I just have been avoiding the thread because every other post has been getting to close to Edition War-type stuff and I don't really want to get on either side of it. Too many of the comments make me feel icky and while I don't think have broken any rules, it has made me want to stay away from both sides of this discussion.
Dragnmoon:
I'm largely onboard with Scott's description of "modern gaming culture" (though I think the nomenclature needs work). I am:
1. Most assuredly not stupid;
2. Not lazy. Wanting one's leisure activities to entail an minimum amount of work* is just common sense.
Everyone have different preferences: Great. But words like "stupid," or "lazy" are loaded, and bound to upset people. Since you must know this, I can only assume you're trying to get a reaction, or at the very least venting your frustration. Fourth edition is, what, fifteen months old? LET IT GO. Preferring 3.5 doesn't make someone smarter, better, or "more" of a gamer. It just means they prefer 3.5.
* I find a majority of prep time to be work. Others may not, in which case 3.5 may be a better match for them. It really is purely subjective.
|
It may be a comfort level thing,..
I guess so. There surely come factors into play which have nothing to do with the system itself. With the group I learned playing 3E we played a lot of other systems as well. But when choosing what we would play next the question was: which setting, not: which system. For us, system was not so much the basis of our play but a ressource to fall back upon in case our different common senses created a conflict.
I guess you could easily do the same with 4E. Not with my "new" group though. If you want to avoid hours of rule discussions you better play by the book. Which ironically I can live with if I am the DM but which I find highly annoying when I am the player as I am happy to live (or die) by the DM's decisions and don't want to waste my time by rule discussions.
@Bugleyman: I didn't say that I find 3E easier to run than 4E. In fact I don't even think that this is true. This ease (at least for me) comes at a price though as I find running 4E not really interesting, because I don't find the rules very interesting. Probably not quirky enough for my taste ^^.
My problem with 4E is more that at least at the moment I find 4E more difficult to play than 3E
@Bugleyman: I didn't say that I find 3E easier to run than 4E. In fact I don't even think that this is true. This ease (at least for me) comes at a price though as I find running 4E not really interesting, because I don't find the rules very interesting. Probably not quirky enough for my taste ^^.My problem with 4E is more that at least at the moment I find 4E more difficult to play than 3E
Ok, I stand corrected.
As a more general comment, when words like "stupid" start getting throw around to describe "what I don't prefer," then there is a problem. There is no "high ground" here; it is just a matter of taste.
Which leads to me constantly haveing to look up things in the PHB...That's interesting to me. Since I've started playing 4e, I have yet to need to reference the PHB at the game table, since everything I need to know is on my character sheet and/or power cards (I have handwritten ones - I find they make reference very easy), or in the case of PbPs, right in my profile page. I only reference the books when creating a character or gaining a level.
It may be a comfort level thing, though, or may depend on the characters we are playing. Since I tend to gravitate towards spellcasters, in 3.5 I am constantly flipping through a pile of books for spell descriptions.
I just wanted to throw in my own experience there, since I was surprised to see some people finding the opposite to be true.
One of my players in both of my games has negated the need for referencing the book constantly in the PFRPG game by just doing what you (and he) does 4th edition. He prints out the spell descriptions of his known spells much like how one does with power cards. His need to reference books has been very minimal in both games because of that.
|
|
As a more general comment, when words like "stupid" start getting throw around to describe "what I don't prefer," then there is a problem. There is no "high ground" here; it is just a matter of taste.
I agree. I have been at the receiving end of quite some comments of this kind for just being the Pathfinder guy in a 4E-friendly environment (another board) so I can surely relate to that. That's probably why I tend to react a bit harsher than necessary when someone says something which implies that 4E is anyhow superior than the system of my choice. That's also why I usually tend to evade this part of the messageboards. Failed my will save on this thread, though. So my apologies if I made things worse than they normally are around here.
Now maybe it's that I'm getting older but I have much more problems to memorize the effects of my character's powers in 4E than I ever had in 3E. I guess this is a combination of age, the similarities in the presentation of the powers and the presentation itself (I'm not saying it is bad, it's just that it concentrates to much on the technicalities for my taste and I seem to remember better if I've an actual text that I can read instead of those "Power-Stat-blocks".
Put them on cards in front of you. Its especially useful if you have some Magic the Gathering sleeves (you get 100 clear sleeves for a dollar probably wherever you buy RPG games) and some card to serve as backing or stiffening. Magic the Gathering cards - especially the worthless adverts that everyone just throws out, are ideal for this. If you print your character out using the character builder you'll get a list of these powers along with the print out. Its best if you have a colour printer but you can mark the cards with coloured marker and that should work too.
