You're wrong. Pizza sucks. Tacos are delicious.In the interest of trying to be useful, my opinion is that 4E is doing OK. Probably better than 3.5 did near the end, but not as well as 3E did in the beginning.In the interest of not being useful, my opinion is that pizza is delicious.
I have flagged you for being completely wrong.
...it's not anything against Paizo, who I believe puts out better support products that WoTC...
You won't get any argument from me there. And trust me, I feel your pain. I often wish things had happened differently, but alas, it is what it is.
FOR PONY!
what sort of cheese?I got sortova' Pepperjack vibe off of him when I last smelled him at the first Paizocon--with maybe a whiff of toner.
Hmm not sure, from the pictures at last paizocon he kinda strikes me as a Manchego cheese person, or perhaps Oaxaca.
|
I was of a mind that people want to know what is doing better between Pathfinder and 4e so they know where they should focus their buying power. If 4e is a super hit and crushing all who oppose it, then people would rather buy those books, but if Pathfinder has more support, they want to go in that direction.
This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I tell the World (and for some reason they listen) that red is better than blue and is selling better. People stop buying blue because red is obviously better, production of blue decreases due to decreasing demand...
This effect is why share markets explode.
Why buy the "super hit" over the niche game? Or are you suggesting people should buy say pfRPG just because it's selling better even if they hate the mechanics and love 4e?
Buy the one YOU and your friends like, don't worry what someone living half the World away thinks. I think the most revelant question if you are interested in you games future is to ask are they making money by producing your game of choice? If yes, feel happy that that next suppliment will be coming out. If not well you have the books you have already.
I think people should read reviews, seek opinions etc before spending their money, but I disagree that what is "in" (it would seem meaning higher sales) should then be the overiding factor that finally determines your purchase.
2 cents,
S.
This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I tell the World (and for some reason they listen) that red is better than blue and is selling better. People stop buying blue because red is obviously better, production of blue decreases due to decreasing demand...
I guess what I am trying to do is justify why people are so curious about 4e sales, while not injecting sinister motives. From my point of view, I am curious about sales too, but because I WANT 4e to succeed because I think it is a great game. I know several level-headed nice people who prefer 3.x, and I would imagine they are curious about where the franchise will go as well, so they ask questions with no malice intended.
Personally, I think more and more people will eventually move to 4e, but it will take much longer than the switch from 2e to 3e because of all the bone-headed moves WoTC made, and continues to make.
Why buy the "super hit" over the niche game? Or are you suggesting people should buy say pfRPG just because it's selling better even if they hate the mechanics and love 4e?
Buy the one YOU and your friends like, don't worry what someone living half the World away thinks. I think the most revelant question if you are interested in you games future is to ask are they making money by producing your game of choice? If yes, feel happy that that next suppliment will be coming out. If not well you have the books you have already.
I think people should read reviews, seek opinions etc before spending their money, but I disagree that what is "in" (it would seem meaning higher sales) should then be the overiding factor that finally determines your purchase.
Personally, I have an interest because of previously being burnt with RPGs which I liked and supported but which ultimately collapsed through lack of customers. I ended up with a ruleset and four or five supplements of a game which is no longer supported and I can't get rid of. It may be an impossible request, but nonetheless I would like to know ahead of time if that's likely to happen.
I am a big Paizo fan (for example) and my biggest concern is that they will not be able to compete with the market dominance of 4th edition - particularly as the most visible starting point for newcomers. As experienced people leave the hobby, I worry that there will be fewer and fewer Pathfinder devotees and so the supplements I love will not come out as often.
Similarly with 4th edition. I am something of a hoarder - if I'm going to buy a game, I'm going to buy everything. I want some confidence that it's not going to all end in tears and WoTC announcing a record profit would cheer me up on that front. :)
I'm not solely basing my decision on what's selling well - but it is a factor of interest. (And I for one think you can glean hints as to "the truth" from anecdotal accounts of those in the know. It doesnt matter that everyone in a position of knowledge also have their own agenda).
