# Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect on 4E?



## General Lopez (Jul 31, 2010)

How different would 4E be if WotC had brought Paizo on board? I am not saying that 4E is not selling good for them, but you have to admit that a good size percentage of there 3.5 base did not move on to the new edition. WotC in effect by not bringing Paizo on board created there biggest competition in the D&D market.

I believe this was one of their biggest mistakes in there handling of 4E. They now have a company that puts out some of the best products in the industry for what was their old D&D system. Paizo would have complimented them so well in 4E with Paizo's strength being adventures and WotC weakness being adventures.

Also while there are always people who do not move on to a new edition, how many more did not move on this time, because their system of choice was still going to be supported by one of the best companies in the gaming industry?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 31, 2010)

No, I don't think they underestimated Paizo's effect on 4e.

You cannot please everybody.  Some folks were not going to like 4e, no matter what the design was.  Some segment of the market as not going to be 4e customers, period.  Paizo making product for folks who weren't going to be WotC customers anyway is not competition for WotC.

I do not think WotC is really in competition with other RPG companies.  They are in competition with _other entertainment_. The real question for WotC among consumers isn't, "What RPG will I play?" but, "Will I play RPGs at all?"


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jul 31, 2010)

Yes no and maybe? 

It really depends on how you read the struggle to produce the GSL. To have kept Paizo on board would have required a resolution of the GSL to third party satisfaction well in advance of the launch of 4e otherwise WoTC were asking Paizo to stick with them on a promise. 
This would have been too much to ask as Pazio would have been betting the company.
I think that there were elements in WoTC management that wanted no GSL and to kill the thrid party market and I think that they kinda won.
Now had WoTC being more open to third party and kept Paizo on board would have it made a difference to people now playing Pathfinder/3.x. Well aside from the obvious they may well still be playing 3.x or moved on to other systems.
Better adventures for 4.e may well have converted some but I think Paizo would have developed their own game in time anyway. I believe this because the pulling of Dragon and Dungeon and the announcement of 4e show that Paizo was in a precarious position being dependant on WoTC for  a market for their products and they would have moved to create their own IP anyway.
They may well have taken more time about if the GSL had been more generous.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 31, 2010)

I don't know if WotC underestimated them or not, but Paizo has to be absolutely thrilled with what WotC did with 4E.

If not for 4E, Paizo would likely be in a much different place.


----------



## Wicht (Jul 31, 2010)

Personally, I think Paizo's success has been greater than anyone in either company truly expected. I would not be surprised to learn that Paizo has jumped from owning about 5% of the RPG market to somewhere between 25 and 40%. 

I think dropping the OGL has hurt WotC in multiple ways. It lost those of us who supported the concept. It opened the door for Paizo to continue with a very good, well supported rules set. It also I think, made 4e more stagnant. Under 3e and the OGL when people grew tired of what they were playing, they didn't change rules, they bought one or two 3pp books and changed up their game play that way. But they were still playing 3e and were still WotC customers. Now when people get tired of 4e, they drop it and move to Pathfinder, M&M, Warhammer or some other system.


----------



## jonesy (Jul 31, 2010)

4E was the reason our group got out of D&D. I'm not saying it was bad. We did try it. Even finished a campaign. But we'd been getting really tired of the edition wars as early as when 3.5 was just a rumour. I think 4E was just the last straw. Don't really have anything particularly negative to say about it. So we moved into other games.

Having said that, now that we are slowly getting back to D&D, Pathfinder _is_ the interesting direction. 4E doesn't seem to be a priority for any of us. So from our perspective, yes, it's possible that they did.


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 31, 2010)

I would think the effect was underestimated to a degree.  Paizo has given those of us that prefer the 3.x version of rules a great place to call home, making not moving to 4e all that much easier.  I also feel I still have a company targeting my demographic more effectively when it comes to gaming with Paizo and I am not sure someone would have filled that void as well as Paizo.

With that said I would not have moved to 4e even if Paizo had not stepped up.  I would have stuck with my 3.x books and still had a good amount of material to play, plus what I can come up with on my own.

