... you are a new player and everyone in your neighborhood is playing Pathfinder or GURPS or SWSE instead of 4E, guess which system you're likely going to invest in?You forget that 4e is still the best-selling ttrpg.
For now. It's also having to face the reality of competition within the same target group of gamers at a level that none of its recent predecessors even had to consider as a remote possibility.
Unless something major has changed, Eberron and from what I know about Dark Sun are both niche campaign settings not likely to appeal to a broad audience.
[...]
So they have material to work with, but nothing likely to be an attention getter.
Well, it seems something major has changed. Forgotten realms is a nice example for 'random generic; fantasy setting, as is Golarion, as is Nentir Vale. All goes back to middle earth.
Dark Sun however is very different, a tough desert without gods, more Mad Max than LOTR. Much more of an attention getter than just another version of 'generic fantasy world'.
They already have enough races, feats, and classes to saturate the need for more, and the only major campaign setting they have is one that is, to put it politely, rather polarizing in its popularity, especially after the spell plague. This isn't to say that WOTC can't change focus, just that Paizo is in as good or better of a position as WOTC is in this regard.
I can agree with you that WotC saturated the marked far to quickly for my liking. On one hand the faster the content, the faster you can use it. But the flip side is that the less playtesting there is means more balancing problems. This in turn leads to the designers being more conservative with creatsions (Look at the Shadar-Kai vs. the Shade). But I think they did that to lay down the ground-work first and foremost. This allows them to base the rest of the game on the more "Fluff" points like Setting books, Player's Options: Heores of Shadow or Heroes of the Feywild. Also, the continuation of the Scales of Adventure path as well as monthly APs on DDI and in print. Their APs do need to be better in terms of maturity (not everything has to be a dungeon crawl or grind) and complexity but I think this is more deserving for the DM than the AP itself.
First off, Magic is something completely separate, and the only reason it is worth considering is that they expect 4E to automatically sell as well as Magic does with the same amount of minimal effort, which is not a reasonable expectation.
I disagree, as WotC is also required to support that aspect of their company as well. This might lead to less support for D&D but I think it helps to show that they can have to completly different games with no linking of the two and still be considerd #1 in both areas.
Second, the adventures and boardgames from what I have seen have gotten at best mediocre reviews over all, and the miniatures for most of the 4E run have had the same difficulty, so while it is clear they are pursuing other lines, it is equally clear that those lines probably haven't gotten the support they need to be truly effective.
I've not played either board game (there are two so far) but I've heard a different story. I try not to base my opinion on something I've not tried so i'm going by hearsay and advertisements. I do feel they should be selling this sort of game at the big retailers like Toys'R'Us and Wal-Mart to get bigger numbers and supporters.
Multiple video games coming soon means help for the future, but until they actually are released, it's pure speculation on how much effect they will actually have. The most problematic aspect of all of them is that beyond Essentials and the core rules themselves, most people don't know about any of these things because everyone in their personal group tuned out a long time ago, and seeing a new 4E product on the shelf at this point isn't going to help because they probably ignore the entire 4E shelf out of habit.
That's quite a speculation. As I talked to my LFGS owner, he seemed pretty happy with the amount of customers he's had purchasing RPGs recently and 4E specifically and his two weekly gaming groups have been regulars for almost a whole year, both playing 4E. I asked him if he talks up or talks down on any one game and he said that, when asked he prefers 4E to other systems but that the other systms have their merits and are fun too. So I don't get the feeling he's being biased against Paizo or White Wolf or whatever. I bring this up because in my limited experience, the gaming industry is too large to accurately say "most people" tuned out 4E or would ignore a new supplement just because it's 4E. If they're anything like me, I'd look at everything there is to offer and make a sound decision based on that.
I disagree, as WotC is also required to support that aspect of their company as well. This might lead to less support for D&D but I think it helps to show that they can have to completly different games with no linking of the two and still be considerd #1 in both areas.
I only mentioned Magic because the dissimilarity in the two markets with the same expectations being held for both games. Magic, despite the plethora of card games out there, has never really been challenged as the top seller. With the fragmentation of the D&D fanbase since the end of 3.5, 4E faces a legitimate challenge from Pathfinder and the other spinoffs, and that means that they will need to device new ways of meeting those challenges. They seem to be doing so already, but only time will tell if it's enough.