This won't save you from having to look at your cards but it should save you from having o ever look them up as there is no new information in the book thats not on those cards.
|
One of my players in both of my games has negated the need for referencing the book constantly in the PFRPG game by just doing what you (and he) does 4th edition. He prints out the spell descriptions of his known spells much like how one does with power cards. His need to reference books has been very minimal in both games because of that.Which leads to me constantly haveing to look up things in the PHB...That's interesting to me. Since I've started playing 4e, I have yet to need to reference the PHB at the game table, since everything I need to know is on my character sheet and/or power cards (I have handwritten ones - I find they make reference very easy), or in the case of PbPs, right in my profile page. I only reference the books when creating a character or gaining a level.
It may be a comfort level thing, though, or may depend on the characters we are playing. Since I tend to gravitate towards spellcasters, in 3.5 I am constantly flipping through a pile of books for spell descriptions.
I just wanted to throw in my own experience there, since I was surprised to see some people finding the opposite to be true.
I should have clarified... Most of my 3.5 characters have been divine casters, so their "spells known" list is quite long. That said, I certainly could do that for the spells I use most (let's face it, most divine casters tend to fall back on the same spells repeatedly, even if they have hundreds to choose from).
The thing is, Scott didn't. He could have easily said D&D but chose to say 4E, thereby excluding 3.5 and Pathfinder. And somehow I doubt he would extend what he said about 4E to those two systems. (just seeing that I'm right, given what he wrote in his last post).
I called out 4th Edition because it's the most recent incarnation of the game, and thus was developed with marketing sensibilities rooted in the latter half of this decade. It stands to reason that the newer product is more likely to reflect newer cultural realities. That's all.
As someone who runs a 3.5 game that has transferred to Pathfinder Beta (and soon to become final) I'd like to add my own thoughts.
4th Edition tried to do a number of new and innovative things. For many players, this was too much of a change. Ease of play does come with the price of less flexibility. I think the main thing to keep in mind is the difference of perspective for different GMs. One of the goals for 4e was making GM prep time easier. But depending on the particular style of GM, this may or may not have affected them.
As an example, I tend to dread adventures where I have to stat up high level casters in 3.X. They take a long time to make, and then they tend to die very quickly due to their low HP. On the other hand, for monstrous encounters where I don't have to touch the stats, my prep time is very light. Or if I have a pre-built adventure I have a lot less work. My group recently infiltrated a drow stronghold. I wasn't running the Second Darkness adventure path, but I did almost zero prep work because I could lift a number of good stat blocks and encounter ideas from SD. So I can appreciate the idea in 4E that monsters don’t need to be fully stated up the way players are. Often when I do make a full caster, I only prep the before combat spells and enough spells for 3 or 4 rounds of combat.
As far as being more accessible, I think that can also vary a lot for different people. Creating a fighter in 3rd edition is arguably easier than in 4th. In 3E you pick race, class, skills, feat, and gear. For 4E you pick race, class, skills, feat, gear, and 4 powers. Not a whole lot more, but still a little more work than before. Obviously a 4E wizard is much simpler to create than a 3E wizard.
Scott, as a frequent DM, tends to focus on the DM savings that come from 4E. I think both are worthwhile games that are here to stay for a while. I am certain that designers will learn from the best parts of both, and in the end our hobby will be stronger for having a variety of styles and ways to play RPGs. So enjoy whichever game you play, and don’t be afraid to steal ideas from the ’other side’.
|
|
Just as an aside, part of my disconnect may be that "newer cultural realities" probably doesn't include "newer cultural realities here in Germany". While D&D is the no.1 RPG worldwide, it hasn't been no.1 in Germany since around 1984 when "Das Schwarze Auge" ("The Dark Eye" in the english version) was first published. While clearly influenced by D&D it follows other design principles and proposes another playstyle and heavily influenced german roleplayers in their gaming style. So Scott, if you and me say "culture" we most probably don't mean the same thing.
Scott, as a frequent DM, tends to focus on the DM savings that come from 4E. I think both are worthwhile games that are here to stay for a while. I am certain that designers will learn from the best parts of both, and in the end our hobby will be stronger for having a variety of styles and ways to play RPGs. So enjoy whichever game you play, and don’t be afraid to steal ideas from the ’other side’.
This, I think, is excellent advice.
