Disturbing trend I noticed when researching about D&D financials over the years

A recent thread on Paizo got me thinking about the financials with D&D over the years. I discussed it with a friend (well, at least an acquaintance) that I have who has a vested interest with Hasbro and WotC and supposedly has seen some information in regards to the financial back history of TSR.

It was enlightening to a degree, though still unsure of how accurate their portrayal was.

If it was, something struck me as very odd...and perhaps interesting.

People always talk about TSR going bankrupt because it had split into many lines and was too diverse and such, but something else came out of the conversation.

In 1997 it wasn't that the main RPG line wasn't making money, but that they were spending more money on project than those projects were bringing in. Hence, you may spend 20K on writing, and 15K on printing, but only sell 10K worth of material. But this wasn't the real reason for the problems, but that it was actually more of a trend.

1997 wasn't the first time TSR had financial problems. It appears that they had deep financial problems and were almost on the verge of bankruptcy around 1987?

The investements had gone deeper into debt than what they could bring in. It was an over reach that seems to occur with the industry every 10 years. Part of it could be that they have a fast expansion of the market, and then shrinkage happens and they don't compensate for this shrinkage.

It's a ten year cycle. So with the investment going out in 1977 originally, it lasted around a decade and the financial problems hit in 1987, predicatably as shrinkage had occurred in the market to a degree, but the company still was trying to expand beyond what they should have (over the past 3-5 years prior) and hence financial problems.

Then you see them restabilize, only to see a similar thing happen a decade later, but this time the danger just about becomes a reality.

In that light, with 3e/D20 coming out around 2000, D20 editions (seeing 4e was D20, even if it was not a continuation like PF) should have brought TSR into trouble financially around 2010. Looking at it, in a very scary manner, that could be what happened there too, but it had a bigger company to cushion the troubles.

Why do I mention this?

Because it seems that 4-6 years into the trend, the company hits it's high mark, and that's where the dangerous expansion and investments occur that will start to sink it later start occurring.

Not that it will, or has, but looking at Paizo and PF, it seems it's just about that point here. If we take it from the point PF started with the APs, that would be 2008, meaning we are already at the 6 year mark, and the investments would be starting right about now.

If we look at it as 2010, it means they are right at the start of it.

There are also other comparisons, in that Paizo, like TSR at both ends of those eras, has opened a LOT of extra products outside it's core line and publishing (what I would say were originally the AP's and core rule book).

If it follows the trend, that would mean Paizo would hit financial difficulties somewhere between 2018 and 2020.

Again, I don't know how truthful this person was in relating their connections or information, but if accurate, it does paint a rather unique trend and way things go.

Paizo would seem to be following the trend that TSR blazed, and later WotC (and it appears WotC may actually have followed the trend with their D20 of 3e/4e...we'll see if 5e qualifies as a refresh/reboot).

They are currently in the era of expansionism with their product lines and products. From what I saw, however, it appeared that this was inevitable. A company either expands or contracts, it can almost never simply hold the line. Is this true?

However, the expansion and contraction cycle also is what eventually leads to the financial problems, as it seems easier to expand than to contract?

Is this a legitimate thing to worry about or keep track of? And if so, if this is actually a trend, what could Paizo do to break free of the trend, and avoid the cycle?

Just open thoughts that I'm thinking, that I have no answers to.

Fascinating to consider, but I wonder if pdfs throw the old models of financial strain into question.

When I download a pdf and pass on some cash, paizo doesn't have to print a single thing.

Personally, I doubt that this should be a major concern.

First, unlike TSR, Paizo does not appear to be spending more money on product development and publishing than that product makes. Granted, the public doesn't have access to Paizo's internal books, but from the various comments made by Lisa Stevens, who is quite aware of many of the reasons for TSR's bankruptcy, she is not going to put Paizo in a situation where it's taking a loss on a product line.