That's quite a speculation. As I talked to my LFGS owner, he seemed pretty happy with the amount of customers he's had purchasing RPGs recently and 4E specifically and his two weekly gaming groups have been regulars for almost a whole year, both playing 4E. I asked him if he talks up or talks down on any one game and he said that, when asked he prefers 4E to other systems but that the other systms have their merits and are fun too. So I don't get the feeling he's being biased against Paizo or White Wolf or whatever. I bring this up because in my limited experience, the gaming industry is too large to accurately say "most people" tuned out 4E or would ignore a new supplement just because it's 4E. If they're anything like me, I'd look at everything there is to offer and make a sound decision based on that.
That's not the state of things in my area. While there is one 4E game I know of that plays regularly, it's fallen out of favor where I live to the point where one of the stores in the area can't move anything pre essentials. It's less of 4E losing ground, as much as it is the other systems gaining ground while 4E sits stagnant. Most people simply got bored and moved on.
That's not the state of things in my area. While there is one 4E game I know of that plays regularly, it's fallen out of favor where I live to the point where one of the stores in the area can't move anything pre essentials. It's less of 4E losing ground, as much as it is the other systems gaining ground while 4E sits stagnant. Most people simply got bored and moved on.
Yes, but you also said it's easier for new players to find a GURPS game than a 4E one, so your area is clearly not representative of the greater whole ;)
That's not the state of things in my area. While there is one 4E game I know of that plays regularly, it's fallen out of favor where I live to the point where one of the stores in the area can't move anything pre essentials. It's less of 4E losing ground, as much as it is the other systems gaining ground while 4E sits stagnant. Most people simply got bored and moved on.Yes, but you also said it's easier for new players to find a GURPS game than a 4E one, so your area is clearly not representative of the greater whole ;)
I was using that as an example to demonstrate that a new player would most likely to play whatever the dominant system in that area happened to be. I've never seen it played myself, but if for whatever reason that was what people were playing, and a new person wanted to join them, that would be the most likely system for the new player to pick up, simply becuase that is what would get used the most, despite the fact that most people probably don't even know it exists. That is why getting buy in from the gamer community is important for a system to thrive. If people aren't actually playing it, no amount of PR outside the gamer community is going to help.
|
I think we have to agree that anecdotal evidence centred around one area is never going to represent an accurate picture of the hobby and industry as a whole.
For every example of somewhere that 4e doesn't sell but PF is flying off the shelves there is a counter example..
When I last went into the LGS in town I saw a few 4e titles there, along with Traveller Dark Heresy etc, but I couldn't find any Pathfinder stuff at all - not even on the shelves further back. Equally, in our Meetup group there have been no games running using PF RPG, the D&D games running use 3.5 or 4e (and 4e has the most games going at the moment).
Then again, no one in my old weekly group moved over to 4e but they all went over to PF. Also the LGS in the next city over stocks both PF and 4e quite heavily.
So yeah, anecdotal evidence is representative only of the anecdote :)
I agree, DigitalMage, but you have to admit that simply by being present, the question of which is currently the most popular in any given area between 2 systems as closely related as 4E and Pathfinder is a significant shift. Before it was always a comparison of D&D to White Wolf or some other very significantly different system with completely different roots and target market.
So could you give me some reasons (other than "they created 4E") WotC has lost your respect? Or what methods they've employeed in getting 4E this far that you've found unpopular?
1. Absolute failure to deliver on the vast majority of DDI
2. GSL fiasco3. Pulling the PDFs
4. Design changes disguised as errata (see: magic missile)
5. "Stealth" 4.5 (aka Essentials)
6. Orphaning organized play
That is off the top of my head. And I liked the design of 4E.
I'd have to imagine that 4th edition would be pretty boring to write for.
Not at all. It's no different than creating new stories for any other game, or creating/fleshing-out worlds.
Good enough to have to keep most of their site "premium" to have it running, that is.
Er...their premium site is their product. That's all of it. Everything ENWorld does is available through a single subscription. So if they're keeping a lot of their site premium, that doesn't mean anything more than that their business model must be working out alright for them.
Unless something major has changed, Eberron and from what I know about Dark Sun are both niche campaign settings not likely to appeal to a broad audience. FR is, and has always been for as long as I've known about it, a very polarizing setting in that you either love it or hate it, not very helpful when trying to capture, or in many cases recapture, your audience. As for Nentir Vale, I've had it described to me as their official version of a homebrew setting, and that wasn't meant in a positive light. So they have material to work with, but nothing likely to be an attention getter.