Just as an aside, part of my disconnect may be that "newer cultural realities" probably doesn't include "newer cultural realities here in Germany". While D&D is the no.1 RPG worldwide, it hasn't been no.1 in Germany since around 1984 when "Das Schwarze Auge" ("The Dark Eye" in the english version) was first published. While clearly influenced by D&D it follows other design principles and proposes another playstyle and heavily influenced german roleplayers in their gaming style. So Scott, if you and me say "culture" we most probably don't mean the same thing.
That could have something to do with it. I'm definitely discussing things from the standpoint of someone living in the U.S., so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the shared culture I'm familiar with might not be familiar elsewhere.
Just as an aside, part of my disconnect may be that "newer cultural realities" probably doesn't include "newer cultural realities here in Germany". While D&D is the no.1 RPG worldwide, it hasn't been no.1 in Germany since around 1984 when "Das Schwarze Auge" ("The Dark Eye" in the english version) was first published. While clearly influenced by D&D it follows other design principles and proposes another playstyle and heavily influenced german roleplayers in their gaming style. So Scott, if you and me say "culture" we most probably don't mean the same thing.
That's a very interesting point. I hope you don't take offense to this, Wormys, but it seems to me that current German pop-culture is 80's era US culture. It will be very interesting, then, to see how German gaming culture has evolved in twenty years or so. It'll be like an alternate timeline in which D&D was a different game. That's so cool! How appropriately Back to the Future!
|
Woah,.... I did not mean to make this an edition war thread... Was not arguing that 4e Sucks and 3e rulzes... or that anyone who plays 4e are idiots are such, that is what I see as a edition war thread, so lets not go there.
What I was going at with my reply to Scott, but did not say...stupid me, was that essentially I don't think his description of the "Modern gaming Culture" exists. For some the Ease of 4E is what draws them to it, but I don't think that Defines a Culture, I think that just defines them and thier likes. I think the majority of people who play 4e did not go to 4e because it was better, or easier, but because it was new, and to continue the hobby with WotC as your guide you had to go to 4E, others who did not go to 4E decided on someone else to guide them, or to stay with what WotC used to guide to.
I don't think the Gaming Culture has changed at all, new players are just like old players, problem is not that the gaming culture has changed but that the gaming culture has shrunk. A WotC goal is not to change with the "New Gaming Culture" but to get other cultures to game. That though a lofty goal is not an easy thing, because RPG Gaming just does not go over well with other people.
As an example, though the MMO crowd does have allot of RPG players the majority of them don't play RPGs and would never even think of it because it does not fit thier version of entertainment which is more visual in nature and less about Role-playing and more about power and killing the visual things they see on a screen. I think the small crowd they could syphon off of that are no different then what we always seen as the gaming culture, they just have been unfortunate enough to never have been introduced to it.
I don't think the change of the rules will bring large audience to the Game, What WotC needs to do is advertise the game to a larger audience, to those that already fit what has always been the 'Gaming Culture' but just have never heard of the game.
|
|
Dragnmoon:
I'm largely onboard with Scott's description of "modern gaming culture" (though I think the nomenclature needs work). I am:
1. Most assuredly not stupid;
2. Not lazy. Wanting one's leisure activities to entail an minimum amount of work* is just common sense.
Everyone have different preferences: Great. But words like "stupid," or "lazy" are loaded, and bound to upset people. Since you must know this, I can only assume you're trying to get a reaction, or at the very least venting your frustration. Fourth edition is, what, fifteen months old? LET IT GO. Preferring 3.5 doesn't make someone smarter, better, or "more" of a gamer. It just means they prefer 3.5.
* I find a majority of prep time to be work. Others may not, in which case 3.5 may be a better match for them. It really is purely subjective.
let me make something clear, I was not calling 4E gamers lazy and stupid, all I was saying was that what came to mind from Scotss description of the 'Modern Gaming Culture' Which i Disagree with.
|
|
Just as an aside, part of my disconnect may be that "newer cultural realities" probably doesn't include "newer cultural realities here in Germany". While D&D is the no.1 RPG worldwide, it hasn't been no.1 in Germany since around 1984 when "Das Schwarze Auge" ("The Dark Eye" in the english version) was first published. While clearly influenced by D&D it follows other design principles and proposes another playstyle and heavily influenced german roleplayers in their gaming style. So Scott, if you and me say "culture" we most probably don't mean the same thing.
Way off topic.... You live no where near me in Germany...right?
|
|
I hope you don't take offense to this, Wormys, but it seems to me that current German pop-culture is 80's era US culture.
