|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 2:06AM
#31
|
|
|
Whether the OGL was a good idea or a bad one is (I think) a moot point since it is what happened. I do not think that it dooms 5e to failure. I'm pretty sure that the designers are planning to create a system that can coexist with Pathfinder. Some people will prefer Pathfinder to 5e, just like some people will prefer to play one of the previous editions. What 5e should accomplish is to allow players to use their favorite "playstyle" with the same edition. I'm pretty sure another main goal is to widen the customer base by bringing new people into the game.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 3:18AM
#32
|
|
|
If you look at the behavoir of the RPG industry, though, there is a clear pattern of popularity wanning late in an edition's life. It's the early, 'core' books that always sell best, then taper off. There are any number of possible reasons. One I find compelling is that games like D&D that add sub-systems as they add options become more and more complex and less and less playable the longer they're supported. They need to 're-boot' periodically to restore playability (and revenue). Pathfinder is wildly successful (for a 3rd-party OGL game) because buzz and furor was whipped up by the rejection of 4e. An official "3.75," as 3.5-compatible as Pathfinder is wouldn't even have been a 'reboot,' just more ongoing support, adding yet more complexity and making the game more arcane and turgid and less playable. It would have flopped. Unless, of course, "3.75" had been incompatible enough to 'force' an either/or switch - in which case it would have been rejected like 4e, and we'd still have Pathfinder, though it might be an even more faithful clone than it is now.
But is this actually the case? Pathfinder is only a year younger then 4e and seems to be growing in popularity.
Is it because they are pushing a different sales model (adventure paths vs core rules)?
Is it becuase they have developed an excellent PR machine?
Is it because they support electronic versions of their material?
Is it because they have lower sales targets so do not need to be constantly churning through new editions?
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 3:48AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2004
|
But is this actually the case? Pathfinder is only a year younger then 4e and seems to be growing in popularity.
Is it because they are pushing a different sales model (adventure paths vs core rules)?
Is it becuase they have developed an excellent PR machine?
Is it because they support electronic versions of their material?
Is it because they have lower sales targets so do not need to be constantly churning through new editions?
I doubt it is growing in popularity and I have never seen any numbers that support that claim. It is their excellent PR machine, however, that makes people believe that. It makes sense to me that PF had quite a big number of followers to begin with. The followers being the people who did not like 4E because of the mechanics and design paradigm and did not like 3.x because they felt that that system needed modified mechanics. Growing popularity? Doubt it. The shelf size in my gaming store for PF books has actually decreased. Which is no evidence for anything at all. I would like to see hard facts instead of anecdotal evidence.
Paizo seems to sell more books, but then again they publish more books than WotC. Their marketing department makes sure that everybody hears the claim that they sell more books, because some people follow the game the think is the market leader. Paizo also seems to be able to activate their players to market the game in any official forum. At ENWorld, for example, the headline for the PF forum for the longest time said something like "The new Paizo Pathfinder is finally here! Discuss the latest infos in this forum..." Quite a good way to market the game in the biggest DnD discussion board. Makes PF sound so positive. If they paid ENWord for that, good marketing. If they did not pay anything, great marketing.
Customer support is better, and we gamers all have a cranky side which believes that the game should be played exactly like we want it and any other way to play it is crap. Good luck to you 5e!
They were even able to make everybody believe, they are the biggest fish in the pond today without having to take responsibility for the game itself. That burden has always been with WotC. So while nobody expects Paizo to cater to anybody but PF fans, WotC has to cater to all DnD players in the world. Classic!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 4:16AM
#34
|
|
|
If you look at the behavoir of the RPG industry, though, there is a clear pattern of popularity wanning late in an edition's life. It's the early, 'core' books that always sell best, then taper off. There are any number of possible reasons. One I find compelling is that games like D&D that add sub-systems as they add options become more and more complex and less and less playable the longer they're supported. They need to 're-boot' periodically to restore playability (and revenue). Pathfinder is wildly successful (for a 3rd-party OGL game) because buzz and furor was whipped up by the rejection of 4e. An official "3.75," as 3.5-compatible as Pathfinder is wouldn't even have been a 'reboot,' just more ongoing support, adding yet more complexity and making the game more arcane and turgid and less playable. It would have flopped. Unless, of course, "3.75" had been incompatible enough to 'force' an either/or switch - in which case it would have been rejected like 4e, and we'd still have Pathfinder, though it might be an even more faithful clone than it is now.