Of course now I can buy excellent, well written adventures from Paizo and use them with no conversion.  If they had gone to 4e I would likely still buy the adventures but then have to tackle the task of converting them back to my preferred system.  As time went on though I could see myself growing tired of converting and even drop that - luckily not a choice I am faced with now.


----------



## Maggan (Jul 31, 2010)

Wicht said:


> It lost those of us who supported the concept.




While I might be an anomaly, I propose that it is possible to support the concept of the OGL and still play D&D4e. For me, one does not exclude the other.

I'd like D&D4e to have been as open as 3e, but alas that did not happen.

I believe that Paizo would have moved to a Pathfinder model sooner or later anyways disregarding 4e. They've stated on several occasions that a reliance on another companies policies (WotC) was a severe obstacle to growth for them. 

Going at it with total control of their own destiny was bound to happen. Either that or shutting down the place after WotC changed their policies one time to much.

/M


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 31, 2010)

Bloodphantom said:


> How different would 4E be if WotC had brought Paizo on board? I am not saying that 4E is not selling good for them, but you have to admit that a good size percentage of there 3.5 base did not move on to the new edition. WotC in effect by not bringing Paizo on board created there biggest competition in the D&D market.
> 
> I believe this was one of their biggest mistakes in there handling of 4E. They now have a company that puts out some of the best products in the industry for what was their old D&D system. Paizo would have complimented them so well in 4E with Paizo's strength being adventures and WotC weakness being adventures.
> 
> Also while there are always people who do not move on to a new edition, how many more did not move on this time, because their system of choice was still going to be supported by one of the best companies in the gaming industry?



I didn't know what "Paizo" was before Pathfinder, so perhaps I'm guilty of underestimating them too. However, I think what WotC really underestimated was the game and the fans. 3.5 is a really good game, and people really liked it, and by releasing a wildly different game that doesn't share many of its strengths with a marketing effort that really trashed 3.5 and prior editions, they alienated a significant part of their own fanbase. All of this occurred before PF; so as I see it, Paizo simply jumped on an opportunity. If they hadn't someone else would have. It's just smart business.



> I do not think WotC is really in competition with other RPG companies. They are in competition with other entertainment. The real question for WotC among consumers isn't, "What RPG will I play?" but, "Will I play RPGs at all?"



I kind of agree with this, though I think it's a shame. I think the best entertainment is created by and for specific people, rather than by trying to appeal to the masses. It's very difficult to do something that pleases both casual and hardcore fans. It does seem their target audience in marketing is people who don't yet play D&D, which is a shame for those of us who already do.


----------



## Dykstrav (Jul 31, 2010)

I don't think that anyone (either Wizards of the Coast or Paizo) underestimated Paizo's effect on the industry. Paizo was known for quality content before Pathfinder, and they are known for quality content after Pathfinder. It's not as if they would or would not have produced quality content dependent upon whatever happened with 4E.



Umbran said:


> You cannot please everybody.  Some folks were not going to like 4e, no matter what the design was.  Some segment of the market as not going to be 4e customers, period.  Paizo making product for folks who weren't going to be WotC customers anyway is not competition for WotC.




This is a particularly relevant observation. Not everyone jumps on board when a new edition rolls into town--I personally know of three 1E games, two 2E games, and a small smattering of 3E and 3.5 games (not including Pathfinder) in my area. These people didn't see any reason to switch editions just because a new one rolled out, they stuck with the one they already liked. Official support for a favored game doesn't play as big a part in these preferences as some people think. I myself am running a _Vampire: the Masquerade_ game now, even though official support ended for it six years ago, and it's been so successful that I'm even looking at starting up a _Wraith: the Oblivion_ game, which was officially discontinued in 1999... Lack of official support certainly doesn't make a great product any less great.

But a bit more on topic... Given the nature of the OGL, I think that someone would have come along to sell new material to 3.5 fans if Paizo wasn't around. It's basic supply and demand. The market demanded more OGL 3.5 material and the company that decided to supply the products was Paizo--it could have been someone else if Paizo wasn't around, but for my part, I'm glad that it's Paizo. My flavor of D&D is in good hands.