This thread is something of an eye-opener for me. I dont see the point in bagging other game systems and that isnt motivating my interest. Clearly, the "How's 4th edition doing?" threads previously have often been motivated by something other than academic interest.
|
|
Personally, I have an interest because of previously being burnt with RPGs which I liked and supported but which ultimately collapsed through lack of customers. I ended up with a ruleset and four or five supplements of a game which is no longer supported and I can't get rid of. It may be an impossible request, but nonetheless I would like to know ahead of time if that's likely to happen.I am a big Paizo fan (for example) and my biggest concern is that they will not be able to compete with the market dominance of 4th edition - particularly as the most visible starting point for newcomers. As experienced people leave the hobby, I worry that there will be fewer and fewer Pathfinder devotees and so the supplements I love will not come out as often.
Similarly with 4th edition. I am something of a hoarder - if I'm going to buy a game, I'm going to buy everything. I want some confidence that it's not going to all end in tears and WoTC announcing a record profit would cheer me up on that front. :)
Suppliment support is a great reason to go for "the big one" I can only but agree.
S.
Regarding the decline in traffic over at Wizards web site, I guess the easy answer is that once the flame wars died down and lost steam, a lot of 3e supporters migrated away and either came here, or any one of many other forums, or simply gave up altogether. There should be enough new customers to the Wizards fanbase to make up a healthy portion of the 3e gamers who migrated away. I don't know any of the numbers, but I'm willing to bet there's more gamers on the Paizo boards now than there's ever been. Just a hunch.
And regarding 4e sales, well, it's still here, with many books still to come, so it's gotta be doing at least "good enough" if not better. A company like Hasbro isn't going to sink money into a product that isn't seeing a healthy return. So, don't worry about sales. 4e is here, and if you play it, you've got nothing to worry about.
And lastly, for the record, Taco Pizza > everything.
However I fail to see why WotC should (or would) publish details of their sales? What does it matter to an individual who has purchased 4e, loves it and plays it?
Hasbro being a stock-market listed company and WOTC their subsidiary they might actually be interested or required to provide information to their stakeholders and/or shareholders.
Does anybody have information on the commercial success of 4E you can share (besides Amazon.com rankings)?Thanks.
It's really impressive how this has worked out:
Apart from a few really helpful links, most of the replies are actually totally off-topic, falling into one of the following categories:
* "This question is not relevant (to me/to any gamer)..."
* "I don't have information on the subject..."
* "You'll never find information on the subject..."
* "Why would you want to know this in the first place..."
* "My personal opinion on (insert system here) is..."
followed by the need to express this in a reply (total of about 65 posts in the thread now).
Interesting result. Not a waste of time, but very interesting indeed.
Thanks, folks ;-)
Hasbro being a stock-market listed company and WOTC their subsidiary they might actually be interested or required to provide information to their stakeholders and/or shareholders.
However I fail to see why WotC should (or would) publish details of their sales? What does it matter to an individual who has purchased 4e, loves it and plays it?
Sebastian would seem to cover this above. The acquisition of Wizards of the Coast itself was not a big enough deal to mention to their shareholders. It would seem that this is a company of such size that you don't bother your shareholders with trivialities and anything less then 30 million (pulled this number out of my butt) is a triviality.
Does anybody have information on the commercial success of 4E you can share (besides Amazon.com rankings)?Thanks.
It's really impressive how this has worked out:
Apart from a few really helpful links, most of the replies are actually totally off-topic, falling into one of the following categories:
* "This question is not relevant (to me/to any gamer)..."
* "I don't have information on the subject..."
* "You'll never find information on the subject..."
* "Why would you want to know this in the first place..."
* "My personal opinion on (insert system here) is..."
followed by the need to express this in a reply (total of about 65 posts in the thread now).Interesting result. Not a waste of time, but very interesting indeed.
Thanks, folks ;-)
Ummm....no. People pointing out that the data requested simply isn't available isn't off-topic. It may not be what the OP wanted to hear, but that is hardly the same thing.
Though I'm glad we could entertain you. Let me assure you, however, that after seeing the same thread seventy two times, the entertainment value drops off sharply.
James is an old school 4e hater, which is cool; to each his own.
O ja. I hadn't seem his recent rant and the Enworld thread until after I linked. All I can say is: Wow.
For those who found Goodman's post interesting, his KQ interview may also be interesting.