I certainly don't as there is too much truth in it. My only concern is that WotC doesn't seem to be able to find a Licensee for D&D 4E, so at the moment I'm not even sure if D&D will exist in Germany in twenty years. Which would be quite a shame as there certainly is a market for the system (and I think it was the Rouse saying at ENWorld that Germany is the second-most important market after the US)
But I think that's this difference is also due to different preferences.We're the land of German board games, we're the land of computer games like Gothic 1-3, the Anno - Series. It seems we like a lot of detail even if that means that the rules are not so easily to comprehend.
DSA, the system I mentioned before has developed a simulationist approach in so far as the rules have to fit the world not the other way around. I recently talked to one of the publishers and he admitted that they had thought about doing it the D&D way (because quite frankly, it 's much easier to design) but then decided against it because the fans would never accept it. NWoD was never accepted by the german fandom because the setting changes were taken as much more important than the rule changes (which I heard actually make NWoD the better rules system). I also guess that a lot of german fans of D&D got into it via the CRPGS by Black Isle/Bioware. D&D would be played because you wanted to play the Realms, not because you wanted to play the system. And I know quite some people highly interested in Pathfinder because they love Golarion, not out of interest for the system itself. (Not that they don't like the changes made between 3.5 and PFRPG, it's just that it isn't as important as other things.
Just remember, there certainly is a market for the gaming style supported by 4E here in Germany. Which suffers by not having a supported german localization but is there nonetheless.
But maybe it is understandable from what I've tried to explain that the removal of simulationist concepts out of the 4E is such a bummer for me while Scott not only gladly accept it but in fact highly enjoys it.
And please (this is for anyone caring to read my post) accept that this is in no way intended to fuel or continue edition war-style posts. It is meant to put a light on possible differences between american and german gaming culture taking roleplaying games as an example. Not as an invitation for the next great flame war.
|
|
Way off topic.... You live no where near me in Germany...right?In fact I think I do. If I remember correctly you're living in or near Kaiserslautern , right?. I'm from St. Wendel/Saar which would be around 40 miles or so away from your location.
Ok, then take a look at this thread, and email me if you are interested. dragnmoon (at) gmail(dot)com. In fact, even if you are not immediately interested, email me anyway.
|
|
let me make something clear, I was not calling 4E gamers lazy and stupid, all I was saying was that what came to mind from Scotss description of the 'Modern Gaming Culture' Which i Disagree with.Dragnmoon:
I'm largely onboard with Scott's description of "modern gaming culture" (though I think the nomenclature needs work). I am:
1. Most assuredly not stupid;
2. Not lazy. Wanting one's leisure activities to entail an minimum amount of work* is just common sense.
Everyone have different preferences: Great. But words like "stupid," or "lazy" are loaded, and bound to upset people. Since you must know this, I can only assume you're trying to get a reaction, or at the very least venting your frustration. Fourth edition is, what, fifteen months old? LET IT GO. Preferring 3.5 doesn't make someone smarter, better, or "more" of a gamer. It just means they prefer 3.5.
* I find a majority of prep time to be work. Others may not, in which case 3.5 may be a better match for them. It really is purely subjective.
This may be an example of a cultural difference, then. There is certainly a trend in the US among the younger generation (of which I am probably on the cusp) to take a critical approach to "the way things are done". Particularly, a critical eye tends to be taken to tasks which seem to take longer than necessary, or where the benefit does not measure up to the effort required.
This isn't just in games, it's happening in the business world as well. They tend to want to know why they are doing what they are doing, and want to know whether it is worthwhile (some think this is an irritation, some think it is an opportunity to look at efficiencies - I'm not commenting on the merits, just the perception). Perhaps it's "instant gratification", but that's a loaded term.
Of course, none of this is quantifiable, but it is the popular narrative in the US right now, and 4e appears, in all ways, to be a step toward appealing to this sensibility. Whether or not these characteristics impact the "modern gaming culture", or whether gaming culture is somehow insulated from changes in the wider culture is open to debate, but it certainly appears the WotC is following this model in their game design.
One of my players in both of my games has negated the need for referencing the book constantly in the PFRPG game by just doing what you (and he) does 4th edition. He prints out the spell descriptions of his known spells much like how one does with power cards. His need to reference books has been very minimal in both games because of that.
***ding ding ding*** Good advice to stand the test of time.
let me make something clear, I was not calling 4E gamers lazy and stupid, all I was saying was that what came to mind from Scotss description of the 'Modern Gaming Culture' Which i Disagree with.
Gotcha. While I still don't agree that wanting to minimize the work of a leisure activity is either lazy or stupid, I appreciate that you didn't intend to insult anyone. Thank you for clarifying. :)
One of my players in both of my games has negated the need for referencing the book constantly in the PFRPG game by just doing what you (and he) does 4th edition. He prints out the spell descriptions of his known spells much like how one does with power cards. His need to reference books has been very minimal in both games because of that.***ding ding ding*** Good advice to stand the test of time.