You are describing all of these settings in as uncharitable a light as possible. I could just as easily take digs at Golarion, calling it obscure, plainly derivative, and a catch-all, but that would be missing the point: it's a solid setting.
It comes down to expectations. For pretty much any other gaming company, the success that WOTC has had with 4E and DDI would be the pinnacle of what they could hope to achieve. For WOTC, it's barely enough to pay the bills. In order to make the profits that are expected from a leading brand name, they are going to have to do more than rest on their laurels, and expect DDI to continue to support an aging system that increasingly gets little to no attention from anyone not actually playing it, due to it's age as much as any other factor. By choosing to use DDI as a model, they have effectively declared they no longer need the rest of the industry to help them advertise and sustain their game; their marketing and advertising skills have yet to catch up with that bold claim. They have a solid product, but without more positive publicity to make people notice, it's not going to do them any good. Again, for any other company, their current position would be just fine, but WOTC and Hasbro have come to require more from their products than what 4E is currently able to give them.
Do you have anything with which to back this up? That sounds like a whole lot of assumption and wishful thinking on your part.
What good does getting mentioned in the NY Times or selling computer/console games automatically do to get more people playing?
Really? Really?
1. Absolute failure to deliver on the vast majority of DDI
2. GSL fiasco
3. Pulling the PDFs
4. Design changes disguised as errata (see: magic missile)
5. "Stealth" 4.5 (aka Essentials)
6. Orphaning organized play
No offense, bugleyman, but a few of these are things that are either untrue, very arguable, or have been long since rectified. I can understand your level of personal respect for WotC being low years ago, but by all accounts they've been keeping their nose pretty clean recently. The fact that more recent (anything in the last year) things have to be twisted in order to sound bad (calling Essentials a "stealth 4.5", or saying they've orphaned organized play - neither of which are true) speaks for itself, doesn't it?
So yeah, there's got to be some difference that makes a system that's younger by a year have over twice as many 3PP products than 4e.
Except Pathfinder isn't younger by a year.
Pathfinder is 3e. People keep trying to forget or ignore this. 3e was already around for 9 years previous.
Going into the future, Paizo's model is going to do a lot better than WOTC's.
Is it?
Paizo's model only works so long as someone else makes the system for them. Once again, Pathfinder is 3e. If WotC had never made 3e, there would be no Pathfinder. Pathfinder is at best 3.55.
Maybe Paizo's model is for the short term better then WotC's. But they're building it off of someone else's work.
No offense, bugleyman, but a few of these are things that are either untrue, very arguable, or have been long since rectified. I can understand your level of personal respect for WotC being low years ago, but by all accounts they've been keeping their nose pretty clean recently. The fact that more recent (anything in the last year) things have to be twisted in order to sound bad (calling Essentials a "stealth 4.5", or saying they've orphaned organized play - neither of
which are true) speaks for itself, doesn't it?
No offense taken. However, we're going to have to disagree on Essentials...it is clearly a new edition (but without many of the benefits of such!) in everything but name. As for organized play, they no longer manage or fund LFR. To me, that amounts to orphaning. YMMV.
As for keeping their nose clean in the last year? I couldn't care less. They've lost me as a customer. At the very minimum, they'd need to produce an (acknowledged) new edition with PDFs for me to even look at D&D again.
But all that aside, the original challenge was to produce reasons that I have lost respect for WotC other than "they made 4E." I have done so. I have no interest in edition warring.
|
So yeah, there's got to be some difference that makes a system that's younger by a year have over twice as many 3PP products than 4e.
Except Pathfinder isn't younger by a year.
Pathfinder is 3e. People keep trying to forget or ignore this. 3e was already around for 9 years previous.
We're comparing the amount of 3PP output in certain time frame.
Maybe Paizo's model is for the short term better then WotC's. But they're building it off of someone else's work.
Writing this one in my "blanket statements by Cirno worth revisiting few years down the road" file. There are several there already, they're so sweet that they make me want to write in bold italics to help me look smarter.
:-)
Some helpful posts were caught in the crossfire, so please feel free to repost that material without the references to removed posts.
Gimme a few hours to retype that post on quick system math conversions using Minecraft ALUs and coconuts.
Writing this one in my "blanket statements by Cirno worth revisiting few years down the road" file. There are several there already, they're so sweet that they make me want to write in bold italics to help me look smarter.