O ja. I hadn't seem his recent rant and the Enworld thread until after I linked. All I can say is: Wow.
Hmm... have a link by chance?
|
|
Hasbro being a stock-market listed company and WOTC their subsidiary they might actually be interested or required to provide information to their stakeholders and/or shareholders.
However I fail to see why WotC should (or would) publish details of their sales? What does it matter to an individual who has purchased 4e, loves it and plays it?
Correct, if you were a share holder you may be able to request this information. But I would point out that most such provided information is confidential AND not only that that if you were to start publishing the information and it did for example show a decline in WotC sales you could expect a visit from some lawyers.
I'm sure however if you email the customers relation office of WotC and ask something like "how well is 4e doing?" you will get an answer in general terms. But I can tell you already what it'll be...
Cheers,
S.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Correct, if you were a share holder you may be able to request this information. But I would point out that most such provided information is confidential AND not only that that if you were to start publishing the information and it did for example show a decline in WotC sales you could expect a visit from some lawyers.I'm sure however if you email the customers relation office of WotC and ask something like "how well is 4e doing?" you will get an answer in general terms. But I can tell you already what it'll be...
Cheers,
S.
Absent some type of contractual obligation, stockholders don't really have a right to non-public information about a company. It's extremely unlikely that information would be given, NDA (non-Disclosure Agreement) or not.
Whether or not Pathfinder has more support than 4E - whether it is even capable of doing so - is largely irrelevant to its success. Whether 4E is capable of purging all other games from the industry is similarly meaningless.
Both are viable in the same market, and the success of one does not in any way indicate the other one will collapse and fail. They are drawing from the same customer base, too - but only to some extent. They also each have customers who will gladly buy from both of them, and many who wouldn't be interested in the other game regardless of whether there was an alternative available.
Honestly, all legitimate signs indicate both are looking at being quite successful for some time to come. I highly doubt either is going to suddenly vanish without significant warning signs in advance - warning signs that currently aren't even on the horizon.
So my conclusion really falls in with some of the others in the thread - one should make choices based on the games one wants to play. Support one, or the other, or both - whatever would most lead to the entertainment and enjoyment of the group. That really is the important part, and the current environment certainly allows for it without any real worry.
I hope you're right - I play both systems (and I certainly don't see any alarm bells currently). However, I think there is a danger looming for Paizo in that Pathfinder is not very compatible with 4th edition. It's easy for 3.5 players to shift to pathfinder, it requires considerably more effort to shift from 4th edition.
My concern is that Paizo will not attract players new to the hobby. It's a long term concern and is more based on market share, brand recognition, etcetera than any interest in which system is "better" (I quite like both as it happens).
My concern is that Paizo will not attract players new to the hobby.
Does Paizo really need to do so?
(I mean, I'm sure they'd like to, but do they really need to?)
My concern is that Paizo will not attract players new to the hobby.Does Paizo really need to do so?
(I mean, I'm sure they'd like to, but do they really need to?)
Not at the moment - there are plenty of 3.5 players who can choose to shift to pathfinder with minimal fuss. In five years time though? Newcomers to the hobby will mostly be starting with 4th edition. Shifting to the "weird" rules of pathfinder (What do you mean there are no powers? This is dumb, my wizard is useless soon as he's cast his spells...etcetera etcetera).
There's no short term issue as far as I can see because Paizo currently has a large market who are attracted by the quality support for a game they are already playing. My concern (not that I have any experience in running an RPG publishing company, although I have run plenty of businesses over the years) is about maintaining a customer base over the long term, given the inevitable attrition as players leave the hobby.
My concern is that Paizo will not attract players new to the hobby.Does Paizo really need to do so?
(I mean, I'm sure they'd like to, but do they really need to?)
It largely depends on how long Paizo plans on making PFRPG last, I'd imagine. The longer they want it to see play, the more of an effort they'll need to make to attract new blood.
It largely depends on how long Paizo plans on making PFRPG last, I'd imagine. The longer they want it to see play, the more of an effort they'll need to make to attract new blood.My concern is that Paizo will not attract players new to the hobby.Does Paizo really need to do so?