Heh... I find this "power card" thing amusing. I've been printing "spell books" or "spell cards" of some variation for my players for... well, since I started DMing 1st edition. In fact, I ALWAYS did this for new players if they wanted to play a spellcaster. I created similar "feat cards" and "feat lists" once I started 3.5. If your edition of choice isn't accessible, it probably has more to do with the DM in question than the complexity of the rules themselves. That's not to imply 3.5 is easier than 4e to intro to or play in or vice versa... but the ease of transition is hugely affected by the DM.
Indeed. I'm not suggesting that Wizards should reveal their sales figures. I'm saying that whoever came up with the notion that a poor-selling Wizards product sells in excess of 50,000 copies has pulled that number out of thin air. In fact, I'm confident that that number is more "wild-ass guess" than "educated guess." And now I see that people are repeating it as presumed fact...I think what Vic was saying was that if the poster is going to state something as fact, the poster should have evidence to back up that fact.To give you an idea: the free, downloadable PDF of the PFRPG saw fewer downloads than the number of sales WotC makes on a poor showing of one of their books.Please point me to an official statement or other reliable source that demonstrates that a poor-selling Wizards D&D product still sells more than 50,000 copies. (Ideally, I'd like that statement to be from the last two years or so, and the more recent the better.)If we had an official statement from WotC, we wouldn't have this debate.
But how about Paizo, who isn't owned by a listed company show us their numbers. After all, why should WotC be the only company constantly asked to show and tell?
Fair enough. Then please tell me how much a poor selling WotC 4e product sells. Lets make it easy. Give two numbers, 1 for hardcover books and 1 for adventures. I mean, you are certainly not bound by any NDA vis-a-vis WotC, so if you say that 50k is pulled out of thin air, it must be because you know enough about the industry to make an educated guess at least.
I am eagerly awaiting your answer. I might actually learn something today.
I mean, you are certainly not bound by any NDA vis-a-vis WotC, so if you say that 50k is pulled out of thin air, it must be because you know enough about the industry to make an educated guess at least.
This doesnt follow at all. You don't need to know the answer to dispute claims people make without evidence. (Especially when they fail to do so when asked to support their statements).
I mean, you are certainly not bound by any NDA vis-a-vis WotC, so if you say that 50k is pulled out of thin air, it must be because you know enough about the industry to make an educated guess at least.This doesnt follow at all. You don't need to know the answer to dispute claims people make without evidence. (Especially when they fail to do so when asked to support their statements).
Actually it does. When someones says that he earns 10k a month as a teacher, and someone says he pulled that number of out thin air, it's because that someone has an idea of how much a teacher earns - which, at least where I live, is not 10k.
Either way I never claimed to have evidence. I said it was a number I had seen used several times on forums. If it is wrong, I would be more than happy to be enlightened. I personally couldn't care less how much they sell - I would just love some info.
Actually it does. When someones says that he earns 10k a month as a teacher, and someone says he pulled that number of out thin air, it's because that someone has an idea of how much a teacher earns - which, at least where I live, is not 10k.I mean, you are certainly not bound by any NDA vis-a-vis WotC, so if you say that 50k is pulled out of thin air, it must be because you know enough about the industry to make an educated guess at least.This doesnt follow at all. You don't need to know the answer to dispute claims people make without evidence. (Especially when they fail to do so when asked to support their statements).
*Shrug* It just doesnt.
Saying someone has made an unsubstantiated claim says exactly that - they havent produced any evidence. It's not directly concerned with whether the claim is true or not.
Either way I never claimed to have evidence. I said it was a number I had seen used several times on forums. If it is wrong, I would be more than happy to be enlightened. I personally couldn't care less how much they sell - I would just love some info.
Vic wasnt arguing about the correct number. He was suggesting people not take the 50,000 figure as a fact until someone produces evidence to support it, that was all.
Either way I never claimed to have evidence. I said it was a number I had seen used several times on forums. If it is wrong, I would be more than happy to be enlightened. I personally couldn't care less how much they sell - I would just love some info.Vic wasnt arguing about the correct number. He was suggesting people not take the 50,000 figure as a fact until someone produces evidence to support it, that was all.
I am sorry. But Vic said on page 4:
Indeed. I'm not suggesting that Wizards should reveal their sales figures. I'm saying that whoever came up with the notion that a poor-selling Wizards product sells in excess of 50,000 copies has pulled that number out of thin air. In fact, I'm confident that that number is more "wild-ass guess" than "educated guess." And now I see that people are repeating it as presumed fact...