:-)
I'll file this under "Gorbacz says thing for no point, doesn't back it up"
Only I won't, because keeping files on internet posters is creepy.
|
|
Writing this one in my "blanket statements by Cirno worth revisiting few years down the road" file. There are several there already, they're so sweet that they make me want to write in bold italics to help me look smarter.
:-)
I'll file this under "Gorbacz says thing for no point, doesn't back it up"
Only I won't, because keeping files on internet posters is creepy.
Nah, it's just the correct way of handling you :-)
Nah, it's just the correct way of handling you :-)
No, actually, still creepy.
On the other hand a campaign world is not as hard for 4E players to use and an AP or adventureI think this might also be a factor. For a DM, it's much, much easier to convert a 3.5 or PF adventure to 4e than it would be the other way around. Its so easy that you can adapt most things on the fly, and with a little prep time, as also shown by Scott Betts stuff and others, the results are truly amazing, and 4e groups playing a paizo AP can get the best of both worlds.
Certainly its possible to do - I do it after all. Still I think this is only partially covers the possibilities. In the end this still leaves the individual DM creating the Skill Challenges and often there is at least some significant work involved in doing such a conversion.
The Paizo APs provide solid stories but there are still challenges to reworking them for 4E. Scott Betts has done what he can but its still a pretty limited amount of available material. I'm told that Wolgang Baur has done some good work in this area as well. Still I think there is room for at least one more publisher of high quality material. For one a conversion, no matter how good, works withing the preconceived state of the game in previous editions. If you design from scratch there is more opportunity to design Skill Challenges that clearly fit into the plot and to do some extra work with the skill system at higher levels, which is why I mentioned higher level political intrigues or murder mysteries as being a prime example of a part of the market that is wide open in 4E but no one seems to be filling.
Jeremy, the problem is not many 3PPs are in a postion to be able to consistently crank out the quality of adventures that people would demand. Paizo and only a handful of others have the resources to do so, and they can benefit more from actively working with each other than with a company that seems content to ride their success without paying attention to what anyone else may be doing. It isn't that 4E adventures would be that much harder to make, it's that the lack of official support from it's creator tends to be a problem when many other companies are much more willing to be supportive of such complimentary efforts.
I'm not really sure I can see where there is significant difference in terms of official support for Paizo vs. WotC in regards to your new adventure for system X. Paizo might plug you on their store blog but that strikes me as the only big difference...and your not even certain they will do that.
None of this is to say that it is easy to make great adventures for either system. Its a lot of work that probably takes a solid amount of time to develop and an independent probably should run a play test or two work out bugs (if you want to swim with these sharks you need to get your foot in the door with the best product possible). I'm not sure I'd do it in PF because your pretty much going head to head with the market leader in the field.
In 4E however WotC does little in this area - though that might change. They mentioned that the new writers guidelines for Dungeon and Dragon will involve feedback so that they will always send you that soul crushing rejection letter with some pointers and an explanation of why they did not think your material was up to snuff. This policy may get them better content from the fanbase itself.
Paizo's model only works so long as someone else makes the system for them. Once again, Pathfinder is 3e. If WotC had never made 3e, there would be no Pathfinder. Pathfinder is at best 3.55.
And if TSR never made D&D WotC would never had made 3rd ed D&D.
Also conversly if WotC never abandoned 3.5...Pazio would not have been able to make Pathfinder.
Maybe Paizo's model is for the short term better then WotC's. But they're building it off of someone else's work.
And WotC is not? Everything is built off the work of others. 4th ed is really has nothing inovative for RPGs at all....sure it might be new to D&D.
I don't get how this is a bad thing about somebody's model.
Paizo's model only works so long as someone else makes the system for them. Once again, Pathfinder is 3e. If WotC had never made 3e, there would be no Pathfinder. Pathfinder is at best 3.55.And if TSR never made D&D WotC would never had made 3rd ed D&D.
Also conversly if WotC never abandoned 3.5...Pazio would not have been able to make Pathfinder.
Maybe Paizo's model is for the short term better then WotC's. But they're building it off of someone else's work.And WotC is not? Everything is built off the work of others. 4th ed is really has nothing inovative for RPGs at all....sure it might be new to D&D.
I don't get how this is a bad thing about somebody's model.
Except 3e was a new edition. And 4e was a new edition. They took cues from previous editions but were nonetheless something fundamentally new. Likewise, AD&D 1&2 and Basic were both very different games.