Second, the sales market has changed dramatically from the TSR days; or even from 6-7 years ago. TSR was heavily dependent on the book/periodical distribution system to ship product to book and hobby stores, where it may or may not sell in the "standard" distribution amounts; one of the problems that TSR had was a lot of returned product (which cost even more than product that was not returned, due to the way the book/periodical distribution system was structured) because they couldn't target their distribution to meet local demand levels. Similar limitations existed with WotC/3.x in the 2000's; even with Amazon and other online sales mechanisms. Paizo, on the other hand, gains a large portion (again, the public has no insight into the internal books) of their sales through a subscriber model, which is shipped direct to the customer; they also do a lot of other direct sales through their online storefront. Basically, this makes Paizo more able to adjust to changes in market demand, as they "see" a larger portion of their customer base's demand on a day-to-day basis; as well as providing a more stable revenue stream.

FYI...Lisa and Vic were actually in charging of figuring out what went wrong with TSR, and they have stated multiple times that splitting lines (as well as overinvestment in box sets?) was a contributing factor.

I dunno...I see what happened with TSR, and what happened with 4E, and the causal mechanisms behind any financial problems (which I don't really know the significance if any, for 4E) seem completely different. Companies/RPG industry do not have to obey lemming boom or bust cycles.

It is way to difficult to compare TSR to Paizo of today. The Market is completely different. The marketing in general is a different model as Dragonchess Player mentions and it is just a different age and distribution system. So your comparisons in the OP is just to over the top in my opinion. Not to mention I do not buy the whole TSR business expenditures completely. I would love to see the research that he is coming up with other then a hear say testimony by yourself.

I knew people from TSR and even WotC back in the days... I think you are just more then a little off base.

It is way to difficult to compare TSR to Paizo of today. The Market is completely different. The marketing in general is a different model as Dragonchess Player mentions and it is just a different age and distribution system. So your comparisons in the OP is just to over the top in my opinion. Not to mention I do not buy the whole TSR business expenditures completely. I would love to see the research that he is coming up with other then a hear say testimony by yourself.

I knew people from TSR and even WotC back in the days... I think you are just more then a little off base.

Exactly!!

I have personally reached the "no more rulebooks" stage with Pathfinder. Unchained will probably be my last. I have enough rules to last a long time. I will still continue buying the APs that look interesting but I do wonder if, between 5e and people feeling like they have enough Pathfinder rules, a downturn is inevitable.

A problem that might arise is market over-saturation. Each year you publish more books, and the total size of your catalog increases (minus the few that go out of print). So the later books face much more competition. This is probably compounded by the fact that the best and most attractive ideas are often used up first, and later books have to cover more peripheral topics with less wide-spread appeal.

I have personally reached the "no more rulebooks" stage with Pathfinder. Unchained will probably be my last. I have enough rules to last a long time. I will still continue buying the APs that look interesting but I do wonder if, between 5e and people feeling like they have enough Pathfinder rules, a downturn is inevitable.

Fluctuations in customer/market demand are inevitable and happen all the time; the "ten year cycle" thing a bit overblown, IMO. It's how well a company adjusts that determines its success or failure.

Many of the mistakes that TSR made were (or should have been) correctible. From what I gather, it was the concatenation of all the uncorrected mistakes over the course of a decade that cased TSR to crash.

I have personally reached the "no more rulebooks" stage with Pathfinder. Unchained will probably be my last. I have enough rules to last a long time. I will still continue buying the APs that look interesting but I do wonder if, between 5e and people feeling like they have enough Pathfinder rules, a downturn is inevitable.

To early to tell but I doubt that 5E will affect Pathfinder or Paizo all that much at the moment. I will still continue to support Pathfinder personally as will my wife.

I am mildly interested in 5E but not so much I am going to rush out and buy every single thing that they put out. I was bit hard by 4E and because of that and how WotC handles their customer service... I am very hesitant on buying in to them once again. I also think I am not the only one that is thinking this way. I have spoken to many people I know and they feel the same way. They are not buying in to it fully. So the fan base I personally think is still a bit fractured and if WotC truly wants to try and heal that fracture, I do not think that at the moment 5E is the answer for it. At least not for the foreseeable future.

It's how well a company adjusts that determines its success or failure.

Paizo does seem like it has learned important lessons from the past and IMO has been very smart about their strategy. It will be interesting to see what they do if the demand for their new books decreases significantly due to over-saturation.

Dragonchess Player wrote:

It's how well a company adjusts that determines its success or failure.

Paizo does seem like it has learned important lessons from the past and IMO has been very smart about their strategy. It will be interesting to see what they do if the demand for their new books decreases significantly due to over-saturation.