I also think that it's a winning proposition for Wizards of the Coast. Since I'm not really interested in more 4E products as they stand now, they can feel free to shape the game in ways that appeal to other customers. I get continuing support for my favored version of the game, but the people who don't like it get a version of the game they like too. Good times for everyone as far as I can see.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 31, 2010)

Not knowing how much WotC estimated the Paizo effect on 4E, and not knowing what effect it actually had, I don't think we can possibly answer that question.

I doubt anyone has any solid numbers they're able to share, so the best we can do is speculate and make numbers up.  WotC probably has some solid numbers.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jul 31, 2010)

I do not think they needed to. Sure, Paizo has taken customers form WOTC (Those who want a supported ruleset and would otherwise have had to go 4E), but that is not a large number.

And most Paizo customers would not be WOTC customers anyway, especially as WOTC is not selling old PDFs. 

I am glad Paizo is doing well with Pathfinder, but saying they are hurting WOTC to a gret degree is not really true, seems more wishful thinking to me.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jul 31, 2010)

Pulling the older edition PDFs of OOP products, especially the 3e/3.5e products which are pretty much compatible with _Pathfinder_, is ample proof they have at least noticed Paizo has had some effect.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2010)

I wouldn't call it a Paizo effect.  After all, the changes to WotC's fan base happened before Paizo went in a new direction.

But, I think they miscalculated when they looked at other forms of gaming (WoW in particular) and figured that they were missing out on a market.

I am NOT saying that 4E is WOW or that WotC tried to make D&D more into WOW.

I AM saying they saw a market based on people pretending to be elves that is vastly larger then their market based on people pretending to be elves and assumed that they could tap into that with the right game play and marketing.

They were wrong.

The appeal of MMOs and the appeal of tabletop RPGs are very different animals.  It may be true that a lot of tabletop RPGers also enjoy MMOs and get a lot of the same fun from both.  But the reverse is not true.  So trying to tap into the non-tabletop market is a hard sell.  

There seems to be some assumption that being a gamer is just a matter of marketing.  I don't believe that for a second.  There are gamers and there are non-gamers.  There may be a wide range within "gamers", but there are still a lot more people who are flat out *not gamers*.  But a lot of these *not gamers* will maintain a subscription to WOW, play semi-regularly and enjoy the game, but would never consider sitting around a table at a scheduled time and place to play face to face make believe without graphics, automated controls, and guild chat.

There will always be new gamers between new young blood coming up and the occasional older person who has never really been exposed.  And marketing to these people is a good thing.  Getting as many gamers actively gaming is a good thing.  But trying to market to non-gamers is just a poor allocation of resources.

They tried, and they got a huge slug of interest.  But they lost some portion of "gamers" and the "non-gamers" who dove in turn out not to have nearly the same longevity or spending habits.  (addictions   )

This isn't to say that 4E doesn't appeal to gamers.  Again, there are a wide range within gamers, and clearly 4E very strongly appeals to some.

That doesn't mean there are no longer dominant.  90% is better than 85%, even if both are dominant.  I don't think they were 90% before, and I don't think they are near 85% now.  But the point is, simply being the biggest one doesn't give enough information.  

D&D has lost a chunk of its market base and would be better off it it had more.

They can't change at this point.  They pretty much have to dance with the one they brung.  Trying to go back now would just lose more than they recovered.

But they miscalculated.  Or maybe they just took a shot and didn't get lucky.  Certainly going after the WOW market was an appealing brass ring.  Maybe they considered the risk worthwhile.  And a hit there would have been immense.



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> I do not think WotC is really in competition with other RPG companies. They are in competition with other entertainment.



I don't think this really works out.  The two pieces have some truth to them.  But you can't really put them together like that.  You can't ignore the change in scale between the two.

Other RPG companies are much bigger blips on the D&D part of WotC's radar then WotC is on any part of Blizzard's radar.  Wotc is in competition on both sides of the equation.  And they take their eye off other RPG companies, and the fan base those other companies are nipping away at, at their own peril.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jul 31, 2010)

As many as said here. Some tried it and some didn't.

Me, I gave it many chances to win me over. Many chances...but the thought of neglecting all the previous 3.5 stuff. 

Really did hurt.