Pathfinder is not a new edition. It is fundamentally 3.5. As I said, it is at best 3.55.
|
|
I really wish people would stop calling Essentials a Stealth edition. I can still use my 4E books from before Essentials was released. They do not inval;idate anything in the 4E books. I can take almost everything from Essentials and drop it into a 4E game. Sure they maybe one a handful of things such as magic missle which may be different. Yet I'm not required in any way to buy Essentials. I do because I like what they did yet I do not have to. For someone to say that being on the NY times best seller list or having a top selling computer will not increase sales sorry but you have no clue what your are talking about. D&D products geta a lot of exposure more so imo than other rpg companies. Your going to tell me with a straight face that it will have no affect on sales. To quote Scott Betts..Really.
|
|
I really wish people would stop calling Essentials a Stealth edition. I can still use my 4E books from before Essentials was released. They do not inval;idate anything in the 4E books. I can take almost everything from Essentials and drop it into a 4E game. Sure they maybe one a handful of things such as magic missle which may be different. .
Now, take your post, replace "4E" with "3.0", "Essentials" with "3.5", "magic missile" with "haste" and read that aloud. :)
And WotC is not? Everything is built off the work of others. 4th ed is really has nothing inovative for RPGs at all....sure it might be new to D&D.
Let's not conflate the design work that went into the release of 4th edition with the design work that went into the release of Pathfinder. The two are on hugely different levels.
I really wish people would stop calling Essentials a Stealth edition. I can still use my 4E books from before Essentials was released. They do not inval;idate anything in the 4E books. I can take almost everything from Essentials and drop it into a 4E game. Sure they maybe one a handful of things such as magic missle which may be different. .Now, take your post, replace "4E" with "3.0", "Essentials" with "3.5", "magic missile" with "haste" and read that aloud. :)
No offense to memorax, but he presents it poorly. You can take literally everything from Essentials and drop it into a 4e game. Everything. All of it. Every last bit. Even Magic Missile. Because the current version of the 4e Magic Missile is the same as the version of Magic Missile presented in Essentials, which is also 4e. 4e has evolved, slowly but surely, ever since release. Everything 4e remains compatible with everything 4e, Essentials included. This was not the case with 3.5. I played through the 3.0 to 3.5 transition. And I played through the Essentials product line release. The 3.0 Ranger was not designed to be played at the same table as the 3.5 Ranger. The PHB Wizard is designed to be played at the same table as the Essentials Mage. You cannot come here and claim that the two situations were similar with any kind of credibility. We were there. We know better.
Except that 4e Magic Missile was actually changed long before the Essentials release. If I recall correctly, it actually happened around the time PHB 2 was released and has exactly ZERO to do with Essentials production, as the development process for it had not begun in even the loosest sense of the word at that point.
Not wanting to give my opinion on the 3.5/Essentials comparison, but my recollection was that the revamped 4e Magic Missile occurred a couple months prior to the release of the Essentials products about the time they had likely finished work on the Essentials products and that those updates were really to bring all the changes in Essentials online.
Unless something major has changed, Eberron and from what I know about Dark Sun are both niche campaign settings not likely to appeal to a broad audience. FR is, and has always been for as long as I've known about it, a very polarizing setting in that you either love it or hate it, not very helpful when trying to capture, or in many cases recapture, your audience. As for Nentir Vale, I've had it described to me as their official version of a homebrew setting, and that wasn't meant in a positive light. So they have material to work with, but nothing likely to be an attention getter.You are describing all of these settings in as uncharitable a light as possible. I could just as easily take digs at Golarion, calling it obscure, plainly derivative, and a catch-all, but that would be missing the point: it's a solid setting.
I was simply pointing out that there is little to any of them in terms of fluff or books that is likely going to grab the attention of someone not already looking at them. Golarion has enough products put out for it that game stores can display that it will likely get at least some attention from people browsing. While WOTC may have magazine articles for their worlds, unless you already have a reason to check out their website or DDI, you aren't going to know about them. And the few books they have are uninspiring at least in terms of FR. Eberron and Dark Sun are both niche enough that if you aren't already interested in alternate worlds, you're not going to be picking up the books for them.
