really does raise all boats, and 5e's popularity is also helping out Paizo sales.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061425I doubt the people who care primarily about "crunch" are a large market. Pathfinder's main appeal was familiarity and support. 4e was plenty crunchy. But it wasn't familiar-feeling. Today, Pathfinder's main appeal is inertia. If you are happy in your PF game, why switch? Learning new rules is a pain in the butt!

I'm gonna have to disagree. A lot of people LIKE crunch and the character creation mini-game.

4e was plenty crunchy - but it actually cut down on a lot of the customization, and much of what there was wasn't real choice - but mostly magician's choice - where all the abilities at most levels were very similar. Plus - they removed a lot of asymmetry in general for the sake of balance. (Which worked - but it's the easiest and most boring way to achieve balance.)

So - people don't like crunch for the sake of crunch. They like customization and fun/flavorful crunch where they're making real decisions. 4e had none of those things.

Now - I'm a bit dubious about PF2. What little I've seen of it makes me think they're not putting crunch in the right places - but there is certainly a market for WELL DONE crunch. It's not as big a market as 5e's, but TTRPG sales as a whole are growing, and IF (and that's a big "if") PF2 is very well done, I could certainly see it maintain PF1 level sales numerically - though I would be shocked if it ever let Paizo regain the #1 slot from D&D. But - a smaller % of a bigger pie can be plenty big.

Unless D&D screws up again I don't see anyone else taking the #1 slot any time soon. So - it makes sense to try to slice off parts of the market which 5e doesn't totally match. 5e's middling crunch/customization, so there's room for game's aimed at gamers who prefer substantially lighter or heavier games - not to mention other vibes/genres.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1061457I'm gonna have to disagree. A lot of people LIKE crunch and the character creation mini-game.

Not what I said.  I said the people who care primarily about crunch are a small market. A person might like character customization in Pathfinder without that being the determining factor in why he's playing it. The people who care so much about rules-complexity that it determines their buying habits are expert, enthusiast users. They're the RPG equivalent of audiophiles. In fact, let's be real clear and self-aware here...people who post about D&D on obscure internet forums are the D&D equivalent of audiophiles who believe special volume knob lacquer enhances the sound. In any given market, your expert user, the one who is guided by technicals, is maybe 1% to 5% of the user base (experts are also completely incapable of understanding non-expert users).

There's simply no way the average PF player cares in particular about the complex system of feats & sit mods and all that. I say this confidently because there are far too many PF players for most of them to be that kind of person. If people cared about "crunch" in the abstract, Starfinder would be a big hit. But of course, it's a failure. The problem is not the ship-to-ship combat. The problem is not sci-fi. the problem is not that it lacks full casters. The problem is not that EVERYONE HAS AMNESIA is a dumb premise for a setting. The problem is hardly anybody cares about Paizo or its crunch.

QuoteSo - people don't like crunch for the sake of crunch. They like customization and fun/flavorful crunch where they're making real decisions. 4e had none of those things.

4e did not fail because the options weren't meaningful. Maybe that's why crunch-nerds rejected it, but 95% players aren't crunch-nerds (and 5e is less crunchy than 4e anyway).  More than anything, people like the familiar. They like their jeans to be blue, they like having a "start" menu in Windows, they like their Diet Coke to taste like chemical warfare, and they like their D&D's fireball to mean hurling a fistful of d6s on the table.  They bought Pathfinder primarily because it felt familiar and 4e didn't.  In an alternative universe where D&D 3 was just a cleaned-up AD&D, 4e was what it was, and Lisa Stevens responded to the GSL by printing up the AD&D 3 SRD with fresh art and adventures, Paizo would have been just as successful. Or, in a different alternative universe, where WotC followed up 3.5 with 5e, Pathfinder is as obscure as 13th Age.

QuoteNow - I'm a bit dubious about PF2. What little I've seen of it makes me think they're not putting crunch in the right places - but there is certainly a market for WELL DONE crunch. It's not as big a market as 5e's, but TTRPG sales as a whole are growing, and IF (and that's a big "if") PF2 is very well done, I could certainly see it maintain PF1 level sales numerically - though I would be shocked if it ever let Paizo regain the #1 slot from D&D. But - a smaller % of a bigger pie can be plenty big.

If PF2 is the best damn fantasy heartbreaker ever made, it will still decline over PF1. There's just not a naturally large audience for fantasy heartbreakers, and there's not a wave of people rejecting 5e to sell into. People want to play D&D, and PF2 doesn't look much like D&D. It's just some fantasy RPG that hardly anybody is going to take the time to learn (people actually don't like learning rules). Some portion of PF players will stick with PF1, and some will drop out of RPGs, some will switch to 5e or a different game. They won't have enough new players to offset the attrition.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;10614764e did not fail because the options weren't meaningful. Maybe that's why crunch-nerds rejected it, but 95% players aren't crunch-nerds (and 5e is less crunchy than 4e anyway).  

No - I'm gonna have to disagree with this.

Now - many people who only dabble in this stuff can't put their finger on WHY they didn't like 4e options. But I know a lot of people who aren't into rules nerding who said things along the lines of "The ranger felt too much like the X" or "It felt repetitive" etc. They didn't delve into the crunch enough to know WHY they didn't like 4e, but a large chunk of the reason was that it had all of that crunch without the 3e payoff of real options & asymmetry.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061476If PF2 is the best damn fantasy heartbreaker ever made, it will still decline over PF1.

As a % of the market - I definitely agree. However - the TTRPG market has been expanding a lot lately for a variety of reasons. (Stranger Things / 5e being easier to pick up / Boardgame Renaissance acting as a gateway drug etc.)  If they can get 15% of a market of 10 million gamers, that'll get them the same sales as 40% of 3.75 million gamers. (Note: I just pulled those #s out of thin air - just an example of how it might work out for them despite losing market share so long as the market itself grows.)

Quote from: Mistwell;1061450As far as I can tell, Paizo is doing fine. Their user base is growing rather than shrinking. It's growing slower than 5e's is growing, but that's not all that relevant to Paizo. A rising tide really does raise all boats, and 5e's popularity is also helping out Paizo sales.

Checking amazon.co.uk:
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Core Rulebook 32,725 in Books
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Core Rulebook (Pocket Edition)  211,874 in Books
Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook 331,726 in Books

Compare:
Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game 3rd Edition 183,089 in Books
Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook 888 in Books

So I'm not seeing any evidence of Pathfinder growth in the UK, at least. Whereas there is plenty of indication that 5e D&D is doing very well.


I'm sure Pathfinder will get a significant sales bump when the real 2nd edition books release; but I don't think there is any indication it will be within an order of magnitude of 5e D&D's ongoing sales.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;10614764e did not fail because the options weren't meaningful. Maybe that's why crunch-nerds rejected it, but 95% players aren't crunch-nerds (and 5e is less crunchy than 4e anyway).  More than anything, people like the familiar. They like their jeans to be blue, they like having a "start" menu in Windows, they like their Diet Coke to taste like chemical warfare, and they like their D&D's fireball to mean hurling a fistful of d6s on the table.  They bought Pathfinder primarily because it felt familiar and 4e didn't.  In an alternative universe where D&D 3 was just a cleaned-up AD&D, 4e was what it was, and Lisa Stevens responded to the GSL by printing up the AD&D 3 SRD with fresh art and adventures, Paizo would have been just as successful. Or, in a different alternative universe, where WotC followed up 3.5 with 5e, Pathfinder is as obscure as 13th Age.