But is this actually the case? Pathfinder is only a year younger then 4e and seems to be growing in popularity.
Is it because they are pushing a different sales model (adventure paths vs core rules)?
Is it becuase they have developed an excellent PR machine?
Is it because they support electronic versions of their material?
Is it because they have lower sales targets so do not need to be constantly churning through new editions?
Smaller company, smaller sale target.
Sale target for WoTC is 100 million/year (get this ridiculous demand from Hasbro in 2005, at that time D&D is only 25-30 million/year)
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Ever at their prime(3.5 before broken fanbase) D&D is only 25-30 million/year.
Now,everythings below 100 million/year is fail for WoTC, that's mean every edition.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 5:42AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2012
|
Whether it fails immediately and Hasbro kills the line, or it stagnates and dies slowly, the hobby can look forward to D&D(including Pathfinder) declining in relevance over the next decade or so, much like it did in the 90s.
Hopefully, other producers will step in and keep things fresh, like SJG and WWGS did in the 90s. If not, the hobby itself could fade into (even deeper) obscurity.
I disagree. I think that 4e is a radical enough change that many people playing Pathfinder would not be playing right now if they had just one choice. Of course many would play 3e but an unsupported edition would bleed players over time. I think more games does make the pie bigger. I'm excited about 13th Age. If it is halfway decent I'll buy it too along with 5e assuming it too is good.
I foresee in time there being a vibrant industry of competitors. If Hasbro can't make money making the game they will license it out to someone else (just to make the game and they'll hold the rest of the ip). I agree at Hasbro's level, D&D has never been very profitable and to be honest it can't get that profitable. It's never going to be MtG. I bet Stephen King and Tom Clancy still bring in more money than D&D does.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 12:06PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Feb 13, 2012
|
My apologies if the following questions are stupid, I was away from the hobby between 1985 and 2009... Whether it fails immediately and Hasbro kills the line, or it stagnates and dies slowly, the hobby can look forward to D&D(including Pathfinder) declining in relevance over the next decade or so, much like it did in the 90s. Hopefully, other producers will step in and keep things fresh, like SJG and WWGS did in the 90s.
What happened to D&D in the 90s? In what way did these other accronyms you mention displace it?
I agree at Hasbro's level, D&D has never been very profitable and to be honest it can't get that profitable. It's never going to be MtG. I bet Stephen King and Tom Clancy still bring in more money than D&D does.
Strange that Hasbro bothers with it, then. Why did they buy TSR in the first place?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 12:56PM
#37
|
|
|
This seems unlikely. These games are not 4e and have not seen any big growth. By contrast Pathfinder has been very successful, whether or not we take seriously the claim it is close to being #1. So by the evidence at hand, a 3.75 would have been highly successful. The idea the player just has to have something new looks rather dubious when you consider the current version of chess is 200 years old and nobody is sure whether it's been one or two thousand years since Go changed its rules much.
If you look at the behavoir of the RPG industry, though, there is a clear pattern of popularity wanning late in an edition's life. It's the early, 'core' books that always sell best, then taper off. There are any number of possible reasons. One I find compelling is that games like D&D that add sub-systems as they add options become more and more complex and less and less playable the longer they're supported. They need to 're-boot' periodically to restore playability (and revenue). Pathfinder is wildly successful (for a 3rd-party OGL game) because buzz and furor was whipped up by the rejection of 4e. An official "3.75," as 3.5-compatible as Pathfinder is wouldn't even have been a 'reboot,' just more ongoing support, adding yet more complexity and making the game more arcane and turgid and less playable. It would have flopped. Unless, of course, "3.75" had been incompatible enough to 'force' an either/or switch - in which case it would have been rejected like 4e, and we'd still have Pathfinder, though it might be an even more faithful clone than it is now.
There is a math error here. Properly, "3.75" would have been "4e" and 4e would be called a completely different game ["Pathfinder"?]. But since there is a 4e all around us, we have to label what would have been 4e as 3.75. However we have to keep in mind this is not a linear progression. The "3.75" we are talking about would have the tone of 3.5, but some very major differences as well, meaning everyone would need new books.
And it would have been close enough to 3.5 to prevent Pathfinder from even starting. 4e made room by killing all sorts of sacred cows [and bragging about it]. Thus we have surge healing instead of hp healing. I deem it a superior system, but it is still quite different. If we had stuck with hps, it is not at all hard to jiggle the numbers around enough to make 3.5 & 3.75 incompatible, but to still use the old system and not upset the 3.5 player [beyond being upset about having to buy new books.] Such a 3.75 would have blocked out any Pathfinder since the player has to buy new books either way.