I can't see over saturation for a long time yet :)

To early to tell but I doubt that 5E will affect Pathfinder or Paizo all that much at the moment.

This will be interesting to watch. One of my groups has switched from PF to 5e because they feel it is "much faster and easier to play." Who knows what the overall effect of 5e on Pathfinder will be? We'll just have to wait and see.

I can't see over saturation for a long time yet :)

You may be right, but I do see many people (including myself) starting to say they have reached "rules saturation" with PF. For me, the error-ridden ACG didn't help with this feeling that "maybe I'm good when it comes to more rules."

Something else to note: Lisa and Vic in past practice has shown that they are very cautious about expansion, and has tried to avoid expanding the company past a certain point (i think she originally said 50 employees?) so that it didn't become so big she and Vic couldn't manage it themselves. Paizo has also shown they're very careful in not assuming future growth trends will continue - both TSR and Wizards made similar mistakes, TSR in assuming tabletop gaming would continue to expand in the late 80s and 90s the way it had in the early 80s, and Wizards in assuming that "Pokemon-cash" would continue in the 2000s. Heck, TSR had fleets of company cars, investments in all sorts of small companies that didnt pan out, etc.

With Goblinworks, they started a small company, but have been careful not to invest it with Paizo money (they've said), and they've been pretty conservative with the Adventure card game so far. If Paizo declines or falls, I dont think it will be because they overestimated the market or had frivolous capital investments.

I was actually discussing this the other day with some colleagues, and the comparison we drew was to online MMO's more than the older models/trials that faced RPG's - especially considering Paizo's subscription-based business model. It seems that when a new, quality product comes into the field, it predictably takes off and gains a larger than appropriate market share. The developers begin expanding, putting time and money into new additions to the existing product, expanding it in an effort to keep current customers, to draw in new customers and in many cases to bring back former patrons as well. The problem is, right around the time they reach critical mass, the next new big thing comes up and siphons away membership... then the next comes up and steals a few more... then the next and so on.

I'm reminded of City of Heroes, my favorite MMO of its day and even now there hasn't been anything out there that offered a similar game experience. But if you follow all of the MMO's out there, they follow the same pattern, some few changing their models to allow them to survive if not exactly flourish while most simply fall by the wayside.

I truly hope that's not a valid comparison because I early love Pathfinder and am committed to it as my only RPG. They do a lot of things that I respect and think are both smart from a business stand-point and from as a consumer who enjoys their games. I have issues with some of their decisions, but most of those aren't necessarily business-related. The point is that even when you expand at a steady, measured pace rather than falling victim to 'over-reach', there are always competitors looking to steal your membership and for many, the allure of the 'shiny, new thing' is hard to resist. Paizo has been able to combat this to a large degree with open content and 3rd party materials, effectively bringing potential rivals in under one umbrella, but it remains to be seen how the new D&D will affect it. Early returns seem to be that they're doing just fine.

I know it's not popular (or maybe it is), but I'm ready for a Pathfinder 2.0 with a lot of rules clean up from the stuff they learned. Most importantly reigning in crits and no save spells.

I know we're looking at 5E after this Wrath of the Righteous campaign due to rules bloat leading to power bloat. Our group would probably stay with Pathfinder if they start an extensive revision of rules that tones the game down, scales it better so the high level game isn't so rocket tag-like, and improves on what is good about Pathfinder while limiting what makes it hard to run as a DM past the early levels.

They must be recording things that have went drastically wrong, at least I hope they are, even if they aren't fixing them as quickly as needed.

From what I remember, a lot of Paizo's product lines aren't actually handled in house, but by contracted companies. If this is the case, it could be that Paizo is simply licensing their IP to these companies, and the costs are the responsibility of those companies. If I am correct about this, it would effect this analysis deeply.

I know it's not popular (or maybe it is), but I'm ready for a Pathfinder 2.0 with a lot of rules clean up from the stuff they learned. Most importantly reigning in crits and no save spells.

I know we're looking at 5E after this Wrath of the Righteous campaign due to rules bloat leading to power bloat. Our group would probably stay with Pathfinder if they start an extensive revision of rules that tones the game down, scales it better so the high level game isn't so rocket tag-like, and improves on what is good about Pathfinder while limiting what makes it hard to run as a DM past the early levels.