I think this is right. Most people didn't like 4e D&D because it didn't feel like D&D - which includes the 4e classes feeling similar in play. They didn't reject it for lack of crunch. At the point of creating a new 1st level PC, 4e is actually MORE crunchy than 3e/PF. 3e/PF has a relatively easy on-ramp; the piled-up insane crunch comes later. 4e has a much shallower curve - starts crunchier and only piles it up at a relatively slower rate, with spikes at the tier breaks.

I do think an 'AD&D 3e' would not have been nearly as successful as the WotC 3e D&D we got, which would likely mean a Paizo continuity version would have been less successful too.

Quote from: S'mon;1061484I think this is right. Most people didn't like 4e D&D because it didn't feel like D&D - which includes the 4e classes feeling similar in play. They didn't reject it for lack of crunch. At the point of creating a new 1st level PC, 4e is actually MORE crunchy than 3e/PF. 3e/PF has a relatively easy on-ramp; the piled-up insane crunch comes later. 4e has a much shallower curve - starts crunchier and only piles it up at a relatively slower rate, with spikes at the tier breaks.

I do think an 'AD&D 3e' would not have been nearly as successful as the WotC 3e D&D we got, which would likely mean a Paizo continuity version would have been less successful too.

Hard to judge in retrospect. 2ed had so many supplements that a back to basics approach might've backfired. Also the main flaws of 3ed take a while to become apparent. 3ed having the worst balance of any edition only becomes apparent once you stop using the sort of tactics that people mostly used for AD&D and the borked scaling inly becomes apparent after level six and only becomes really bad at higher levels (hence the popularity of E6).

At low levels it holds together decently and appears to be better thought out than it is. At low levels the main flaws are the busy work of assigning skill points and stupid little shit like skill synergies.

However, in 3ed the headaches accumulate pretty fast and can lead to burnout whixh might be why 3ed and 3.5 had fairly short life cycles.

Quote from: Daztur;1061508...At low levels it holds together decently and appears to be better thought out than it is...

You could say the same about 5e.

All 5e did is make sure the game didn't radically change into "Wizard Chess" at high levels, it still breaks into little pieces. Mainly because your wizard is playing "Wizard Checkers" and the MM enemies are playing "Tic Tac Toe"

I personally want PF to succeed. WotC could use the competition.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1061511I personally want PF to succeed. WotC could use the competition.

I would agree with that. However, PF is not the competition I would like for it. Regardless of the vast differences between TSR/OSR D&D, 3e, 4e, 53, and PF, they are all within the same metaphoric genus (or maybe even just subspecies) of the larger cladogram of TTRPGs. They are level based, class divided, combat engine with tacked on skill system, abstract combat (hp, etc.) kludged together systems. And I love them for it, btw, but the point still stands that there is very little daylight between them, in the grand scheme of things. I would love it if, say, RuneQuest, GURPS or HERO system, Traveller (and the fantasy equivalent that could have appeared in a competitive market), and either a D&D or PF all controlling like 10% of the market each, with the other 50% controlled by everyone else.

I'm not sure if TTRPGs just happened to have stumbled into a hegemonic situation, or that that is a natural economic state for an industry of this size. It would be nice if it were different, though.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061510You could say the same about 5e.

All 5e did is make sure the game didn't radically change into "Wizard Chess" at high levels, it still breaks into little pieces. Mainly because your wizard is playing "Wizard Checkers" and the MM enemies are playing "Tic Tac Toe"

5e has nothing like the radical non-functionality of double digit PF, which is even worse than 3e I'd say. Though my 19th level 3e game devolved into 100% Wizard PCs. Not seen anything like that in 5e where the Epic Tier PCs have been mostly Barbarians, plus a Druid.

The most one can say about 5e is that the MM monsters are not a threat to high level parties of comparable CR.

Quote from: S'mon;1061483Checking amazon.co.uk:
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Core Rulebook 32,725 in Books
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Core Rulebook (Pocket Edition)  211,874 in Books
Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook 331,726 in Books

Compare:
Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game 3rd Edition 183,089 in Books
Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook 888 in Books

So I'm not seeing any evidence of Pathfinder growth in the UK, at least. Whereas there is plenty of indication that 5e D&D is doing very well.


I'm sure Pathfinder will get a significant sales bump when the real 2nd edition books release; but I don't think there is any indication it will be within an order of magnitude of 5e D&D's ongoing sales.

I don't think Amazon is a primary source for purchasing Paizo books online. I think most of their sales have always gone through their website. Even in their heyday they were never big sellers on Amazon.

And yes I agree it will not be anything close to 5e. I am not saying it will. I am saying for Paizo, which is a fraction of 5e, they're doing fine.

Quote from: S'mon;1061484I think this is right. Most people didn't like 4e D&D because it didn't feel like D&D - which includes the 4e classes feeling similar in play. They didn't reject it for lack of crunch. At the point of creating a new 1st level PC, 4e is actually MORE crunchy than 3e/PF. 3e/PF has a relatively easy on-ramp; the piled-up insane crunch comes later. 4e has a much shallower curve - starts crunchier and only piles it up at a relatively slower rate, with spikes at the tier breaks.

I do think an 'AD&D 3e' would not have been nearly as successful as the WotC 3e D&D we got, which would likely mean a Paizo continuity version would have been less successful too.

I don't think 3rd ed's success had a lot to do with its charop stuff. The big update in the art from the dated, 1980s-looking stuff, throwing the endless 2e splats in the garbage, massively cleaning up the presentation, clear rules, harmonized d20 approach, and Living Greyhawk were huge. Its sales were initially massive, well before charop culture took over. But all of that could have been done with a more AD&D-like approach of class being largely a statically defined thing with a small number of options. After all, that's how 5e does it, and we all know how that's been a smash hit.

Quote from: Daztur;1061508Hard to judge in retrospect. 2ed had so many supplements that a back to basics approach might've backfired.

D&D 3.0 was a back-to-basics approach. Remember "back to the dungeon?" They didn't start flogging the splat treadmill until the authors of the original system left (weren't they mostly fired?), and a new crew came in and put out 3.5. Before that, the D&D 3 supplements were mostly given the same titles as 1e supplements.

Quote from: Mistwell;1061523I don't think Amazon is a primary source for purchasing Paizo books online. I think most of their sales have always gone through their website. Even in their heyday they were never big sellers on Amazon.

And yes I agree it will not be anything close to 5e. I am not saying it will. I am saying for Paizo, which is a fraction of 5e, they're doing fine.

Amazon's cracked down on everybody who was tracking sales ranks, but I remember Starfinder launching in the top 10 in fantasy games, which put it in the top hundreds in all books. It's down in the 12Ks now. PF Core Rulebook peaked in the 400s.

I don't know how much, but some part of 3E's success was the sheer length of time between it and 2E, and the buzz of a new company doing something with it.  That was enough to get people to enthusiastically try it, despite the somewhat difficult to read presentation and more than a few editing and organization problems.  That is, it had enough pent up goodwill to get people to steamroll any problem, and get a game working. That was a benefit that WotC had just by acquiring the license.  Then people had skills and feats to chew on for awhile, and most people didn't play over the low levels for some time.  