Second...jumping into a brand system, just totally. Was not a fun idea, the majority of my gaming buddies did not want to switch ( a few bought the books), but no one plays it outright within that body (except of course, one fellow plays it, whenever someone else outside our group is running it #4E#).

But no one...wants nothing to do with it. And no one else has petitioned anyone within the group to get it.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jul 31, 2010)

_Of course_ they underestimated them.  They are now competing with their own IP, rebranded by another company and sold in direct competition with their own products. In some areas, it's a competition they are losing, too.

The suggestion that WotC is not "competing" against Paizo is fallacious. It assumes that those customers who purchased _Pathfinder_ products were never going to purchase 4E products, no matter what. Take away that unjustified and breathtakingly dismissive assumption - and that argument has no clothes -- and no logic.

It's one thing to say that some players would stick with 3.5 and won't buy 4E and so they are not "WotC's potential customers" for 4E. But that's not what has happened with _Pathfinder_. Paizo has sold a new game based upon the old, and most people who are playing it don't bother to even use 3.5 books within their _Pathfinder_ games at all. 

If that's not competition in RPGs, then I don't know what is.

_Pathfinder_ and D&D are not competing products in the marketplace, even though now both are being sold on the shelves of major book retailers and not just in hobby game stores? The presence of competitors on the shelves of mainstream book sellers is a new phenomenon for WotC.  It is as clear a sign of real competition in the marketplace that exists. To hand wave away the presence of those books on the shelves of Big Box Retailers and describe that product as "not in competition" with D&D?  I think that's a *plainly nutty* statement, that's what I think it is. 

Paizo had legitimacy and a claim to the goodwill of fans as "real" owners of D&D given their stewardship of both _Dungeon _and _Dragon _magazine. They have leveraged that goodwill and the OGL into a brand that actually competes  favorably in the marketplace with D&D.

Did WotC expect this would happen? *Not a frikkin' chance*. Did Paizo think this would happen? I expect they HOPED it would happen, but...no. PFRPG's success has exceeded their own best case scenario as well.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 31, 2010)

Entirely my opinion...I don't think WotC understimated the effect.

I think what we are talking about is what would have been the state of things if WotC had brought Paizo in as a partner from the start of 4E.  The posible forms I think that may have manifested as were: renewing Dungeon and Dragon for Paizo; working with Paizo to develop and possibly host DDI; and/or having Paizo as a third party publisher of 4E materials, or as an official publisher.  And would there have been Pathfinder.

First, I don't think Paizo would have been able to develop or host DDI.  So that's probably a non-issue.  As far as allowing Paizo to keep Dungeon and Dragon: I don't think it would have been economically feasible or beneficial for either WotC or Paizo to do so, considering the plan of making it an integral part of DDI.  

As far as Paizo as a third party publisher or official publisher?  I think WotC is exactly where they want to be as far as 3pp's are concerned.  I don't think they necessarily wanted to eliminate 4E products from 3pp's, but I also don't think they'd really care if there weren't any 3pp 4E products.  They don't mind that there is, just as long as they could finally and truly control the type of D&D products in the market.  With the limited amount of official 4E products (compared to the height of 3E), I really can't imagine what 4E products Paizo could have published that would have been financially worth it (for Paizo or WotC).  As far as selling WotC's 4E products, Paizo already does that...so no real change or effect there.

As far as Pathfinder, maybe Paizo wouldn't have developed it or maybe they still would have, but I don't think it's a factor.  Pathfinder has not _stolen_ players from 4E and _is not a_ _competitor_ of WotC.  Pathfinder came out well after 4E...and well after the fan base was already polarized.  I think people that picked up Pathfinder (for the most part), were those who had already decided they didn't want to go the 4E route, but still wanted 3E support.  WotC has lost nothing because of Pathfinder.  3E fans have gained significantly because of Pathfinder.  Not necessarily a Win-Win, probably more of a _Win-Didn't Lose_ scenario...which is probably all that really matters as far as WotC is concerned.