If that's not arguing about the correct number, you must show me your definition of arguing.
Look, its fairly easy. I have already explained that the 50k was just a number that has been mentioned around by people who claim to be insiders from the industry. Do I have a link, hell no. I do not bookmark arguments and statements about D&D - I mean, seriously, there is a limit to my nerdiness. It doesn't change the facts. Vic made it pretty clear that the number I used is wrong (see the quote above). Now, in order to claim that, Vic would have to have ... wait, I have written this once already - I will go back to lurking and await an answer that will never come.
This is quite amusing, really. The crux of it is here:
...Vic made it pretty clear that the number I used is wrong (see the quote above)...
Now read his quote again:
Indeed. I'm not suggesting that Wizards should reveal their sales figures. I'm saying that whoever came up with the notion that a poor-selling Wizards product sells in excess of 50,000 copies has pulled that number out of thin air. In fact, I'm confident that that number is more "wild-ass guess" than "educated guess." And now I see that people are repeating it as presumed fact...
That statement is not saying that the 50,000 number is wrong (although it doubtless is - but that's a separate issue). He could justifiably make the above statement even if he believed that 50,000 was spot on. "Pulling a number out of thin air" does not mean the number is necessarily wrong. It means it's unsubstantiated.
His point is not that 50,000 is an inaccurate estimate. His point is that the number has been produced without justification and that people shouldnt rely on it as a fact unless it is substantiated by some sort of reliable evidence.
CEO
|
Actually Vic is under an NDA with WotC as are all the employees here at Paizo. It is part of our agreement for Dragon and Dungeon magazines. So even if Vic wanted to share exact numbers, he can't per our confidentiality.
I will say this, I think that most customers would be absolutely floored by how little some products sell and how much other products sell. There is a very, very large discrepancy between products that are great sellers and those that aren't. And they can vary from month to month. Products that you might think are best sellers might be losing a bunch of money and other that seem like dogs could be really profitable.
Bottom line is that it doesn't matter how many copies a book sells. What matters is a) if customers like the book and buy it and b) the company making the book can stay in business selling whatever number of books they can sell.
I'll tell you a little story about when I used to work in magazines (not anything to do with WotC or D&D or Dragon or Dungeon). We had an issue that sold 100,000 copies and one that sold 62,000 copies. Which one was the success story? Yep, the 62,000 copies sold one. Because the one we sold 100,000 copies cost us a heck of a lot more to make because it had a giant poster in it and it had to be polybagged and there was additional shipping costs and art costs, etc., etc. So if you were just told the sales, you might jump to the wrong conclusion.
Bottom line is that only WotC really knows whether 4e is a success for them or not. And only Paizo can decide what is successful or not for us. Our two companies have different expectations and different owner's needs and different cost structures, and thus different measurements of success. How will you know if a company is successful? They will continue to make more products for a line and provide more and more support for the line. If that happens, then it is a success. Trust me, public companies don't continue to throw money into a black hole for long. Only successful lines continue to get funding. Now there are levels of success, but we don't need to parse those because it doesn't matter. As long as new products come out for your favorite game, I would consider that a success.
-Lisa
|
- a lot of stuff about german gaming culture-
I will go further and compare some more aspects of the two big german rpgs Das Schwarze Auge (DSA) and Midgard - Das Fantasy Rollenspiel (Midgard - Tha Fanatsy roleplaying Game) with D&D.
1) The Skill systems in both german games are (arguably) the most important part of the mechanics. They are far more elaborate than the D&D skill system.
2) Both german games have a decidedly grim-and-gritty approach to combat. Combat is (on average) more dangerous. In the Midgard system for example, a commoner can land a lucky "critical" and even put a high level PC out of business.
3) Compared with D&D the advancemend power curve is much, much flatter.
Thinking about it, think that DSA and Midgard are nearer to Runequest and Harn than to D&D in design and game philosophy.
Thinking about it, think that DSA and Midgard are nearer to Runequest and Harn than to D&D in design and game philosophy.
Are DSA and Midgard the biggest RPGs in Germany?
Actually Vic is under an NDA with WotC as are all the employees here at Paizo. It is part of our agreement for Dragon and Dungeon magazines. So even if Vic wanted to share exact numbers, he can't per our confidentiality.
I will say this, I think that most customers would be absolutely floored by how little some products sell and how much other products sell. There is a very, very large discrepancy between products that are great sellers and those that aren't. And they can vary from month to month. Products that you might think are best sellers might be losing a bunch of money and other that seem like dogs could be really profitable.