(I mean, I'm sure they'd like to, but do they really need to?)
True, but must this effort come in terms of making a system closer to 4e (or, as is likely by the time the issue becomes pressing, 5e)?
That Paizo needs to emulate the 800 lb. gorilla of WotC to attract new players seems to be what Steve is implying (I apologize if I am misinterpreting), and while that's one possibility, I don't think it's a given by any means.
That Paizo needs to emulate the 800 lb. gorilla of WotC to attract new players seems to be what Steve is implying (I apologize if I am misinterpreting), and while that's one possibility, I don't think it's a given by any means.
Nah I didnt explain myself very well, clearly. I didnt mean Pathfinder has to remain lockstep with the current edition of D and D.
What I meant is that at the moment there is a ready market for pathfinder (people who dont want to switch from 3.5 to 4th edition but do think that the system needs tweaking). That market is not going to continue to exist (because newcomers are not going to have that nostalgia/resentment/investment/whatever and oldtimers are going to have made the switch). In the future, I hope that Paizo finds a way to connect to people who are just entering the RPG market (and who are most likely to begin by playing 4th edition).
That's still not very clear really...but maybe it's clearer :p
In the future, I hope that Paizo finds a way to connect to people who are just entering the RPG market...
That makes two of us... maybe by creating the mythical PRPG Basic Set (and putting it in a red box... my nostalgia goes back way too far)?
How dare you!!!!
HE DARES BECAUSE EVERYONE *KNOWS* THAT PIZZA IS SELLING WAY BETTER THAN TACOS!!!
And you know it too! But, you just keep munching away on that vile, disgusting... THING! And you say "Um, this is so nice"! But it doesn't! And you KNOW it!!!!!
Why, oh why won't you just admit that you're WRONG!! Because you know that you are!!!
Shame on you,
GRU
|
|
It largely depends on how long Paizo plans on making PFRPG last, I'd imagine. The longer they want it to see play, the more of an effort they'll need to make to attract new blood.My concern is that Paizo will not attract players new to the hobby.Does Paizo really need to do so?
(I mean, I'm sure they'd like to, but do they really need to?)
I do not believe that Paizo is in it for the quick buck. But the test will come when the current Paizo line up move on. Then pfRPG will have to survive on it's brand. D&D will keep going no matter how bad individual game designers are as it is brand driven not person driven. I could not tell you who wrote 4e but I can for pfRPG and 1e AD&D!
S.
Absent some type of contractual obligation, stockholders don't really have a right to non-public information about a company. It's extremely unlikely that information would be given, NDA (non-Disclosure Agreement) or not.
Indeed. But I had hopes that this might be publicly available somehow, though I don't what the relevance of D&D is to overall Hasbro or WOTC figures - if it is insignificant, such information would probably not be part of quarterly reports or corporate communications.
Indeed. But I had hopes that this might be publicly available somehow, though I don't what the relevance of D&D is to overall Hasbro or WOTC figures - if it is insignificant, such information would probably not be part of quarterly reports or corporate communications.
Absent some type of contractual obligation, stockholders don't really have a right to non-public information about a company. It's extremely unlikely that information would be given, NDA (non-Disclosure Agreement) or not.
I read two articals of interveiws with David Hargreaves in which he mentioned how D&D was doing only very briefly without specifics. The first one was in reguard to the costs of developing the electronic/on line support for D&D in last quarter '08 where he said the costs were an additional cost he expected would go away by next year. The second artical mentioned that the costs(or some of them he was very vague) remained in first quarter '09 but that there were some sales as well though how many he did not indicate. From reading both articals I find it highly unlikely they will ever give out the numbers not for any D&D/WoTC reason but because that is simply not how Hasbro functions. They play it close to the vest and keep all details in house.
Anyway I am even going out on a limb in my guess this is 4th ed related as he didn't say that much. But I can't think of anything else it might be related to. So thats all the "facts" I could find looking through some financle reports and data. I do know working for a large company myself we really don't give out data to the public about how financally strong we are or are not, but we do know roughly how strong our competitors are so maybe Hasbro's competitors might be a place to get info from.