There would still have been objections, but in the end, they would not have amounted to much. There simply would not be as much to object to. And since it would have been close to 3.5, there would not have been room for Pathfinder.
Note here that Pathfinder did not succeed because people rejected 4e, but because a lot of people really liked 3.5.
Now with 5e, WOTC no longer has control of the market and will have to work to supply what its customers want and I have my doubts that trying to appeal to everybody will work better than making sure you please some, but I make no claim to be a marketing expert.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 2:37PM
#38
|
|
|
First I am one of the old grognards so no offense was intended. I agree there are all sides. I also agree that there are people that lean a way but would still like X from another edition. That is the hope of 5e. I still though believe that there is a viewpoint that is not insignificant that is represented by what I spoke of in my previous post. I didn't claim it was the only viewpoint. It is a significant one. Obviously those playing Pathfinder had their reasons. They aren't retroclone people who want something else. I think if 4e had been simpler and more streamlined without dumping as many of the sacred cows if thats what you want to call them would have had a greater success.
I think those who love, like, or can tolerate 4e are playing it. If you are playing something else you've had to decide to leave the D&D brand. I have not played Pathfinder in any campaign even though I have bought a few things. I own a bunch of 4e books. I have been fairly loyal to D&D and I've always given them a chance. If they finally do shake me free then they've accomplished something because I have a lot of brand loyalty. If they deliver another game that hits me the same way 4e did then I'm probably gone. Maybe forever. And the reason may be competition. With options you aren't tied to one company which is why I love the OGL as a customer even though as an owner of WOTC I'd have hated it.
I'm still not sure what your point is. You seem to be aware that there are many views, but you also seem to be saying that your post about choosing the 4E market versus choosing the previous-E market is what WotC is facing with DDN. Are you trying to make a statement about your own preferences but trying to couch it in some kind of ad populum argument? Or are you actually generalizing? I have no idea.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 2:38PM
#39
|
|
|
Strange that Hasbro bothers with it, then. Why did they buy TSR in the first place?
The original WotC purchased TSR because the owners were Roleplaying geeks who had the chance to buy TSR and took it.
They created the OGL to make sure that no one company could kill off DnD (either by design or by going bankrupt).
Then WotC itself was purchased by Hasbro - most likely to get its very well preforming CCG's like Magic et al.
So basically the Wotc that we see now is different then the WotC that originally purchased TSR
I doubt it is growing in popularity and I have never seen any numbers that support that claim. It is their excellent PR machine, however, that makes people believe that. It makes sense to me that PF had quite a big number of followers to begin with. The followers being the people who did not like 4E because of the mechanics and design paradigm and did not like 3.x because they felt that that system needed modified mechanics. Growing popularity? Doubt it. The shelf size in my gaming store for PF books has actually decreased. Which is no evidence for anything at all. I would like to see hard facts instead of anecdotal evidence.
The ICv2 Report has Pathfinder in the top spot for the last 3 quarters. That is pretty damning evidence for its growing popularity.
Amazon Best Sellers has a similar story with the Pathfinder Core rules beating the DnD PHB.
They were even able to make everybody believe, they are the biggest fish in the pond today without having to take responsibility for the game itself. That burden has always been with WotC. So while nobody expects Paizo to cater to anybody but PF fans, WotC has to cater to all DnD players in the world. Classic!
Take responsibility for the game?
What does that even mean.
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 30, 2012 - 2:49PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Apr 27, 2012
|
stuff
I'm still not sure what your point is. You seem to be aware that there are many views, but you also seem to be saying that your post about choosing the 4E market versus choosing the previous-E market is what WotC is facing with DDN. Are you trying to make a statement about your own preferences but trying to couch it in some kind of ad populum argument? Or are you actually generalizing? I have no idea.
I was just agreeing with you that the D&D market can be sliced different ways. There is though one way of looking at it based upon certain core mechanics where 1e,2e,3e have a lot in common and 4e has less in common. I'm not disagreeing though that in other ways I could slice it 1e,2e,4e and have 3e be separate. What I am saying is that the issues that produce the slice I'm talking about (1e,2e,3e) vs 4e is based on mechanical structures that I believe are essential to bringing in the left side of that equation. I don't believe though that the 4e people are married to the structure of their game. They just want the end result to be the same. That is the challenge of 5e. Use these common mechanics and yet produce a balanced equal spotlight game.
|
|
|