I honestly don't believe that there will ever be a '2.0' per se. I think that the PFS removes that as a viable option since so many have invested so much time in something that would be made obsolete by necessity. Instead what I think we'll see is a sort of evolving stealth 2.0 where certain things are gradually phased out - again, utilizing PFS as the sort of 'point man' - and new things are introduced. There won't be a tectonic shift but rather a glacial one. Just my read on it.

From what I remember, a lot of Paizo's product lines aren't actually handled in house, but by contracted companies. If this is the case, it could be that Paizo is simply licensing their IP to these companies, and the costs are the responsibility of those companies. If I am correct about this, it would effect this analysis deeply.

If by "product lines" you mean the various book lines (RPG, APs, etc.), then no. They contract out to people for writing; not companies. Look for the "contributor" tags on people. Unless you're referring to things like Pathfinder Online. That was spun off as a separate company. Miniatures are handled by other companies as well. Paizo doesn't have the expertise for that (Reaper handles metal miniatures, others handle plastic iirc). The printed material (book and PDF) is Paizo. I'd imagine some things besides books might be contracted and/or licensed as well (T-shirts, plush toys, etc.)... but I'm not intimately acquainted with their business.

Zoe Oakeshott wrote:

From what I remember, a lot of Paizo's product lines aren't actually handled in house, but by contracted companies. If this is the case, it could be that Paizo is simply licensing their IP to these companies, and the costs are the responsibility of those companies. If I am correct about this, it would effect this analysis deeply.

If by "product lines" you mean the various book lines (RPG, APs, etc.), then no. They contract out to people for writing; not companies. Look for the "contributor" tags on people. Unless you're referring to things like Pathfinder Online. That was spun off as a separate company. Miniatures are handled by other companies as well. Paizo doesn't have the expertise for that (Reaper handles metal miniatures, others handle plastic iirc). The printed material (book and PDF) is Paizo. I'd imagine some things besides books might be contracted and/or licensed as well (T-shirts, plush toys, etc.)... but I'm not intimately acquainted with their business.

From memory:

Pathfinder Online = Goblinworks
Pathfinder Metal Minis = Reaper
Pathfinder Battles prepainted plastic minis = WizKids
Pathfinder Comics = Dynamite (or Boom... Pretty sure it's Dynamite though)
Pathfinder Audio Drama = Big Finish Productions (same guys who do a lot of the Doctor Who stuff)

Everything else is done in house as far as I'm aware, including the card game, all rulebooks (core rules, campaign setting, player companions), Pathfinder cards (Tides of Battle, Harrow Deck etc), Tales novels etc. All editing and so on is in house, they just contract freelancers for some of the content development or, in the case of Tales, for the fiction to be written.

Piccolo Taphodarian wrote:

I know it's not popular (or maybe it is), but I'm ready for a Pathfinder 2.0 with a lot of rules clean up from the stuff they learned. Most importantly reigning in crits and no save spells.

I know we're looking at 5E after this Wrath of the Righteous campaign due to rules bloat leading to power bloat. Our group would probably stay with Pathfinder if they start an extensive revision of rules that tones the game down, scales it better so the high level game isn't so rocket tag-like, and improves on what is good about Pathfinder while limiting what makes it hard to run as a DM past the early levels.

I honestly don't believe that there will ever be a '2.0' per se. I think that the PFS removes that as a viable option since so many have invested so much time in something that would be made obsolete by necessity. Instead what I think we'll see is a sort of evolving stealth 2.0 where certain things are gradually phased out - again, utilizing PFS as the sort of 'point man' - and new things are introduced. There won't be a tectonic shift but rather a glacial one. Just my read on it.

I don't care how they do it or what they call it, as long as it gets done.

Our group has reached a point where we can longer viably run the game long-term without massive modification because damage scales at a far higher rate than defense. Mythic exacerbated this problem. When I told the barbarian player that was building his character to have 600 hit points while raging that he would be dead in a round or two against high level mythic opponents, he scoffed. Then when I showed him the math, he was disappointed that he was going to invest a huge amount of resources in defense only to have that defense destroyed easily by all the offense options.