Oh just for the record David Hargreaves is the COO and CFO of Hasbro so I would call him an expert on their sales numbers. Not that he really said much.
|
Absent some type of contractual obligation, stockholders don't really have a right to non-public information about a company. It's extremely unlikely that information would be given, NDA (non-Disclosure Agreement) or not.
Correct, if you were a share holder you may be able to request this information. But I would point out that most such provided information is confidential AND not only that that if you were to start publishing the information and it did for example show a decline in WotC sales you could expect a visit from some lawyers.I'm sure however if you email the customers relation office of WotC and ask something like "how well is 4e doing?" you will get an answer in general terms. But I can tell you already what it'll be...
Cheers,
S.
To some extent it would be down to segmental reporting in the year end financial statements. But that would also depend upon US reporting rules (and I'm not familar at all with those) and whether WotC is a material subsidiary of Hasbro (and it may well not be, so its performance may be hidden in an aggregated lump with other things). Which is also probably not much help either.
Acquiring new customers is absolutely fundamental to Paizo's long-term success, a fact of which I assure you they are well aware.
That Paizo needs to emulate the 800 lb. gorilla of WotC to attract new players seems to be what Steve is implying (I apologize if I am misinterpreting), and while that's one possibility, I don't think it's a given by any means.Nah I didnt explain myself very well, clearly. I didnt mean Pathfinder has to remain lockstep with the current edition of D and D.
What I meant is that at the moment there is a ready market for pathfinder (people who dont want to switch from 3.5 to 4th edition but do think that the system needs tweaking). That market is not going to continue to exist (because newcomers are not going to have that nostalgia/resentment/investment/whatever and oldtimers are going to have made the switch). In the future, I hope that Paizo finds a way to connect to people who are just entering the RPG market (and who are most likely to begin by playing 4th edition).
That's still not very clear really...but maybe it's clearer :p
I'm certainly no Paizo insider but I don't really think that this issue is a huge worry in the marketing model.
For the foreseeable future they can support the current fan base of 3.5 players that don't want to switch to 4E. Probably sometime down the road they'll choose to do a reboot on Pathfinder but by then they'll be an established brand. The main thrust of their product is hardcore D&D with a strong simulationist element and clear linkages to the original D&D product. Its, more or less, advanced D&D for this generation. So they have a nice core to work with.
Thing is, while WotC is betting that they can bring in lots of new players I don't think Paizo really needs to do that - they can probably do well by scooping up from the pool that WotC creates. Its a lot like Rolemaster - Rolemaster does not make new players, never really did, instead it takes players that are dissatisfied with D&D and really want a much more 'realistic' feeling fantasy world. The best possible result, financially, for Paizo is that WotC succeeds in bringing in millions of new gamers because a nice fat chunk of those will eventually find Pathfinder and realize that 'here is an adult version of D&D'. One with lots of rules for every situation and whose products focus a lot more of adult content and themes. Hence, WotC doing well probably leads to gangbuster years for Paizo.
None of this is to say that Paizo does not want to bring players into the hobby - I'm sure they do and I'm sure they'll put some effort into that. In fact if they are really successful for one reason or another then that would actually help WotC. WotC would get gamers out of Paizo's success just like Paizo gets gamers out of WotCs success. WotCs PG-13 rating means that gamers that want to play with kids will supplement their pathfinder with 4E. Also some gamers that might start with Pathfinder would probably switch because speed and ease of play is more down their street then simulationism.
In fact 4E was probably heavily influenced by the strong success of Savage Worlds, and RPGs like it, which had become a powerful trend in RPG circles because they were a stripped down simplified roleplaying games in a time when the market was dominated by very complex systems trying to cater to a crowd of older gamers who had no time and who wanted a system that would allow them to tell fulfilling stories in the 4 hour chunks that represented all the time they had for D&D in a given week.
Acquiring new customers is absolutely fundamental to Paizo's long-term success, a fact of which I assure you they are well aware.
Here I am!
Making new customers is the holy grail of RPG’s. Everyone wants to find it but when they think they have it usually just ends up being a worthless trinket.