PF1 had a similar dynamic on launch (though for different reasons, obviously).  PF2 will mostly stand or fall on its own merits.

Quote from: Mistwell;1061523I don't think Amazon is a primary source for purchasing Paizo books online. I think most of their sales have always gone through their website. Even in their heyday they were never big sellers on Amazon.

Well I think for the UK it is amazon + FLGS. Paizo shipping has a long way to go.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061525I don't think 3rd ed's success had a lot to do with its charop stuff. The big update in the art from the dated, 1980s-looking stuff, throwing the endless 2e splats in the garbage, massively cleaning up the presentation, clear rules, harmonized d20 approach, and Living Greyhawk were huge. Its sales were initially massive, well before charop culture took over. But all of that could have been done with a more AD&D-like approach of class being largely a statically defined thing with a small number of options. After all, that's how 5e does it, and we all know how that's been a smash hit.

Sure, that sounds reasonable. I agree the art plus the cleaner looking system were influential.

Quote from: S'mon;10615215e has nothing like the radical non-functionality of double digit PF, which is even worse than 3e I'd say. Though my 19th level 3e game devolved into 100% Wizard PCs. Not seen anything like that in 5e where the Epic Tier PCs have been mostly Barbarians, plus a Druid.

The most one can say about 5e is that the MM monsters are not a threat to high level parties of comparable CR.

And my epic level 3.5 campaign had a Swashbuckler, a Rogue, a Warlock, and a Ranger. That campaign ended in the later 30s of levels and more than a few Divine Ranks. The Wizard survived one round of combat and never showed up again.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. It takes a bit to fully grasp all the new meta in 5e and martials even have a place in meta-comps at higher levels, but once you lock it down, casters are still the primary drivers of success.

But yeah, the MM being useless was biggest frustration in our group.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061527Amazon's cracked down on everybody who was tracking sales ranks, but I remember Starfinder launching in the top 10 in fantasy games, which put it in the top hundreds in all books. It's down in the 12Ks now. PF Core Rulebook peaked in the 400s.

I am unaware of any crackdown on that data and camelcamelcamel seems to be working just fine for it. Here you go:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2980[/ATTACH]

NovelRank got the hammer dropped on them, and I think SalesRankExpress did, too (they seem to be using a different tracker now, and a lot of records are gone).

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061540And my epic level 3.5 campaign had a Swashbuckler, a Rogue, a Warlock, and a Ranger. That campaign ended in the later 30s of levels and more than a few Divine Ranks. The Wizard survived one round of combat and never showed up again.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. It takes a bit to fully grasp all the new meta in 5e and martials even have a place in meta-comps at higher levels, but once you lock it down, casters are still the primary drivers of success.

But yeah, the MM being useless was biggest frustration in our group.

I don't really dispute that in powergamer hands high level 5e casters are stronger. But that is true in all editions. Non casters are viable even without minmaxing and that is very unlike 3e/pf.

Quote from: S'mon;1061555I don't really dispute that in powergamer hands high level 5e casters are stronger. But that is true in all editions. Non casters are viable even without minmaxing and that is very unlike 3e/pf.

Depends on what you mean by viable.

A weak build may be 1/1000th as effective as the same race/class with a better build in 3.5.

In 5e it caps out more at 1/10th. That is still pretty irrelevant in a 6 man party. But on the other hand, 5e can't handle powergamers like 3e could so you can more reasonably expect the players to just not do that or the DM just has write up custom foes for any encounter to matter (not too easy or too impossible)

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061556Depends on what you mean by viable.

A weak build may be 1/1000th as effective as the same race/class with a better build in 3.5.

In 5e it caps out more at 1/10th. That is still pretty irrelevant in a 6 man party. But on the other hand, 5e can't handle powergamers like 3e could so you can more reasonably expect the players to just not do that or the DM just has write up custom foes for any encounter to matter (not too easy or too impossible)

How does 3e successfully handle powergamers?

And it is very hard on the 3e GM to create custom foes, whereas it is easy in 5e. Look at 5e Tome of Beasts - I tended to use that when I wanted to challenge high level 5e PCs. But I can also easily tweak a 5e MM monster to make it threatening. A rules-compliant rebuild of a 3e/PF monster is usually a big undertaking IME.

Ancedotally for my high level recent games, I have seen PF groups where the Summoner is around x100 the power of the Cleric. In 5e I guess the summoning/animating-focused Wizard was about twice or three times as powerful as the non-minmaxed Cleric, but they could still have fun in the same group.

I do agree that the plausible 3e/PF min-max difference is about 100 times the 5e difference, but I disagree that that doesn't affect the play experience. I've GM'd a lot of high level 3e/PF in multiple campaigns, different players, it always has huge problems. I've GM'd a lot of high level 5e in several campaigns so far and there are some bugs but it's 100 times less so than 3e/PF. You *could* get 5e PCs where one is 10 times as powerful as another, but (a) it doesn't happen much in practice and (b) the kind of player who creates a 1/10 power PC tends not to notice their lack of contribution. At 1/1000 they definitely DO notice when their 3e Fighter is being torn apart in every battle and the party casters are having to spend so much resources on them they're a net drag on the party, worse than useless.

Quote from: S'mon;1061557How does 3e successfully handle powergamers?

And it is very hard on the 3e GM to create custom foes, whereas it is easy in 5e. Look at 5e Tome of Beasts - I tended to use that when I wanted to challenge high level 5e PCs. But I can also easily tweak a 5e MM monster to make it threatening. A rules-compliant rebuild of a 3e/PF monster is usually a big undertaking IME.

Ancedotally for my high level recent games, I have seen PF groups where the Summoner is around x100 the power of the Cleric. In 5e I guess the summoning/animating-focused Wizard was about twice or three times as powerful as the non-minmaxed Cleric, but they could still have fun in the same group.

I do agree that the plausible 3e/PF min-max difference is about 100 times the 5e difference, but I disagree that that doesn't affect the play experience. I've GM'd a lot of high level 3e/PF in multiple campaigns, different players, it always has huge problems. I've GM'd a lot of high level 5e in several campaigns so far and there are some bugs but it's 100 times less so than 3e/PF. You *could* get 5e PCs where one is 10 times as powerful as another, but (a) it doesn't happen much in practice and (b) the kind of player who creates a 1/10 power PC tends not to notice their lack of contribution. At 1/1000 they definitely DO notice when their 3e Fighter is being torn apart in every battle and the party casters are having to spend so much resources on them they're a net drag on the party, worse than useless.

APL+4  CR encounters (remembering to increase apl depending on party size). That ends up being "normal" fights for our group. The final boss for one of our campaigns was that we (7) were level 20 vs a single CR25 MT10 red dragon with some added legendary actions. It worked fine enough. The fighter was contributing just fine after much effort and buying of potions with his wbl. Most of us died, but it was the final fight.

If we were more optimized, you just keep increasing that CR number. The variance within a CR is what varies fight difficulty. Now running these monsters can be some effort.

As for making monsters, the custom charts for PF make it as easy as 5e to custom craft a monster, the 5e charts for it our just a stolen good idea resume for their system. The only issue is that CR doesn't mean anything in 5e.