That is Pathfinder at the moment. Offense heavily outweighs defense. Monsters are poorly scaled. Effective character options are very narrow. Getting a critical hit is very easy which escalates damage to levels defense can't match. The feeling of time wasted is prevalent. Why DM a game that doesn't even try to provide the illusion of a challenge? When a game reaches a point where it is a frustrating rather than fun experience, the company needs to rethink what they're doing.

I agree Piccolo.

Failing to control costs is a killer to many companies. Failing to recognize trends is another company killer. However, failing to learn from the above mistakes is the nail in the coffin.

Heck, I made the first two mistakes and they could have sunk my company. After how well the Book of Beasts: Monsters of the River Nations and the Book of the River Nations did, I believed it was because of what I did that they were that popular, when really it was the popularity of Kingmaker that sold them. I failed to recognize that at the time. As such, I grossly overprinted the Book of Beasts: Monsters of the Shadow Plane and the shadowsfall players book. That, combined with several other costs that I failed to control could have sunk my company. But I learned from it, changed my strategy and moved on.

When it comes to Paizo, Lisa is a smart business woman. From what I have seen,I doubt there are many in the RPG industry that top her. She can hold her own.

I'm reminded of City of Heroes, my favorite MMO of its day and even now there hasn't been anything out there that offered a similar game experience.

QFT.

Off-topic: Do you know about the ongoing attempt to purchase the City of Heroes IP and license the game engine from the publisher? We might get our city back...

On-topic: I think Paizo is being run by smart people who know not to repeat history. Especially since they've researched that history. I'm not worried.

I don't care how they do it or what they call it, as long as it gets done.

Our group has reached a point where we can longer viably run the game long-term without massive modification because damage scales at a far higher rate than defense. Mythic exacerbated this problem. When I told the barbarian player that was building his character to have 600 hit points while raging that he would be dead in a round or two against high level mythic opponents, he scoffed. Then when I showed him the math, he was disappointed that he was going to invest a huge amount of resources in defense only to have that defense destroyed easily by all the offense options.

That is Pathfinder at the moment. Offense heavily outweighs defense. Monsters are poorly scaled. Effective character options are very narrow. Getting a critical hit is very easy which escalates damage to levels defense can't match. The feeling of time wasted is prevalent. Why DM a game that doesn't even try to provide the illusion of a challenge? When a game reaches a point where it is a frustrating rather than fun experience, the company needs to rethink what they're doing.

To be fair, that problem really only comes to the fore in high-level play. There are certainly a number of gamers who enjoy and even prefer play at those levels, but the vast majority of gaming takes place at levels 1-12 (including 99% of PFS play) or 1-17 (including all modules and AP's with the exception of 1). There is actually little to no support for high-level play apart from one somewhat abortive attempt in Wrath of the Righteous and I'd imagine that's due in large part to a lack of demand. At the levels that the vast majority of actual Pathfinder play takes place, the rules as a whole are just fine. There are tweaks we can all debate over and houserule to suit our individual games but the balance is there between classes, between levels and between basic factors like AC and damage. Rocket tag and whatnot is something that occurs among players with a tendency to optimize looking for ways to break the game and GM's who in turn design their high-level encounters to actually challenge such players... its not a 'badwrongfun' situation in my opinion, but people who want to break the game usually find a way to do it, ironically much to their own dissatisfaction.

Wiggz wrote:

I'm reminded of City of Heroes, my favorite MMO of its day and even now there hasn't been anything out there that offered a similar game experience.

Off-topic: Do you know about the ongoing attempt to purchase the City of Heroes IP and license the game engine from the publisher? We might get our city back...

I keep one eye on it, but it seems like that effort has been ongoing for quite some time, more's the pity.

Just to throw the info out there, the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game is another licensed product line. From what I understand, Paizo has only two employees whose sole responsibility involves the card game, Tanis O'Conner and Brian Campbell. Lone Shark Games seems to have the bulk of the developers for it (Mike Selinker, Chad Brown, and Gaby Weilding). Vic obviously puts time into it as well, but I'm sure it is far from his sole responsibility.

And that is a product that I think has been wonderful for Paizo. It has gotten them customers they would never have gotten otherwise. People that don't even play roleplaying games (like me). Some of those people seem to have also gotten interested int he roleplaying game. And they are showing the the upcoming iconics release of miniatures that they can find ways to market other product lines to both roleplayers and card game players.