This was a big deal for WOTC. They made 2 “basic” box sets for 3rd edition. Which were just trimmed down rule sets. They published children’s books; Knights of the Silver Dragon and some Dragonlance stories . They also did a couple “dummy” books which tried to simplify the presentation of the rules and they did a book geared toward women gamers. This was a multi-pronged strategy of trying to gain new customers, all of which I don’t think worked as well as they would have liked which is why they made a whole new edition.
The famous Red Box of back in the day was successful for many different reasons, but one reason was that it was a self contained rules system that was easy to learn (rules-lite). The “basic” sets that WOTC released for 3rd were just trimmed down versions. I think they finally realized if you want new players you need a rule system that is WAY more simple than 3rd.
Paizo has already said that gaining new customers is something they will need to look at down the road. In which case they will find themselves in the same situation as WOTC, but they will have an advantage of being a smaller company so they won’t need to see such a high return on their basic rule set.
But either way, Paizo has a lot of smart people and there’s a lot of history to inform their decisions, so I’m confident that when the time comes, they will find the Holy Grail.
Making new customers is the holy grail of RPG’s. Everyone wants to find it but when they think they have it usually just ends up being a worthless trinket.
This was a big deal for WOTC. They made 2 “basic” box sets for 3rd edition. Which were just trimmed down rule sets. They published children’s books; Knights of the Silver Dragon and some Dragonlance stories . They also did a couple “dummy” books which tried to simplify the presentation of the rules and they did a book geared toward women gamers. This was a multi-pronged strategy of trying to gain new customers, all of which I don’t think worked as well as they would have liked which is why they made a whole new edition.
The famous Red Box of back in the day was successful for many different reasons, but one reason was that it was a self contained rules system that was easy to learn (rules-lite). The “basic” sets that WOTC released for 3rd were just trimmed down versions. I think they finally realized if you want new players you need a rule system that is WAY more simple than 3rd.
Paizo has already said that gaining new customers is something they will need to look at down the road. In which case they will find themselves in the same situation as WOTC, but they will have an advantage of being a smaller company so they won’t need to see such a high return on their basic rule set.
But either way, Paizo has a lot of smart people and there’s a lot of history to inform their decisions, so I’m confident that when the time comes, they will find the Holy Grail.
I always thought a card game that uses very cut down 3.X rules would be a way WoTC could try and introduce the game to a wider audiance, I suppose because of Magic I just assumed it might be something that they might be up for trying. I am still not sure it's a bad idea and could work for Paizo too I suppose. I just recall the early days of Magic and how wildly successful that was.
3.x is definitely the steepest learning curve for a newbie -- too many options and too many choices to make right out of the box. But I don't know how many people say, "Hmm, think I'd like to start playing RPGs. Guess I'll go to the store and buy whatever's selling best." My (completely unsubstantiated) guess is that most people start gaming by being invited to join a pre-existing group, and that group's game of choice will be the major influence on what game they see as the norm. So, yes, gamers who begin with a group playing 4e will see Pathfinder's rules as "weird," and those who begin playing Pathfinder will see 4e as "weird." Then there are groups that play both, plus other games in addition, and newcomers to those groups are likely to have the very healthy outlook that different games have different rules and different things to offer and don't have to be compatible to be "not weird."
Plus, five years down the road, we're likely to be in the ramp-up to either 5e or Pathfinder 2.0 or both....
3.x is definitely the steepest learning curve for a newbie -- too many options and too many choices to make right out of the box. But I don't know how many people say, "Hmm, think I'd like to start playing RPGs. Guess I'll go to the store and buy whatever's selling best." My (completely unsubstantiated) guess is that most people start gaming by being invited to join a pre-existing group, and that group's game of choice will be the major influence on what game they see as the norm. So, yes, gamers who begin with a group playing 4e will see Pathfinder's rules as "weird," and those who begin playing Pathfinder will see 4e as "weird." Then there are groups that play both, plus other games in addition, and newcomers to those groups are likely to have the very healthy outlook that different games have different rules and different things to offer and don't have to be compatible to be "not weird."
Plus, five years down the road, we're likely to be in the ramp-up to either 5e or Pathfinder 2.0 or both....