However, I do believe that some of WotC's actions since the release of 4E has cost them customers.  That's where the underestimations or miscalculations occured.  Quite likely, those actions only cost them customers that may have made _occasional_ purchases of 4E products, and some DDI subscribers.  But, even _occasional_ purchases equate to money, and although not a lot, probably not insignificant.  Where they hurt themselves the most in my opinion, was in losing possible DDI subscribers.  At a recurring $10/month per customer, DDI could potentially make WotC more money than all of the 4E products (books) sales combined (and maybe already does?).  Marketing should be done with the goal of bringing in those lapsed gamers in order to get them subscribing to DDI.  Selling books is secondary (except as a hook to bring them in).  Fixing the things that are keeping fans from getting a DDI sub should be priority.  I think they've done this somewhat with the Essentials line, but they have further to go yet (namely pdf's).

Now, if you want to really ask a question about something that WotC may have underestimated...start a thread asking if WotC underestimated the impact of pulling pdf's...


----------



## General Lopez (Jul 31, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Other RPG companies are much bigger blips on the D&D part of WotC's radar then WotC is on any part of Blizzard's radar.  Wotc is in competition on both sides of the equation.  And they take their eye off other RPG companies, and the fan base those other companies are nipping away at, at their own peril.




I agree with this and I think WotC sees it too now. I know essential's is about gaining new players but It seems like it is also geared at trying to get some older players back. They also are launching Dark Sun and just released the Tomb of Horrors last month. Those moves seem to me at trying to get some older players back.

I know everyone always talks about WotC wanting Blizzard numbers. Warcraft was originally supposed to be a Games Workshop game produced by Blizzard. Games Workshop ended up passing on the game so Blizzard found a way to make it by themselves. How different would that industry be if Games Workshop ended letting Blizzard create Warcraft for them? Could the decision to not make sure Paizo came a board with 4E change the future of the D&D industry? It will be fun to look back in 5-10 years to see.


----------



## Wicht (Jul 31, 2010)

I'd give steel wind xp but can't yet.  But thats pretty much how I see the market too at the moment. Those who are continuing to insist Paizo and WotC aren't not in the same league are, I think, basing their assumptions on the state of the market two years ago.  Not the state of the market today.


----------



## the Jester (Jul 31, 2010)

BryonD said:


> There seems to be some assumption that being a gamer is just a matter of marketing.  I don't believe that for a second.  There are gamers and there are non-gamers.  There may be a wide range within "gamers", but there are still a lot more people who are flat out *not gamers*.  But a lot of these *not gamers* will maintain a subscription to WOW, play semi-regularly and enjoy the game, but would never consider sitting around a table at a scheduled time and place to play face to face make believe without graphics, automated controls, and guild chat.




So wait, is there a "gamer gene" or something? And are you saying that WoW players are not  gamers, despite often spending far more time at their game than any rpger does? Your post seems to indicate that you don't think people ever acquire new hobbies or interests, and that attempts to grow the gaming market are wasted effort. Is that an accurate depiction of your position?


----------



## malraux (Jul 31, 2010)

I would have been shocked if Paizo didn't end up going in the pathfinder direction, regardless of what WotC did.  Going dual system would be rather difficult, and of the companies around in 08, Paizo was in the best position to attempt to hold the 3e gaming crowd.  Now unless there was really good reason to believe that the residual 3e market just wouldn't be there, I think the best choice for Paizo would have to be something like pathfinder.  They get better control of their own destiny.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 31, 2010)

BryonD said:


> I AM saying they saw a market based on people pretending to be elves that is vastly larger then their market based on people pretending to be elves and assumed that they could tap into that with the right game play and marketing.




Ah.  You see, when I look at 4e, that's not what I see at all.  I think they saw that online games had revealed some things about game design, in general, that were popular, and they decided to tap into some of that wisdom.




> There seems to be some assumption that being a gamer is just a matter of marketing.  I don't believe that for a second.




I've seen no notable effort to market specifically to MMO players.  I merely see design elements that draw things from MMOs that are applicable to the tabletop.  Design is not marketing.  



> But trying to market to non-gamers is just a poor allocation of resources.




Marketing to non-gamers is the only way they have to get new people into the hobby.  You'd prefer the market leader engaged in navel-gazing, Orouborous-style business?



> D&D has lost a chunk of its market base and would be better off it it had more.