The whole point I am trying to make is that WOTC and 4E have a good sized group of players, but trying to expand it or even sustain it when it inevitably loses players is going to be tough, even with the board games, computer games, and other accessory lines. They can't rely on 3PPs to help spread the word, and they don't even have the RPGA to help them at this point, either. A large portion of the player base they used to rely on has moved on, and while that won't impact the short term all that much, it will have a long term effect of weakening the brand. People who actually go to their website can find a lot of information, but without a reason to go there in the first place, that doesn't really help. Their fan base isn't shrinking at the moment, but it really isn't growing either; they get a lot of new players, but an equal number of players are moving on to other systems just as quickly. Relative stagnation is just as dangerous as actively shrinking when you have active competitors.
The relative age of the system is important mostly because of how different companies have handled or look to be handling the development and turn around of their systems. Who originally developed the system isn't nearly as important as the prospects for future development and support are. Someone watching 4E is going to have to look at how WOTC has handled the timeline of past systems and go off of that. Some watching Pathfinder is going to have to judge where Pathfinder is by how Paizo, and to a certain extent, the 3PPs, handle Pathfinder material. In this regard, Pathfinder has a much stronger footing than 4E. Paizo has made it clear that they intend to support Pathfinder as long as the players playing it support it and have no interest in system shattering changes to the core ruleset, though they are willing to explore other options as long as they remain optional. WOTC has been much less clear on how long they intend to support 4E or where they plan on taking it.
The whole point I am trying to make is that WOTC and 4E have a good sized group of players, but trying to expand it or even sustain it when it inevitably loses players is going to be tough, even with the board games, computer games, and other accessory lines. They can't rely on 3PPs to help spread the word, and they don't even have the RPGA to help them at this point, either. A large portion of the player base they used to rely on has moved...
It's not my field, but it surprises me that you think an active 3PP community is going to rope people into Pathfinder but boardgames won't do the same for 4th edition.
My intuition is the exact opposite - I can imagine a non-RPGer picking up a board game or computer game and then looking into D&D (and in passing I dont think it matters if the computer uses a different ruleset from the tabletop game) but I can't imagine anyone buying a 3PP unless they're already a gamer. Maybe the 3PP will drag current 3.5 players to Pathfinder, but that's a diminishing pool of potential new players.
What good does getting mentioned in the NY Times or selling computer/console games automatically do to get more people playing?Really? Really?
The mythical market of untapped players just needing to hear the gospel to be redeemed isn't nearly as large as some would make it out to be. Such things will certainly get a fair number of people to experiment, but without solid support from the gaming community a whole, they aren't going to stick around. While 4E does have a dedicated core of supporters, so does Pathfinder, White Wolf, and many other systems out there. The field is getting crowded, and mostly passive reliance on the weight of the brand name when unsupported by a visible quality product is not a good long term solution. And the website only counts as far as they can get people to go to it to begin with. At least with the OGL, WOTC got at least some indirect benefit from the success of their competitors, as everything eventually returned to the 3.5/d20 ruleset; now they live or die on their own.
It's not my field, but it surprises me that you think an active 3PP community is going to rope people into Pathfinder but boardgames won't do the same for 4th edition.
My intuition is the exact opposite - I can imagine a non-RPGer picking up a board game or computer game and then looking into D&D (and in passing I dont think it matters if the computer uses a different ruleset from the tabletop game) but I can't imagine anyone buying a 3PP unless they're already a gamer. Maybe the 3PP will drag current 3.5 players to Pathfinder, but that's a diminishing pool of potential new players.
People who play board games or computer games are not automatically the same people who play TTRPGs. Relying on 3PPs as a primary strategy would be foolish, but it can be a solid secondary line of publicity. At least 3PPs target the same general audience and help get, and keep, word about the system out there even if people don't buy from them. Expecting people to translate from boardgames or computer games to TTRPGs is a much riskier tactic. That tactic, like the 3PPs, can be a solid secondary line of marketing, but when that and novels become your primary way of reaching new or lapsed players, the long term returns are likely going to be disappointing.
EDIT: It isn't just a matter of different rulesets, its a matter of different playing styles, different schedule requirements, differing goals of what they are looking for in a game, etc.
People who play board games or computer games are not automatically the same people who play TTRPGs. Relying on 3PPs as a primary strategy would be foolish, but it can be a solid secondary line of publicity. At least 3PPs target the same general audience and help get, and keep, word about the system out there even if people don't buy from them. Expecting people to translate from boardgames or computer games to TTRPGs is a much riskier tactic. That tactic, like the 3PPs, can be a solid secondary line of marketing, but when that and novels become your primary way of reaching new or lapsed players, the long term returns are likely going to be disappointing.