My experience with introducing new players is pretty different between the editions. 3.5 is a very complex game. All my attempts to introduce new players in it failed. Its just so difficult that its hard to find the entertainment and all the experienced gamers around the table are doing things that you don't understand and generally telling you what to do next. Its very easy to fall into a rut of just doing what others tell you to do and roll the die that they give you.
In 4E I found that between the simplified character creation system and cards for powers helped new players grasp the basics quickly. The cards work really well here as they read them when its not their turn and pretty quickly they know how to do their turn. Sure they had no idea that you could push people or grab them and were not to clear on how their skills worked but the game works fine without this until the day that the new player wants to try and grab someone and at that point you can explain to them this mechanic. It will probably be the only new one they learn this session as well so it seems much easier to use the system to slowly ease new players into the fold.
My experience with introducing new players is pretty different between the editions. 3.5 is a very complex game. All my attempts to introduce new players in it failed. Its just so difficult that its hard to find the entertainment and all the experienced gamers around the table are doing things that you don't understand and generally telling you what to do next. Its very easy to fall into a rut of just doing what others tell you to do and roll the die that they give you.
I started in 2e, and my experience was much like what you describe for my first several sessions: everyone else was telling me what to do and when to roll. I guess the question is whether one is willing to take the initiative to learn the system for oneself. I know a couple of guys in our group never did really learn 3e after the edition switch: They can't roll up a character by themselves, need advice from those of us who did learn it to select feats, etc.
Ironically, now that we're running through our first Paizo AP, one of them is finally showing an interest in learning the rules for himself. He's inspired by the setting and the creativity of the adventure design to take some ownership, and I think that's going to be Paizo's main draw: people who hear good things about Golarion and the APs and are willing to learn the rules to experience them (assuming they don't have a GM willing or able to convert them).
The APs, however, are not good starting places for those new to RPGs. The storylines and settings are too intricate and the stakes too high -- not to mention, the sheer amount of material overwhelming. Perhaps the upcoming Crypt of the Everflame will be a workable initiation: an entry-level adventure that introduces the basics without expecting too much background knowledge on the part of the players.
*To continue the threadjack*
Actually it has been the AP's that have really really really drawn in the new players. We generally give the "new guy (or girl)" an easy time at first, and explain what and why we choose to do things as we go along. Many of our players also tend to have the 'extra stuff' that makes running the various character types easier.
|
|
WotC succeeds in bringing in millions of new gamers because a nice fat chunk of those will eventually find Pathfinder and realize that 'here is an adult version of D&D'. One with lots of rules for every situation and whose products focus a lot more of adult content and themes. Hence, WotC doing well probably leads to gangbuster years for Paizo.
I think that is a real pearl of wisdom right there from Jeremy. I strongly agree (if we were doing a phone survey).
I see 4e as a nice easy entry "kids game" (please don't take that in a negative way - remember kids have fun, as adults I think we sometimes forget how to do that, this forum sometimes is evidence of this) somewhere for heroes to be heroes. I can DM stories of light over darkness, back to good old fashioned good vs evil.
pfRPG I see more as a place where players wake up naked in a brothel looking for a cure disease... (very much like a Paizo convention I would imagine).
I have no real explanation for this perception, but I think Jeremy may have given me insight into my own mind, scary.
:)
S.
True, but must this effort come in terms of making a system closer to 4e (or, as is likely by the time the issue becomes pressing, 5e)?
Aren't PF and 4E close enough already? Clear-cut class roles, skills system, a stricter control on a party's intended degree of power by level... they already share more similarities than most 4E-phobes will ever want to aknowledge. While translating content from one book to the other isn't exactly seamless, it is by no means a daunting endeavour.
That Paizo needs to emulate the 800 lb. gorilla of WotC to attract new players seems to be what Steve is implying (I apologize if I am misinterpreting)
lol so next thing we know Paizo will start either assimilating or forcing out of business every smaller publisher on sight and become a new evil empire? =P
those will eventually find Pathfinder and realize that 'here is an adult version of D&D'
Wahoo! Does that mean we get to see Calistria and Desna mix it up in a vat of Jello?
Acquiring new customers is absolutely fundamental to Paizo's long-term success, a fact of which I assure you they are well aware.
New customers - sure. But I'm not convinced that they need to be the company that attracts new players to the hobby.