Bottom line is that it doesn't matter how many copies a book sells. What matters is a) if customers like the book and buy it and b) the company making the book can stay in business selling whatever number of books they can sell.
I'll tell you a little story about when I used to work in magazines (not anything to do with WotC or D&D or Dragon or Dungeon). We had an issue that sold 100,000 copies and one that sold 62,000 copies. Which one was the success story? Yep, the 62,000 copies sold one. Because the one we sold 100,000 copies cost us a heck of a lot more to make because it had a giant poster in it and it had to be polybagged and there was additional shipping costs and art costs, etc., etc. So if you were just told the sales, you might jump to the wrong conclusion.
Bottom line is that only WotC really knows whether 4e is a success for them or not. And only Paizo can decide what is successful or not for us. Our two companies have different expectations and different owner's needs and different cost structures, and thus different measurements of success. How will you know if a company is successful? They will continue to make more products for a line and provide more and more support for the line. If that happens, then it is a success. Trust me, public companies don't continue to throw money into a black hole for long. Only successful lines...
Thanks for clearing that up Lisa, you are a smart woman. Good luck (not that you need it) with your Pathfinder RPG.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Actually Vic is under an NDA with WotC as are all the employees here at Paizo. It is part of our agreement for Dragon and Dungeon magazines. So even if Vic wanted to share exact numbers, he can't per our confidentiality.
While this is true, it's also true that I can't share them because I don't have them. Like many folks in our industry, including Paizo, Wizards does not release print run numbers.
Indeed, this is why I have confidence that whoever came up with that number is guessing. And my experience in the industry suggests that they're guessing poorly. And before anybody asks, telling you what my own guess is would be contrary to my entire point, which is that if anybody wants to throw numbers around in public, they should be able to back them up. I can't, so I won't.
*To continue the threadjack*
:-)
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Actually Vic is under an NDA with WotC as are all the employees here at Paizo. It is part of our agreement for Dragon and Dungeon magazines. So even if Vic wanted to share exact numbers, he can't per our confidentiality.
I will say this, I think that most customers would be absolutely floored by how little some products sell and how much other products sell. There is a very, very large discrepancy between products that are great sellers and those that aren't. And they can vary from month to month. Products that you might think are best sellers might be losing a bunch of money and other that seem like dogs could be really profitable.
Bottom line is that it doesn't matter how many copies a book sells. What matters is a) if customers like the book and buy it and b) the company making the book can stay in business selling whatever number of books they can sell.
I'll tell you a little story about when I used to work in magazines (not anything to do with WotC or D&D or Dragon or Dungeon). We had an issue that sold 100,000 copies and one that sold 62,000 copies. Which one was the success story? Yep, the 62,000 copies sold one. Because the one we sold 100,000 copies cost us a heck of a lot more to make because it had a giant poster in it and it had to be polybagged and there was additional shipping costs and art costs, etc., etc. So if you were just told the sales, you might jump to the wrong conclusion.
Bottom line is that only WotC really knows whether 4e is a success for them or not. And only Paizo can decide what is successful or not for us. Our two companies have different expectations and different owner's needs and different cost structures, and thus different measurements of success. How will you know if a company is successful? They will continue to make more products for a line and provide more and more support for the line. If that happens, then it is a success. Trust me, public companies don't continue to throw money into a black hole for long. Only successful lines continue to get funding. Now there are levels of success, but we don't need to parse those because it doesn't matter. As long as new products come out for your favorite game, I would consider that a success.
-Lisa
I wish I could make this entire post my sig file.
|
|
While this is true, it's also true that I can't share them because I don't have them. Like many folks in our industry, including Paizo, Wizards does not release print run numbers.
Or maybe you have the numbers but due to the NDA have to say that you don't have them?
So in saying that the numbers posted here are certainly guesswork you might be giving us a hint that the numbers are largely correct.This is of course all wild speculation.
|
I should have clarified... Most of my 3.5 characters have been divine casters, so their "spells known" list is quite long. That said, I certainly could do that for the spells I use most (let's face it, most divine casters tend to fall back on the same spells repeatedly, even if they have hundreds to choose from).One of my players in both of my games has negated the need for referencing the book constantly in the PFRPG game by just doing what you (and he) does 4th edition. He prints out the spell descriptions of his known spells much like how one does with power cards. His need to reference books has been very minimal in both games because of that.Which leads to me constantly haveing to look up things in the PHB...That's interesting to me. Since I've started playing 4e, I have yet to need to reference the PHB at the game table, since everything I need to know is on my character sheet and/or power cards (I have handwritten ones - I find they make reference very easy), or in the case of PbPs, right in my profile page. I only reference the books when creating a character or gaining a level.