For me, I see 1/10th a pretty similar problem to 1/1000th, but it is certainly playable. PCs always bring HP to a fight and regenerate like Wolverine, so they help out.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061525I don't think 3rd ed's success had a lot to do with its charop stuff. The big update in the art from the dated, 1980s-looking stuff, throwing the endless 2e splats in the garbage, massively cleaning up the presentation, clear rules, harmonized d20 approach, and Living Greyhawk were huge. Its sales were initially massive, well before charop culture took over. But all of that could have been done with a more AD&D-like approach of class being largely a statically defined thing with a small number of options. After all, that's how 5e does it, and we all know how that's been a smash hit.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1061531I don't know how much, but some part of 3E's success was the sheer length of time between it and 2E, and the buzz of a new company doing something with it.  That was enough to get people to enthusiastically try it, despite the somewhat difficult to read presentation and more than a few editing and organization problems.  That is, it had enough pent up goodwill to get people to steamroll any problem, and get a game working. That was a benefit that WotC had just by acquiring the license.  Then people had skills and feats to chew on for awhile, and most people didn't play over the low levels for some time.  

Exactly what cause the relative success of 3e is hard to split out. I think anything that fixed the perceived flaws* --of level limits balancing racial abilities, human-only classes, strictly-better perk classes as additional benefit for rolling well, individual (often perceived as arbitrary) xp charts for each class, thieves who weren't even good at their own limited niche, rules expectations that one would be playing the henchmen squad play and the name-level keep and castle play that apparently no one* used anymore, and so on and so forth-- would have done okay. In other words, any reasonable option they could have gone with for 3e would have done pretty well. As Steven mentions, a lot of it was just something new after 11 years (and a good 6 years of clear death spiral). I think charop culture, or at least having some character creation knobs and levers (much like weapon and non-weapon proficiencies eventually became in 2e) probably was inevitable in some form or another. What would have happened if a 4e or 5e or 13th Age style game had shown up instead of 3e is a question for the ages.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1061572Exactly what cause the relative success of 3e is hard to split out. I think anything that fixed the perceived flaws* --of level limits balancing racial abilities, human-only classes, strictly-better perk classes as additional benefit for rolling well, individual (often perceived as arbitrary) xp charts for each class, thieves who weren't even good at their own limited niche, rules expectations that one would be playing the henchmen squad play and the name-level keep and castle play that apparently no one* used anymore, and so on and so forth-- would have done okay. In other words, any reasonable option they could have gone with for 3e would have done pretty well. As Steven mentions, a lot of it was just something new after 11 years (and a good 6 years of clear death spiral). I think charop culture, or at least having some character creation knobs and levers (much like weapon and non-weapon proficiencies eventually became in 2e) probably was inevitable in some form or another. What would have happened if a 4e or 5e or 13th Age style game had shown up instead of 3e is a question for the ages.

Well one thing we do know is that the greater design space for CharOp, the greater number of books you can print, and some people actually bought all those books.

3e core books succeeded because of "D&D", even the 4e core books succeeded. 3e had interesting splat books, more so than even Pathfinder (which still had people buying every single book) and those couldn't exist to sell well without the design space (even if a lot of it broke balance into little pieces).

The success of Pathfinder showed just how much money can be made off of enthusiast buyers because the base rules were free/well documented (and 5e manage success without much in the way of free rules). I cite Paizo's glassdoor reviews for Pathfinder success. If Pathfinder employees receive above and beyond better treatment and benefits then it is safe to say Pathfinder was making bank.

Bank which they decided to piss away to focus on new games instead of Pathfinder (which those book buying fiends weren't going anywhere if they kept getting a steady stream of fresh content that was actually good). Which Pathfinder itself only really started fading next to 5e at the same time Paizo shifted to 2e development, and Paizo was already split in focus with Starfinder (which was also completely unnecessary to create a whole new system for that idea).

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061588Bank which they decided to piss away to focus on new games instead of Pathfinder (which those book buying fiends weren't going anywhere if they kept getting a steady stream of fresh content that was actually good). Which Pathfinder itself only really started fading next to 5e at the same time Paizo shifted to 2e development, and Paizo was already split in focus with Starfinder (which was also completely unnecessary to create a whole new system for that idea).

No, splat churn kills products. Everyone has an upper limit on how many rules they will tolerate. Some people hare happy with 100 pages of rules. Some people want 500. Some people want 5,000. Very, very, very few people will buy ad infinitum, which is why 2e, 3.5, 4e, and now Pathfinder all ran out of their ability to shove content at people. Paizo's rules expansions were already doing badly, showing they'd already hit most people's threshold for new rules.

You can model customer behavior like this:

(https://i.imgur.com/Cb0jaCe.jpg)

Adding options makes a product less boring, but it makes it more complicated. Customers don't like being bored, but they don't like being overwhelmed or frustrated. Different types of customers have different thresholds for complexity. So as you increase complexity, customer satisfaction increases for a while, but it eventually turns around, and increased complexity is a liability. Nearly everybody has a threshold, only addict-like customers (who are never actually satisfied, because they're addicts, not normal people) will buy literally everything you print.

The peak on the graph is when the customer is at his most satisfied, and the farther you move to the right, the more likely you are to lose him as a customer entirely.

That's a nice enough idea, but I suspect both 3.5 and PF were carried by the addicts. Those are the same customers that carry the mobile games market and both those RPGs have F2P versions.

The trick is to keep the game playable for the F2P players while the addict whales buy everything.

Which PF retains playability, even if it is a different game 10+. The clunk starts really bogging things down at around level 16.

Now my group has found games that work for us better, but very few of us actually do not like PF. No one wants to run it though, which is more of an issue of Bestiary layout and a lack of prominent* GM guide.

*I personally have not read a single page from it or seen anyone reference anything from it as useful.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061592That's a nice enough idea, but I suspect both 3.5 and PF were carried by the addicts. Those are the same customers that carry the mobile games market and both those RPGs have F2P versions.

3.5 was destroyed by catering to the addicts. Individual products were increasingly bought only by the most addicted/enthusiastic, and each additional book sold worse than the previous one. The whole thing collapsed after only a couple years.

QuoteThe trick is to keep the game playable for the F2P players while the addict whales buy everything.

Actually, the trick is to not fall into the trap of cranking up complexity to harvest more money from a shrinking customer base. It results in large short-term gains (the first player-facing expansion book for D&D always sells extremely well), and it's easy to get greedy and try to turn a short-term windfall into a long-term strategy. But it kills off your customer base. It is much harder to keep normal people engaged, but this is how you build long-term success instead of dying by attrition. If your revenue is growing while your customer base is shrinking, you're dying. You just don't know it.

WotC learned their lesson with 3.5 and 4E and wisely dialed back the splat books for 5E. They had enough data at that point, from sales and surveys, to know that the law of diminishing returns that fearsomepirate outlined is a trap for a big-tent game like D&D. Leave the niche publishing (which is what crunch-heavy RPGs are) to other publishers. D&D thrives when casuals are flocking to the game.

Idk, my primary RPG is Savage Worlds, which has tons of books and the net complexity doesn't increase that much, mainly because most of the books are setting specific and you don't assume every book goes into every game.

Even though I don't play it, it's not like Fate is getting MORE complicated with every book.

So this idea that you can't spam books is odd to me, because it's assuming a cumulative crunch stacking that just doesn't have to be the case. Most successful current 3.5 groups only used some of the books some of the time.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061606Idk, my primary RPG is Savage Worlds, which has tons of books and the net complexity doesn't increase that much, mainly because most of the books are setting specific and you don't assume every book goes into every game.