I can't see how any of that expansion has been anything less than positive. Now, if the card game begins to show signs of diminishing sales (God forbid!) the mistake would be to not recognize and adjust for that. But to some extent, these "tangential" product lines allow Paizo to react more quickly to market changes. It is probably much easier to scale back the card game than it would be to scale back the adventure paths of the RPG for instance. If Paizo were to say, "We are going to scale back the release of the card game" not many people would see that as a bad sign for their core business. But if they said, "We are going to scale back the RPG adventure paths" that would sound like a real concern to their customers.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, that multiple product lines shouldn't be avoided. Just managed properly.

Just to throw the info out there, the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game is another licensed product line. From what I understand, Paizo has only two employees whose sole responsibility involves the card game, Tanis O'Conner and Brian Campbell. Lone Shark Games seems to have the bulk of the developers for it (Mike Selinker, Chad Brown, and Gaby Weilding). Vic obviously puts time into it as well, but I'm sure it is far from his sole responsibility.

And that is a product that I think has been wonderful for Paizo. It has gotten them customers they would never have gotten otherwise. People that don't even play roleplaying games (like me). Some of those people seem to have also gotten interested int he roleplaying game. And they are showing the the upcoming iconics release of miniatures that they can find ways to market other product lines to both roleplayers and card game players.

I can't see how any of that expansion has been anything less than positive. Now, if the card game begins to show signs of diminishing sales (God forbid!) the mistake would be to not recognize and adjust for that. But to some extent, these "tangential" product lines allow Paizo to react more quickly to market changes. It is probably much easier to scale back the card game than it would be to scale back the adventure paths of the RPG for instance. If Paizo were to say, "We are going to scale back the release of the card game" not many people would see that as a bad sign for their core business. But if they said, "We are going to scale back the RPG adventure paths" that would sound like a real concern to their customers.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, that multiple product lines shouldn't be avoided. Just managed properly.

** spoiler omitted **

Fair enough, didn't realise that the ACG was licensed out too. Makes sense though, keep the internal guys (apart from a couple) focused on the core business of the RPG line.

Over expansion is actually fairly common in relatively small companies. It is very easy to think all of your ideas are great because that last one made a fortune. Just think if we had pursued all our ideas like that. Why we'd be on top of everything. Good in theory, except that most ideas are crap.

The problem is exacerbated because very often those small companies don't have any good manager/financial type people. The type of person that will take the risk of investing in his/her idea to try and make it successful (remember most of them fail horribly) is usually not great manager/financial type personalities. They often tend to be fairly opposed to each other.

"The thing that has made me successful is my passion and confidence (yes, maybe overconfidence). Why would I hire a passionless, downer, pessimist to tell me how to run my company?"

Unfortunately, that may be what they need.

I am not a finance type person, but I know some who are. From what they have told me, the over expansion of small businesses follows pretty clear predictable patterns. It is pretty obvious when the risks are too big for an established company. But they expert is either not present or ignored.

From the publicly released info, it would seem Paizo is trying to be very careful to avoid that problem.

** spoiler omitted **

Sorry, folks. I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion regarding sales flow and product release.

was not a fan of the ACG. might as well have called it players handbook 5. were more classes really needed? i'd much rather see more setting books, I'm holding out hope for a hardback Guide to Tian Xia, like the ISWG.

was not a fan of the ACG. might as well have called it players handbook 5. were more classes really needed? i'd much rather see more setting books, I'm holding out hope for a hardback Guide to Tian Xia, like the ISWG.

\

were more classes really needed?

If Paizo ever stopped delivering new things in the RPG line, many people would move on to something else that can keep delivering new content. I like having new options periodically. That's why I spend so much money on third party materiel and encourage the likes of the Advanced Bestiary, Occult Adventures, and Pathfinder Unchained.

i'd much rather see more setting books

The RPG line and the Golarion line are separate, because the Pathfinder RPG in and of itself is setting neutral. So, switching from generic Pathfinder rules to Golarion specific materiel would cut into the section of the market that doesn't use Golarion.