EDIT: It isn't just a matter of different rulesets, its a matter of different playing styles, different schedule requirements, differing goals of what they are looking for in a game, etc.
I think you're focussing on winning market share within the RPG market. I'm more concerned with the long-term view of keeping a flow of new players into the hobby (3PP aren't going to help that at all, in my view). Pathfinder has been a spectacular success in the last couple of years within the hobby. Nonetheless, do a poll of non-gamers and what proportion are going to know about it vs D&D? Given that - what would someone who was interested or who thought their kids might be interested go looking for? The game they've heard of available in mainstream boardgame shops or the game with a shelf full of products put out by half a dozen different companies in a niche gaming store?
Personally, I think this is a real strength of the "two-gorilla" situation which seems to be developing. I think 4th Edition is way better as an entry level game and I'm glad WoTC seem to be focussing on that ease of play, quick rules mastery approach. In a nebulous way, I think Pathfinder/Golarion is more complicated and nuanced (pick whichever adjective suits your biases) and a good way for people to graduate from simple to subtle if they join the hobby and want more after a bit of WoTC gaming. That's not really a comment on the rules systems (and both are moving towards the middle ground of late in my view - WoTC with the shadowfell supplement and more flavor-heavy monster vaults, Paizo with the beginner boxed set). My group plays very simple 'approximate' pathfinder and have never felt 4th edition is 'too simple'. I think it's more about adventure design and world design - the focus of the supplements each game system has supporting it. I could almost run a WoTC adventure without reading it beforehand - not so a Paizo one. However, the depth of story is greater with the Pathfinder modules and APs.
The people like me who run Paizo adventures with 4th edition rules or those who switch back and forth between systems are not really the market which matters in the long run, at least in my relatively clueless opinion. We're all going to quit at some point - if there aren't people playing in the near future who arent playing now then the hobby is in serious trouble.
One of the best replies to date in all of the discussions I've had about 4E.
Glad to see that it is possible to have a friendly conversation about WOTC and 4E. While it's getting easier, too many people, even on this board, still tend to auto defend it without looking at the merits of the counterarguments.
|
|
Now, take your post, replace "4E" with "3.0", "Essentials" with "3.5", "magic missile" with "haste" and read that aloud. :)
Still missing the point. I can still run Essentials using 4E and vice versa. Take a 3.0 Ranger and 3.5 one and see if they feel the same or play the same. something tells me that if OPaizo ever does a new edition of PF there are good chances imo that it will be totally different.
The "Slayer" or "Knight" fighters do not overwrite, replace, or invalidate fighters. A 3.5 ranger completely replaced the 3.0 ranger. As a matter of fact, by the end of the run, there wasn't a lot of 3.0 that had not been re-written, replaced, and invalidated by a 3.5 rebuild, save for more than a little content that had actually been made unusable by changes to wider systems as a whole and were never added back in for reasons of "balance" or presumed lack of interest.
Just in case you missed it the first time Gorbacz. I know it's all the rage to portray Wotc as the big bad gaming bogeyman resposnsilbe for everything thqat is bad in the gaming world. That's not true al lthe time no matter how many you click your ruby red shoes toghter and say "I wish, I wish".
|
|
No offense to memorax, but he presents it poorly. You can take literally everything from Essentials and drop it into a 4e game. Everything. All of it. Every last bit. Even Magic Missile. Because the current version of the 4e Magic Missile is the same as the version of Magic Missile presented in Essentials, which is also 4e. 4e has evolved, slowly but surely, ever since release. Everything 4e remains compatible with everything 4e, Essentials included. This was not the case with 3.5. I played through the 3.0 to 3.5 transition. And I played through the Essentials product line release. The 3.0 Ranger was not designed to be played at the same table as the 3.5 Ranger. The PHB Wizard is designed to be played at the same table as the Essentials Mage. You cannot come here and claim that the two situations were similar with any kind of credibility. We were there. We know better.
You are correct you can pretty much use everything and anything. You can use both the 4E and Essentals version of Magic Missle without problems.
|
Now, take your post, replace "4E" with "3.0", "Essentials" with "3.5", "magic missile" with "haste" and read that aloud. :)
Except that 4e Magic Missile was actually changed long before the Essentials release. If I recall correctly, it actually happened around the time PHB 2 was released and has exactly ZERO to do with Essentials production, as the development process for it had not begun in even the loosest sense of the word at that point.