Even though I don't play it, it's not like Fate is getting MORE complicated with every book.

So this idea that you can't spam books is odd to me, because it's assuming a cumulative crunch stacking that just doesn't have to be the case.

How many Savage Worlds books have ever made the Amazon top 100? Top 500? Top 1000? You cannot draw lessons about mainstream success from the dynamics of tiny, niche markets. It's like trying to learn about the ocean by looking at a goldfish bowl.

QuoteMost successful current 3.5 groups only used some of the books some of the time.

How many official books came out for 3.5 last year?

5e is not done yet. They haven't put out the Psionics system yet.

Would I switch to 6th Edition? It would really take some major convincing at this point. It would have to bring something entirely new to the table to really get my attention.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;10615943.5 was destroyed by catering to the addicts. Individual products were increasingly bought only by the most addicted/enthusiastic, and each additional book sold worse than the previous one. The whole thing collapsed after only a couple years.

The truly ironic thing about 3.5 was it was much sturdier game that played better at all levels if you actually banned all the core classes and uses only the splats.

The 3.5 PHB had the biggest concentration of tier 1-2 (wizard, sorcerer, cleric and druid) and tier 5-6 classes (fighter, monk, paladin) of any of the splats while the sweet spot in terms of classes is generally regarded to be the tier 3-4 ones (of the PHB classes, only the Bard is tier 3; Barbarian, Ranger and Rogue are tier 4).

The tier 3-4s were also generally less complex than the tier 1-2s, but more interesting than the 5-6s and could rarely outright break the game with their abilities.

D&D 5E is probably already at maximum participation numbers.  For every new player, someone else is moving on to another game.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061608How many Savage Worlds books have ever made the Amazon top 100? Top 500? Top 1000? You cannot draw lessons about mainstream success from the dynamics of tiny, niche markets. It's like trying to learn about the ocean by looking at a goldfish bowl.



How many official books came out for 3.5 last year?

Sure the words you are saying make sense by themselves, but they aren't an argument or a logical response.

As in, you sent making any sense.

Quote from: Razor 007;1061621D&D 5E is probably already at maximum participation numbers.  For every new player, someone else is moving on to another game.

Maybe - but most people moving on to other games aren't selling their 5e books when they do.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061510You could say the same about 5e.

All 5e did is make sure the game didn't radically change into "Wizard Chess" at high levels, it still breaks into little pieces. Mainly because your wizard is playing "Wizard Checkers" and the MM enemies are playing "Tic Tac Toe"

Yup, not massively enamoured with 5ed. It played like a cleaned up 3.5ed which is decent and playable but not my ideal and comes with a set of its own issues.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1061514I would agree with that. However, PF is not the competition I would like for it. Regardless of the vast differences between TSR/OSR D&D, 3e, 4e, 53, and PF, they are all within the same metaphoric genus (or maybe even just subspecies) of the larger cladogram of TTRPGs. They are level based, class divided, combat engine with tacked on skill system, abstract combat (hp, etc.) kludged together systems. And I love them for it, btw, but the point still stands that there is very little daylight between them, in the grand scheme of things. I would love it if, say, RuneQuest, GURPS or HERO system, Traveller (and the fantasy equivalent that could have appeared in a competitive market), and either a D&D or PF all controlling like 10% of the market each, with the other 50% controlled by everyone else.

I'm not sure if TTRPGs just happened to have stumbled into a hegemonic situation, or that that is a natural economic state for an industry of this size. It would be nice if it were different, though.

Don't much care for PF but my main issue is how it seems to promote the Frustrated Novelist school of DMing. It's a really hard mental trap to get out of since stuff that appeals to Frustrated Novelists often reads really good so when it doesn't work out in play it's easy for the DM to blame themselves for not Frustrated Novelisting hard enough for blame the players for not Taking the Story Seriously instead of finding a better way to GM.

Leads a lot of people who could be GMs into doing stupid shit.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061525D&D 3.0 was a back-to-basics approach. Remember "back to the dungeon?" They didn't start flogging the splat treadmill until the authors of the original system left (weren't they mostly fired?), and a new crew came in and put out 3.5. Before that, the D&D 3 supplements were mostly given the same titles as 1e supplements.

What I meant by back to basic was more a streamlined AD&D 3rd edition rather than the rebuild around the d20 system what we got. Reading 3ed stuff for the first time made me think how logical, well-designed and organized everything was while the gazillion disconnected skill systems of AD&D 1ed just seemed crazy. Took a while playing with the system to see its warts and how the unified mechanics made scaling problems profilerate throughe everything and make problems hard to fix. Reading it for the first time felt like a relevation.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1061531I don't know how much, but some part of 3E's success was the sheer length of time between it and 2E, and the buzz of a new company doing something with it.  That was enough to get people to enthusiastically try it, despite the somewhat difficult to read presentation and more than a few editing and organization problems.  That is, it had enough pent up goodwill to get people to steamroll any problem, and get a game working. That was a benefit that WotC had just by acquiring the license.  Then people had skills and feats to chew on for awhile, and most people didn't play over the low levels for some time.  

PF1 had a similar dynamic on launch (though for different reasons, obviously).  PF2 will mostly stand or fall on its own merits.

Yeah, 2ed had pretty much completely outworn its welcome which made a big difference. Even the grognards bitching about 3ed mostly weren't playing 2ed anyway.

Quote from: S'mon;1061555I don't really dispute that in powergamer hands high level 5e casters are stronger. But that is true in all editions. Non casters are viable even without minmaxing and that is very unlike 3e/pf.

Well the balance is worse in 3ed than in any other edition. However, a lot depends on people playing the game with the sort of tactics that the system rewards. If the wizard sticks to blasting and the cleric mostly hangs back and heals in combat a lot of issues never come up. But all it takes to break the game is for wizards and clerics to use the good spells in the PHB instead of the sucky ones, no real minmaxing needed.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1061572Exactly what cause the relative success of 3e is hard to split out. I think anything that fixed the perceived flaws* --of level limits balancing racial abilities, human-only classes, strictly-better perk classes as additional benefit for rolling well, individual (often perceived as arbitrary) xp charts for each class, thieves who weren't even good at their own limited niche, rules expectations that one would be playing the henchmen squad play and the name-level keep and castle play that apparently no one* used anymore, and so on and so forth-- would have done okay. In other words, any reasonable option they could have gone with for 3e would have done pretty well. As Steven mentions, a lot of it was just something new after 11 years (and a good 6 years of clear death spiral). I think charop culture, or at least having some character creation knobs and levers (much like weapon and non-weapon proficiencies eventually became in 2e) probably was inevitable in some form or another. What would have happened if a 4e or 5e or 13th Age style game had shown up instead of 3e is a question for the ages.

Yeah, in retrospect it's hard to remember just how much "wheeeee, I can be a dwarf monk" felt like a game change :) But it did.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;10615943.5 was destroyed by catering to the addicts. Individual products were increasingly bought only by the most addicted/enthusiastic, and each additional book sold worse than the previous one. The whole thing collapsed after only a couple years.



Actually, the trick is to not fall into the trap of cranking up complexity to harvest more money from a shrinking customer base. It results in large short-term gains (the first player-facing expansion book for D&D always sells extremely well), and it's easy to get greedy and try to turn a short-term windfall into a long-term strategy. But it kills off your customer base. It is much harder to keep normal people engaged, but this is how you build long-term success instead of dying by attrition. If your revenue is growing while your customer base is shrinking, you're dying. You just don't know it.