Chernobyl wrote:

was not a fan of the ACG. might as well have called it players handbook 5. were more classes really needed? i'd much rather see more setting books, I'm holding out hope for a hardback Guide to Tian Xia, like the ISWG.

\

I agree. I felt the same way about Mythic and I'm feeling the same way about Unchained though I've yet to see it. I understand that I'm probably in the minority in that, but MOAR! isn't always better.

Unchained, as I understand it, is about seeing what could be done with the game if it didn't need to be reverse compatible with 3.5. That's very different than just adding another options book.

Chernobyl wrote:

were more classes really needed?

If Paizo ever stopped delivering new things in the RPG line, many people would move on to something else that can keep delivering new content.

I'm not really sure that's true. I think that the adventure and setting content would keep them, even if the RPG line slowed down to a bestiary on odd years, with maybe one book that expands on the best of the mechanics from the APs every few years. I've said it before, and I'll likely say it again....Paizo's strength is adventures, not mechanics.

Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:

Chernobyl wrote:

were more classes really needed?

If Paizo ever stopped delivering new things in the RPG line, many people would move on to something else that can keep delivering new content.

I'm not really sure that's true. I think that the adventure and setting content would keep them, even if the RPG line slowed down to a bestiary on odd years, with maybe one book that expands on the best of the mechanics from the APs every few years. I've said it before, and I'll likely say it again....Paizo's strength is adventures, not mechanics.

I think it's safe that we'd lose people. As to how many, we'd have to see the related sales figures to tell for sure.

Chernobyl wrote:

i'd much rather see more setting books

The RPG line and the Golarion line are separate, because the Pathfinder RPG in and of itself is setting neutral. So, switching from generic Pathfinder rules to Golarion specific materiel would cut into the section of the market that doesn't use Golarion.

I, for one, would cancel my subscription to the Pathfinder Rules line if they switched one of the books to a setting-specific hardback. I bought Inner Sea Gods, and the World's Guide to the Inner Sea, but those are the exceptions, not the rule, where I'm concerned. I do a lot of homebrew world-building. So, for me, most of the time the Golarion line, while neat...is useless to me.

A few, yeah, but any action (or inaction) always loses a few. Pathfinder is already at the blended classes and randomly assembled optional rules phase, you have to wonder how much more mileage they can squeeze out of the system.

If Paizo ever stopped delivering new things in the RPG line, many people would move on to something else that can keep delivering new content.

I'm not really sure that's true.

No, Kelsey is correct. Those that play RPGs tend to fall into two categories: setting lovers and system lovers. There are those that really get into the setting and are satisfied with a minimum of rules books. However, there are those that want to build the most intricate character for the campaign. They will scower book after book for the perfect class, race, feat, spell, etc. Paizo is aware of this and builds books accordingly. Hense why there is not much in the way of mechanics in the settings books and no setting material in the RPG books.

Paizo's strength is adventures, not mechanics.

That is a matter of opinion. While they are top notch with their adventures, Jason Bulmahn and team are no slouches when it comes to RPG design. And I'm not just saying that because I wrote for them.

Those that play RPGs tend to fall into two categories: setting lovers and system lovers. There are those that really get into the setting and are satisfied with a minimum of rules books. However, there are those that want to build the most intricate character for the campaign. They will scower book after book for the perfect class, race, feat, spell, etc. Paizo is aware of this and builds books accordingly. Hense why there is not much in the way of mechanics in the settings books and no setting material in the RPG books.

That sounds like me. I love character generation. Most of the time, I never even play the characters. I just build them because that in and of itself is fun. As a result, I naturally want to see content that adds to that repertoire of options when building. With just a few rulebooks I'd get bored fast.

That is a matter of opinion. While they are top notch with their adventures, Jason Bulmahn and team are no slouches when it comes to RPG design. And I'm not just saying that because I wrote for them.

Could you tell me this: How does a feat like Divine Protection come into existance? I think it pretty much universally is reviled by the fans as being overpowered in its entirety. How does this pass the editing stage? After all, the Paizo developers also hold the RPG Superstar competition every year and I just can see how this feat would be received by the judges.

It should not be, but the cheese gets through.

A few, yeah, but any action (or inaction) always loses a few. Pathfinder is already at the blended classes and randomly assembled optional rules phase, you have to wonder how much more mileage they can squeeze out of the system.