I think it was much closer to release of Essentials than that. Almost 100% sure it was after PHB3.
3e->3.5 Haste was a straight up portion of a whole edition change in which existing material was overwritten, invalidated, reprinted, and made officially unusable in any sense.
While there were changes in 3.5 that did invalidate 3.0 material, there were many, many "mechanics" still 100% usable
The "Slayer" or "Knight" fighters do not overwrite, replace, or invalidate fighters. A 3.5 ranger completely replaced the 3.0 ranger. As a matter of fact, by the end of the run, there wasn't a lot of 3.0 that had not been re-written, replaced, and invalidated by a 3.5 rebuild, save for more than a little content that had actually been made unusable by changes to wider systems as a whole and were never added back in for reasons of "balance" or presumed lack of interest.
The 3.0 ranger was completely usable in 3.5, just as teh 3.0 bard and the 3.0 barbarian.
Essentials is a re-write. WotC learned their lesson with the 3->3.5 backlash. Tell me, can you buy a new printing of the original 4e PHB?
Essentials is a re-write. WotC learned their lesson with the 3->3.5 backlash. Tell me, can you buy a new printing of the original 4e PHB?
Your right that WotC learned their lesson which is why Essentials classes are basically supplements. A bunch of classes done in the theme of 'old school feel'. If your already playing 4E this is pretty much PHB4 and PHB5 because they are new classes with new abilities that play alongside the existing classes but have a different look and feel.
Essentials is a re-write. WotC learned their lesson with the 3->3.5 backlash. Tell me, can you buy a new printing of the original 4e PHB?
More like update to be honest. But it's been getting updated ever since it's release over 3 years ago. So every July or November update is a different version? Lets take the Cleric from the Player's Handbook. It was practically untouched up til last month's "Templar" treatment and it was drastically changed with an entire class update. Does it still follow the 4E tradition of At-Will, Encounter, Daily, Utility powers, class features gained at 1st level? Yessir. The changes were done to a good portion of powers and a few Paragon Path features but it's not a revision to which the likes were seen in the 3E to v3.5E shift.
And you can buy 55 new Player's Handbooks from Amazon.com, something I'm now considering since we've only got the one and it's pretty cheap ($17.99)! And you can pretty much still use the PH and other non-essential products as it without it become so blatantly broken as to cause such the current Errata-spree that's been going on. Trust me, I'v been doing it for quite some time with little to no problems (yes, even the MM1 monsters).
If Essentials is a re-write, so is APG.
|
|
Essentials is a re-write. WotC learned their lesson with the 3->3.5 backlash. Tell me, can you buy a new printing of the original 4e PHB?
More like update to be honest. But it's been getting updated ever since it's release over 3 years ago. So every July or November update is a different version? Lets take the Cleric from the Player's Handbook. It was practically untouched up til last month's "Templar" treatment and it was drastically changed with an entire class update. Does it still follow the 4E tradition of At-Will, Encounter, Daily, Utility powers, class features gained at 1st level? Yessir. The changes were done to a good portion of powers and a few Paragon Path features but it's not a revision to which the likes were seen in the 3E to v3.5E shift.
And you can buy 55 new Player's Handbooks from Amazon.com, something I'm now considering since we've only got the one and it's pretty cheap ($17.99)! And you can pretty much still use the PH and other non-essential products as it without it become so blatantly broken as to cause such the current Errata-spree that's been going on. Trust me, I'v been doing it for quite some time with little to no problems (yes, even the MM1 monsters).
No. Sorry. Updates is what they were doing to class features and powers and feats and such.
The re-write is the New Direction Going Forward.
You can pretty much use the PHBs, but not really since the rules have been re-written to include the proper updated versions in the Rules Compendium (or what ever it was named).
Those Amazon 4e PHBs...are they a new printing? No. Thiose PHBs are not in print anymore. Only the Essentials versions...which is the re-write, which is the New Direction Going Forward.
And for the record...I had no issue with what Essentials was to be for 4e...I may have had issues with stuff in 4e and stuff WotC did, but Essentials was not one of them. Though I was not seeing it as any different then what they did in 3e with the 3.5 change up.
Stuff got changed, things are different...this is how we are going forward now.
Meh.