It didn't help that most of the splatbooks were complete filler that nobody much read except for the feat list and new spells. Eventually you're going to have a hard time selling books if people only want them for 20% of their content.

Quote from: Chris24601;1061616The truly ironic thing about 3.5 was it was much sturdier game that played better at all levels if you actually banned all the core classes and uses only the splats.

The 3.5 PHB had the biggest concentration of tier 1-2 (wizard, sorcerer, cleric and druid) and tier 5-6 classes (fighter, monk, paladin) of any of the splats while the sweet spot in terms of classes is generally regarded to be the tier 3-4 ones (of the PHB classes, only the Bard is tier 3; Barbarian, Ranger and Rogue are tier 4).

The tier 3-4s were also generally less complex than the tier 1-2s, but more interesting than the 5-6s and could rarely outright break the game with their abilities.

I remember holding out some hope for PF1 until the devs said that since adding all of the splatbooks raised 3.5ed's powerlevel they needed to give ALL of the core classes a powerboost to make them balanced with the splatbook content (at this time they were still talking about Pathfinder core being compatible with 3.5ed splats) because surely wizards need a boost to be able to keep up with hexblades.

Quote from: Daztur;1061633Well the balance is worse in 3ed than in any other edition. However, a lot depends on people playing the game with the sort of tactics that the system rewards. If the wizard sticks to blasting and the cleric mostly hangs back and heals in combat a lot of issues never come up. But all it takes to break the game is for wizards and clerics to use the good spells in the PHB instead of the sucky ones, no real minmaxing needed.

Are you talking about 3e or 5e? In 3e if the Wizard & Cleric use their traditional spells like Fireball & Heal then it's not too unbalanced vs the Fighter & Rogue in a typical dungeon exploration campaign. Blast magic especially sucks in 3e.

In 5e blasty magic is pretty decent again, but yes there are more powerful options like animating swarms of tiny objects, or Contagion - slimy doom, or Hypnotic Pattern, or (sometimes) Banishment. GMing for optimising spellcasters at double digit levels in 5e the system creaks a bit; IME nothing like as bad as 3e/PF though.

Quote from: Daztur;1061633Yeah, in retrospect it's hard to remember just how much "wheeeee, I can be a dwarf monk" felt like a game change :) But it did.

Its rather sad players felt they had to wait until D&D gave that to them.

GURPS, Fantasy Hero, Palladium Fantasy had "been there, done that" for over a decade before 3e.

Quote from: Haffrung;1061372A big part of Pathfinder's appeal is their adventure paths. They've managed to create a lot of iconic campaigns that people want to be part of, and their AP subscribers form the foundation of their business model. The question is if Paizo's APs can continue to generate buzz and FOMO in a geeksphere where WotC/5E has come to dominate with live play and streaming?

Good question. I think Paizo has WOTC beat there for sheer number of modules out. Though WOTCs modules so far are all more like three or four linked modules to form one grand campaign.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;10616105e is not done yet. They haven't put out the Psionics system yet.

Yep, that's a great way to make sure it's done for...

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061608How many Savage Worlds books have ever made the Amazon top 100? Top 500? Top 1000? You cannot draw lessons about mainstream success from the dynamics of tiny, niche markets. It's like trying to learn about the ocean by looking at a goldfish bowl.



How many official books came out for 3.5 last year?

These aren't logical counter points. How Savage Worlds releases tons of books and side-steps the added complexity issue is independent of its popularity. Though if we are being completely honest, D&D itself is a niche market, so your comments make even less sense in that light. To put D&D in perspective, Monopoly sells about 1.5 million copies each year (I took the 30 billion printed fake money per year divided by the amount each box starts with (https://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/living/feat-monopoly-80th-anniversary/index.html))

One problem with 3e is that it has enough content that some people just never stopped playing. Those people are now lost to the RPG market.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061655These aren't logical counter points. How Savage Worlds releases tons of books and side-steps the added complexity issue is independent of its popularity.

Savage Worlds sidesteps the issue of complexity leading to poor sales by never having high sales to begin with.

QuoteThough if we are being completely honest, D&D itself is a niche market, so your comments make even less sense in that light. To put D&D in perspective, Monopoly sells about 1.5 million copies each year (I took the 30 billion printed fake money per year divided by the amount each box starts with)

This would be relevant if I was saying Monopoly could maintain its sales level by being more like D&D, but I'm not. SW is tiny relative to D&D, and you can't really learn a lot of business lessons for your product from somebody whose sales are O(1%) of yours. You're basically asking why can't D&D sell a half million or more books a year on a model that sells maybe a couple thousand (hundred?) books a year for another company. The answer is in the question. It's, "because that model doesn't get you past maybe a few hundred books a year."

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061660Savage Worlds sidesteps the issue of complexity leading to poor sales by never having high sales to begin with.



This would be relevant if I was saying Monopoly could maintain its sales level by being more like D&D, but I'm not. SW is tiny relative to D&D, and you can't really learn a lot of business lessons for your product from somebody whose sales are O(1%) of yours. You're basically asking why can't D&D sell a half million or more books a year on a model that sells maybe a few hundred books a year for another company. The answer is in the question. It's, "because that model doesn't get you past maybe a few hundred books a year."

The fallacy of this is you are assuming that D&D succeeds by virtue of it's mechanics, design, and release model. Which is laughable, since of those 3, WotC D&D is only excellent in the industry in terms of pretty books. Grognards, inertia, and marketing keep D&D on top, if it wasn't such a weird niche hobby, the actual quality of RPG games might matter. Even 4e was a wild success by RPG standards and it lost more Grognards than any edition.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061655One problem with 3e is that it has enough content that some people just never stopped playing. Those people are now lost to the RPG market.

Possibility: 5E's focus on adventure content helps it a) maintain accessibility, b) provide plenty of content for people to use, but c) reduce the tools for people creating their own content, thus keeping them in the market.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1061667Possibility: 5E's focus on adventure content helps it a) maintain accessibility, b) provide plenty of content for people to use, but c) reduce the tools for people creating their own content, thus keeping them in the market.

5e's design of really great early levels, convincing players they do not need expensive crunch for everything, and getting DMs comfortable with making rulings help keep them in the RPG market if not in 5e itself.

Very few RPGs can afford to go as crunch heavy as 3e D&D (even PF2e/Starfinder is just a lot of boring cheaply produced crunch), so there is really no where for those fans to go aside from other D&D or D&D clones. 5e craps out before magic gets really interesting and before that level of interesting magic becomes expected so there is a vast sea of RPGs that can scratch the same itch as 5e that would be unpalatable to 3e players.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1061667Possibility: 5E's focus on adventure content helps it a) maintain accessibility, b) provide plenty of content for people to use, but c) reduce the tools for people creating their own content, thus keeping them in the market.

The thing about adventures is they're consumable goods, while rules are durable goods. People do not like buying new durable goods. They want whatever they bought to last as long as possible, either until it becomes too unstylish or eclipsed by better technology. People do not like buying new computers; they like playing new computer games. People do not like buying new media players; they like watching new movies and shows.

People do not like learning new rule sets; they like playing new adventures.