I think that it's very easy for people to say "We'll lose only a few but I'll get what I want so who cares" when theyre not the ones who will have to let employees go should that gambit fail.

I think Lisa and Vic know what they're doing. I think there's a solid reason for the product schedule to be what it is and the way it is. What I'll quite frankly NEVER understand, especially from gamers, is the fact that if you don't like something you don't have to buy it or support it. Instead you'd rather remove it from play in order to deprive those who DO like that content and then shrug and say "meh" who needed them anyway.

Look at those tags under my messageboard alias. I subscribe to those two lines. Those are the ones that I care about. I've been a subscriber since the beginning so that's 5 years or so now. The other lines I dont really care about so I dont subscribe or purchase from them. But I'd never presume that since I dont like them they need to go. Seriously? WHO DOES THAT?

Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:

Chernobyl wrote:

i'd much rather see more setting books

The RPG line and the Golarion line are separate, because the Pathfinder RPG in and of itself is setting neutral. So, switching from generic Pathfinder rules to Golarion specific materiel would cut into the section of the market that doesn't use Golarion.

I, for one, would cancel my subscription to the Pathfinder Rules line if they switched one of the books to a setting-specific hardback. I bought Inner Sea Gods, and the World's Guide to the Inner Sea, but those are the exceptions, not the rule, where I'm concerned. I do a lot of homebrew world-building. So, for me, most of the time the Golarion line, while neat...is useless to me.

I'm in this camp as well. I don't play in Golarion. I hijack things from it from time to time to add to my own world, I reflavor the APs to set them in said world, and occasionally I'll steal NPCs from things like Dragons Unleashed.

Looking at the Campaign Setting section of My Downloads, I have:
Books of the Damned
Castles of the Inner Sea
Distant Worlds
Dragons Unleashed
Dungeons of Golarion
Rival Guide
Technology Guide

Lots of stuff that can easily be ported into another setting, not a lot of Golarion-specific stuff.

Meanwhile my list of setting-neutral rules books is much, much larger.

So yes, count me in as yet another person who would be irked and disappointed by losing more potential game material to yet more Golarion setting information that I probably will never purchase. I like the way the system is currently set up - with the rules line and the setting line separate from one another - and losing one to the other would not end well for anyone I think.

But I'd never presume that since I dont like them they need to go. Seriously? WHO DOES THAT?

I believe it's so prevalent in TTRPG fandoms because the work staff in the companies that service that fandom tend to be so small, limited in time, and/or busy with projects. The mindset tends to be "If this thing I don't like doesn't exist, that frees up all the people who would otherwise be working on it to come over here instead and work on this thing I DO like".

ShinHakkaider wrote:

But I'd never presume that since I dont like them they need to go. Seriously? WHO DOES THAT?

I believe it's so prevalent in TTRPG fandoms because the work staff in the companies that service that fandom tend to be so small, limited in time, and/or busy with projects. The mindset tends to be "If this thing I don't like doesn't exist, that frees up all the people who would otherwise be working on it to come over here instead and work on this thing I DO like".

Yeah I can definitely see that as being true in most cases. But in this case there is already a separate campaign setting line (EDIT: D'oh! you've already pointed this out in your post) and Paizo's staff isnt really considered small in the scope of RPG companies. In fact it might be bigger than D&D's right now.

So while normally I'd agree with that particular reasoning I dont think that's the case here.

In fairness, there is also a perception that rules bloat is bad for the game in general and can lead to problems for the company. Whether that's true or not is debatable and largely irrelevant: People can be concerned about even if it's wrong and that's a different concern than "Stop making stuff I don't want"

Keep in mind that TSR had other serious problems of the kind not addressed by finance or market theory.

In fairness, there is also a perception that rules bloat is bad for the game in general and can lead to problems for the company. Whether that's true or not is debatable and largely irrelevant: People can be concerned about even if it's wrong and that's a different concern than "Stop making stuff I don't want"

That's a valid point and I get that but here's the thing: The moment people stop buying the rules stuff is the moment I'm pretty sure it would go away (or change i.e. a new edition).

People are apparently still buying the rules stuff so why wouldn't Paizo keep making the rules stuff?