It may be a comfort level thing, though, or may depend on the characters we are playing. Since I tend to gravitate towards spellcasters, in 3.5 I am constantly flipping through a pile of books for spell descriptions.
I just wanted to throw in my own experience there, since I was surprised to see some people finding the opposite to be true.
I can seriously commiserate here, did an age of Worms Campaign, with a divine caster, by the time we go to the end I had a 9 page print out of just the summary blocks (range/casting time/area/duration/1 line description/ page and book ref. Of just the spells I might like to cast. For my own sanity I kept it to just PHB+Spell Compendium and the Faiths of FR. Still every night of memorizing spells was a touch agonizing.
...Actually Vic is under an NDA with WotC as are all the employees here at Paizo. It is part of our agreement for Dragon and Dungeon magazines. So even if Vic wanted to share exact numbers, he can't per our confidentiality.
I will say this, I think that most customers would be absolutely floored by how little some products sell and how much other products sell. There is a very, very large discrepancy between products that are great sellers and those that aren't. And they can vary from month to month. Products that you might think are best sellers might be losing a bunch of money and other that seem like dogs could be really profitable.
Bottom line is that it doesn't matter how many copies a book sells. What matters is a) if customers like the book and buy it and b) the company making the book can stay in business selling whatever number of books they can sell.
I'll tell you a little story about when I used to work in magazines (not anything to do with WotC or D&D or Dragon or Dungeon). We had an issue that sold 100,000 copies and one that sold 62,000 copies. Which one was the success story? Yep, the 62,000 copies sold one. Because the one we sold 100,000 copies cost us a heck of a lot more to make because it had a giant poster in it and it had to be polybagged and there was additional shipping costs and art costs, etc., etc. So if you were just told the sales, you might jump to the wrong conclusion.
Bottom line is that only WotC really knows whether 4e is a success for them or not. And only Paizo can decide what is successful or not for us. Our two companies have different expectations and different owner's needs and different cost structures, and thus different measurements of success. How will you know if a company is successful? They will continue to make more products for a line and provide more and more support for the line. If that happens, then it is a success. Trust me, public companies don't continue to throw money into a black hole for long.
And this is why I love Paizo.
We have a direct line, an all most "open door policy" with the Head Honchos.....
When we get confused or fustrated...Lisa swoops in and takes all our worrys away...
I love Lurking these boards!
Eric
Yea but then Eric Mona posts and scares me with his avatar.
And this is why I love Paizo.We have a direct line, an all most "open door policy" with the Head Honchos.....
When we get confused or fustrated...Lisa swoops in and takes all our worrys away...
I thought Jason Buhlman just got one-up on the scariest avatar bit...
OTOH, nearly everyone I know who has played D&D for a long time would rather play something besides 4e. I never bought the 4e books, but I jumped on Pathfinder, having known about Paizo quality due to Dungeon. We're introducing new players to the game, and we're introducing them to Pathfinder.
Hmmm. What you say could be perfectly true, but then again, I have gamed with over 100 different individuals over the last year, and only 3 of them to my knowledge are interested in Pathfinder to the point of possibly owning the rules (and I played 4e with them all).
I do know someone personally who seems religiously opposed to 4e, but none of his "logic" around the issue seems any more reasonable than creationism.
So, it seems it all comes down to the crowd you hang with.
Hmmm. What you say could be perfectly true, but then again, I have gamed with over 100 different individuals over the last year, and only 3 of them to my knowledge are interested in Pathfinder to the point of possibly owning the rules (and I played 4e with them all).
I do know someone personally who seems religiously opposed to 4e, but none of his "logic" around the issue seems any more reasonable than creationism.
Wow...bringing back a dead thread, talking about Pathfinder vs. 4e's popularity, and invoking creationism all in one post.
Good luck.
|
|
Hmmm. What you say could be perfectly true, but then again, I have gamed with over 100 different individuals over the last year, and only 3 of them to my knowledge are interested in Pathfinder to the point of possibly owning the rules (and I played 4e with them all).
I do know someone personally who seems religiously opposed to 4e, but none of his "logic" around the issue seems any more reasonable than creationism.
Wow...bringing back a dead thread, talking about Pathfinder vs. 4e's popularity, and invoking creationism all in one post.
Good luck.
Not so. There was darkness and from the darkness Gygax brought forth the light. We have been fighting ever since...
S.
And the fighting was good.