The thing the RPG industry (esp D&D) has always been really stupid about is treating rule books like consumables. They expected the average customer to be excited about adding new rules to the existing system, then, once he got tired of learning new rules for that system, to be happy to switch to an all-new system and keep adding rules to that. They did this to chase revenue instead of customers, and it always bit them in the behind in the end. Learning rules is actually this inconvenience you go through to get to the fun of having adventures with your friends.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061686The thing the RPG industry (esp D&D) has always been really stupid about is treating rule books like consumables. They expected the average customer to be excited about adding new rules to the existing system, then, once he got tired of learning new rules for that system, to be happy to switch to an all-new system and keep adding rules to that. They did this to chase revenue instead of customers, and it always bit them in the behind in the end. Learning rules is actually this inconvenience you go through to get to the fun of having adventures with your friends.

Well maybe if people didn't share your opinion that since D&D is popular, what it does is what makes it popular, they wouldn't follow along on the same trend.

Plenty of systems haven't changed the basics since they started and keep printing new material on the regular.

I know you do not think there is anything to learn from these "lesser publishers", but the problems you lament have already been solved multiple times over.

I do agree, people hate learning new rules. It's why I prefer generics over things like D&D. From Fudge to GURPS, generics just seem to be designed to do more at any given crunch level. Some of them so much so that they are dying off because you can already do anything in them and no further books are required.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061686The thing about adventures is they're consumable goods, while rules are durable goods. People do not like buying new durable goods. They want whatever they bought to last as long as possible, either until it becomes too unstylish or eclipsed by better technology. People do not like buying new computers; they like playing new computer games. People do not like buying new media players; they like watching new movies and shows.

People do not like learning new rule sets; they like playing new adventures.

The thing the RPG industry (esp D&D) has always been really stupid about is treating rule books like consumables. They expected the average customer to be excited about adding new rules to the existing system, then, once he got tired of learning new rules for that system, to be happy to switch to an all-new system and keep adding rules to that. They did this to chase revenue instead of customers, and it always bit them in the behind in the end. Learning rules is actually this inconvenience you go through to get to the fun of having adventures with your friends.

Good post, but people do seem to like buying new smartphones, thinking the new one is shinier than the last.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1061643Its rather sad players felt they had to wait until D&D gave that to them.
GURPS, Fantasy Hero, Palladium Fantasy had "been there, done that" for over a decade before 3e.

Well, to be fair, most of them were lamenting the lack 'within D&D.' They may very well have been playing dwarven monks and halfling paladins in other systems for decades.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061686The thing the RPG industry (esp D&D) has always been really stupid about is treating rule books like consumables. They expected the average customer to be excited about adding new rules to the existing system, then, once he got tired of learning new rules for that system, to be happy to switch to an all-new system and keep adding rules to that. They did this to chase revenue instead of customers, and it always bit them in the behind in the end. Learning rules is actually this inconvenience you go through to get to the fun of having adventures with your friends.

I agree publishers were stupid about it, but it's partly because they bought into the myth that adventures don't sell. That's a legacy of the shovelware that TSR put out in its later years - reams of cheap and lame adventures. A high-quality adventure that a group can build a whole campaign around has tremendous market appeal. They create a sense of shared community and experience, and take the load away from busy DMs. I'm not a big Paizo fan, but credit where credit is due, they showed the industry that there is a market for adventures, and it's big enough to support large publishers. I'd hazard a guess that 2/3 or more of the people who played 5E D&D in 2018 were using one of the WotC adventure paths.

Quote from: Haffrung;1061691I'd hazard a guess that 2/3 or more of the people who played 5E D&D in 2018 were using one of the WotC adventure paths.

I rarely hear of any 5e group that isn't running a homebrew campaign.

Some internet people say they run those, but I have yet to meet a meat-space person that did.

Quote from: S'mon;1061688Good post, but people do seem to like buying new smartphones, thinking the new one is shinier than the last.

They replace an average of every 2 years. IME, 2 years is right around when you can't get the latest Android update, and some software will stop working. Phones are also still aggressively improving quality (e.g. touch screen responsiveness, battery life, etc), though that may run out soon. I mean, people used to replace PCs every couple years, but now you regularly find people using laptops that are 5 years old or more!

Phones are also products which physically wear out, both because we tend to play rough with them, and because they have a level of planned obsolescence--and by that I mean real obsolescence, not just marketing. You can wear out your pre-pdf game books if you play rough with them, but the games themselves don't ever really 'wear out.'

Quote from: fearsomepirate;10615943.5 was destroyed by catering to the addicts. Individual products were increasingly bought only by the most addicted/enthusiastic, and each additional book sold worse than the previous one. The whole thing collapsed after only a couple years.



Actually, the trick is to not fall into the trap of cranking up complexity to harvest more money from a shrinking customer base. It results in large short-term gains (the first player-facing expansion book for D&D always sells extremely well), and it's easy to get greedy and try to turn a short-term windfall into a long-term strategy. But it kills off your customer base. It is much harder to keep normal people engaged, but this is how you build long-term success instead of dying by attrition. If your revenue is growing while your customer base is shrinking, you're dying. You just don't know it.

Yup, absolutely right.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061655One problem with 3e is that it has enough content that some people just never stopped playing. Those people are now lost to the RPG market.

But isn't that with every edition of any popular RPG?

Huge chunk of the OSR are happy to keep rocking with TSR products only. I imagine the same exists for White Wolf fans.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1062299Huge chunk of the OSR are happy to keep rocking with TSR products only.

They're not OSR, they're just OS! :D Yeah there are tons of those guys on Dragonsfoot who only play, or care about, official TSR modules from the late '70s & '80s, with 1e AD&D rules.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1062299But isn't that with every edition of any popular RPG?

Huge chunk of the OSR are happy to keep rocking with TSR products only. I imagine the same exists for White Wolf fans.

It's likely that there's a fairly small number that actually stuck to 3e. Far more switched to Pathfinder.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1062814It's likely that there's a fairly small number that actually stuck to 3e. Far more switched to Pathfinder.

Pathfinder had some interesting ideas, and some of the expanded classes were niche but interesting. But tacking it onto 3rd edition and actively making it more crunchy?

Please put down the LSD and step out of the pool.

When 6E comes out the fad is over and a lot of YouTube shows will be out of work.

Quote from: Lurtch;1062856When 6E comes out the fad is over and a lot of YouTube shows will be out of work.

Then bring on 6E!

Quote from: Spinachcat;1062299But isn't that with every edition of any popular RPG?

Huge chunk of the OSR are happy to keep rocking with TSR products only. I imagine the same exists for White Wolf fans.

Nah, White Wolf fans always need the new hotness, even if it's just to shit all over it and say how much they hate it compared to the previous versions. See my bitching about how Stingy Onxy path is being with the 5th Edition Chicago by Night Kickstarter in that particular thread...and the fact I'll still probably by it..I think this might have something to do with the WoD games being set in the modern day though... At a certain point you want the updated info because the old edition has become "Outdated" by the march of time.... Revised edition Vampire came out in 1998....It's a little behind the times when presenting setting information.

As for 6th Edition Dungeons and Dragons... I figure 5th edition has at LEAST another 5 years or so before they start getting to putting that edition out... By then, if it's been long enough time, and it seems to offer a superior version of the rules, I'll be on board to purchase it.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1062825Pathfinder had some interesting ideas, and some of the expanded classes were niche but interesting. But tacking it onto 3rd edition and actively making it more crunchy?

Please put down the LSD and step out of the pool.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that's what I was saying. What I was saying was that when 4e came out, 2/3rds of gamers didn't move over to 4e, but most of these did not stick to playing 3e, because Pathfinder was available as an in-print alternative. Hence the huge success of Pathfinder against 4e.

Note that many of these have now come back home to D&D with 5e, which explains why Pathfinder is no longer a real competition to D&D.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1064005I'm not sure where you got the idea that's what I was saying. What I was saying was that when 4e came out, 2/3rds of gamers didn't move over to 4e, but most of these did not stick to playing 3e, because Pathfinder was available as an in-print alternative. Hence the huge success of Pathfinder against 4e.

Note that many of these have now come back home to D&D with 5e, which explains why Pathfinder is no longer a real competition to D&D.

Some people seem to expect only minor tweaks to 5E, reflected in 6E.  If so, then why re-buy all the core books for minor tweaks?

I expect at least a handful of significant changes; but even that will be a gamble, because 5E could be played until the cows come home.

Quote from: Razor 007;1064092Some people seem to expect only minor tweaks to 5E, reflected in 6E.  If so, then why re-buy all the core books for minor tweaks?

I expect at least a handful of significant changes; but even that will be a gamble, because 5E could be played until the cows come home.

About 90% of 5e's problems come from crap monsters and worse magic items.

The PHB could stand for some tweaks but it's not the "problem".

But no 6e with Mearls or JC would be worth the ink it's printed on.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1064005I'm not sure where you got the idea that's what I was saying. What I was saying was that when 4e came out, 2/3rds of gamers didn't move over to 4e, but most of these did not stick to playing 3e, because Pathfinder was available as an in-print alternative. Hence the huge success of Pathfinder against 4e.

Note that many of these have now come back home to D&D with 5e, which explains why Pathfinder is no longer a real competition to D&D.

The drug comment was directed to Paizo, who decided that what their version of 3.5 aka 3.75 needed was twice as many rules.

It's like with the Exalted writers, all of whom have been unpersoned to my amusement. Take a game who's largest complaint is that there are shit tons of rules, most of which don't work, and make a new edition the size of a medium family sedan.

:( No one brings their LSD to my pool... No fair, no fair. :(

I think 5E, as presented in the PHB, could be the closest thing to an evergreen edition we've ever seen.  6E needs to be a major home run, to justify a purchase of the 3 core books.  It's entirely possible, as long as they carefully consider what to do with 6E.  It just needs to be great, because 5E already is.  Keep being great.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1064123:( No one brings their LSD to my pool... No fair, no fair. :(

It's just as well. LSD and swimming are an odd mixture, and one I'll never repeat.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1064125It's just as well. LSD and swimming are an odd mixture, and one I'll never repeat.

I grew out of the try anything culture a long, long time ago...

But I have been there, and done that...

Quote from: Razor 007;1064129I grew out of the try anything culture a long, long time ago...

But I have been there, and done that...

I'm almost 40, so my long long ago actually was long, long ago.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1064132I'm almost 40, so my long long ago actually was long, long ago.

Well, I'm older than you.  I was born back before they even started the development of the Little Brown Booklets.  Chainmail may not have been released yet.

Quote from: Razor 007;1064092Some people seem to expect only minor tweaks to 5E, reflected in 6E.  If so, then why re-buy all the core books for minor tweaks?

I expect at least a handful of significant changes; but even that will be a gamble, because 5E could be played until the cows come home.

Well if they release 6ed in 2025 or so I don't think they'd have that much trouble selling people new books with minor tweaks because:
1. By that time there'll be a pretty broad consensus of what shit people want tweaked, so if they keep the changes small they should avoid pissing off too many people.
2. The cries of "oh my God it's just a cash grab!" after it's been so long will be muted.
3. With 5ed not having so much of a splat treadmill you won't have so much burnout.
4. If people play regularly their books will probably be falling apart at that point anyway.
5. They can purge the last annoying vestiges of 4ed without too much screaming resulting since not even rpg.net gives a shit about 4ed anymore.
6. Good excuse for a marketing push and by that time people will be ready for some new shit.

CoC has had plenty of editions that've been minor tweaks, a lot of games have. Nothing wrong with a new edition that's just minor tweaks. D&D's weird in that the game has been re-designed from the ground up three times in the last two decades. Don't think that's happened to any other games I can think of, even ones with lots of editions.

Quote from: Razor 007;1064619Well, I'm older than you.  I was born back before they even started the development of the Little Brown Booklets.  Chainmail may not have been released yet.

"I'm not older than dirt, but i do remember when it was under warranty..."

Don't try to keep up with the editions, it's a losers game.

Write your own version of D&D instead!

No really, I LIKE 5e (the mechancis are really good IMO), but I already have more books than I will read 10 times more feats than I'll ever use and 100 more spells than I'll ever need. Last time I played 5e was lots of fun but I regret no going with my 50-page clone.

Also, 5e books are mostly boring and crunch-focused so far (point me to three or four cool setting ideas from 5e and I'll reconsider, but I'm impressed with how boring they can get - couldn't get past the first pages of Volo's or Mordenkainen's, well at least I like the oblex). Compare it to, say, DCC, a book I often open at random to find something awesome.

If that is the winning model, 6e will probably be worse in these aspects, and I won't be able to use my 5e books.

Buying all that stuff again? Unlikely.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1064669Don't try to keep up with the editions, it's a losers game.

Write your own version of D&D instead!

No really, I LIKE 5e (the mechancis are really good IMO), but I already have more books than I will read 10 times more feats than I'll ever use and 100 more spells than I'll ever need. Last time I played 5e was lots of fun but I regret no going with my 50-page clone.

Also, 5e books are mostly boring and crunch-focused so far (point me to three or four cool setting ideas from 5e and I'll reconsider, but I'm impressed with how boring they can get - couldn't get past the first pages of Volo's or Mordenkainen's, well at least I like the oblex). Compare it to, say, DCC, a book I often open at random to find something awesome.

If that is the winning model, 6e will probably be worse in these aspects, and I won't be able to use my 5e books.

Buying all that stuff again? Unlikely.

https://youtu.be/vy-QmgdUVTI

I expect 6e will come out in 2024 to hit the 50th anniversary.

I'm expecting a refresh with new cover art and reorganization (like encounter tables in the DMG), but not a significant rules rewrite like each WotC edition has been so far. It'll be similar enough that if you don't want to buy new rule books to play new adventures, you won't have to, same as with 1e to 2e.

Quote from: tenbones;1064685https://youtu.be/vy-QmgdUVTI

Hell yeah heartbreakers!

Quote from: S'mon;1064686I expect 6e will come out in 2024 to hit the 50th anniversary.

They will do a 5.5 edition before then.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1064706I'm expecting a refresh with new cover art and reorganization (like encounter tables in the DMG), but not a significant rules rewrite like each WotC edition has been so far. It'll be similar enough that if you don't want to buy new rule books to play new adventures, you won't have to, same as with 1e to 2e.

I would take a look at a new DMG.

We can't know what 6e will be like, because there's no real 6e in the works as of now, as far as we know anyways. And it would be unlikely that would happen while 5e is still doing so strongly.

I agree, though, that 6e's makeup will depend a lot on who's in charge at WoTC when it comes out.