The latter, of course, is true. The former remains an unsupported assertion - we don't have the sales information to tell.




> I don't think this really works out.  The two pieces have some truth to them.  But you can't really put them together like that.  You can't ignore the change in scale between the two.




The change in scale between the two is pretty much the point.  

When you get up on, say, a lazy Saturday morning, and you consider what you're going to do with your time, do you first ask yourself what RPG you're going to play today, or do you ask yourself if you're going to BBQ or go to the movies or maybe play an RPG?

RPGs are a niche market, and WotC already has dominance, we are agreed on these points, yes?

Well, then by definition, if WotC were to out-perform every other RPG, forcing them out of the market entirely, then they will _less than double_ their business.  That's a whole lot of work, for a clearly limited return.  In a luxury market, once you have dominance, competing within that market is an exercise in diminishing returns - squabbling over crumbs. If it wants to grow to greater success, WotC needs to pick at something _bigger than itself_.

I will see if I can find the post that made this clear to me, as it was extremely well-put.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 31, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I think dropping the OGL has hurt WotC in multiple ways. It lost those of us who supported the concept. It opened the door for Paizo to continue with a very good, well supported rules set.




While I liked the OGL, I think its important to note that it was the OGL that has allowed Paizo to directly compete with WOTC in the way they have. Without it, games like Pathfinder couldn't exist to compete with the DND brand.


----------



## malraux (Jul 31, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> _Pathfinder_ and D&D are not competing products in the marketplace, even though now both are being sold on the shelves of major book retailers and not just in hobby game stores? The presence of competitors on the shelves of mainstream book sellers is a new phenomenon for WotC.




I've seen World of Darkness and a bunch of other games on Borders/B&N shelves in the 2000's.  WotC has always had competitors.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jul 31, 2010)

And yes, Eric Mona *did openly* thanked Wotc for that. At last year's Ennie Awards.



Stalker0 said:


> While I liked the OGL, I think its important to note that it was the OGL that has allowed Paizo to directly compete with WOTC in the way they have. Without it, games like Pathfinder couldn't exist to compete with the DND brand.


----------



## General Lopez (Jul 31, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> While I liked the OGL, I think its important to note that it was the OGL that has allowed Paizo to directly compete with WOTC in the way they have. Without it, games like Pathfinder couldn't exist to compete with the DND brand.




The OGL also helped grow the industry to where it is now. The launch of 3E and the OGL was one of the best sales periods for the hobby. The OGL also allowed companies to create complimentary items to WotC products. WotC has never been known for there adventures. WotC also has stated that adventures were not very profitable. This is where company's like Paizo, Necromancer games, and Goodman games came in. They filled the role that WotC did not want to fill. Who fills the 4E adventure role now? Pathfinder exists now because of WotC decisions that pushed Paizo to create it.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 31, 2010)

I am flabergasted by the suggestion by some that Paizo/Pathfinder some how does not compete with WotC/4E or threaten its customer base.

Paizo/Pathfinder competes directly with WotC and 4E and "steals" customers is through their adventure paths and modules. Not to put too fine a point on it, WotC gave Paizo the tools to steal customers by making an edition that is not particularly backward compatible or even easily converted. People love Paizo modules and adventure paths, for the quality of their design, the art, and the fluff. So they purchase them. IF those modules and adventure paths could be easily used with 4E, then WotC would reap the benefits of Paizo's talents without even having to have an official partnership. But it isn't, and since what actually happens at the table matters, some people, because they use and prefer Paizo's modules and adventure paths, choose to use Pathfinder instead of 4E.

Of course't he reverse is true also: it is relatively common for people on this board and elsewhere to lament that Paizo doesn't make 4E compatible adventures, and if they did folks would buy them in a moment. The extent to which one offsets the other is unknown, but I would guess that since Paizo is a smaller company with a lower margin for "success", the customers it gains for Pathfinder via the adventure paths and modules outweigh those it loses from not producing 4E content.

I do think that if Paizo a) lowered the bar to entry via a "lite" or "basic" version of the game, and b) made their non-adventure path module aspect as strong as the adventure path aspect, they could make an even bigger dent in the "D&D" market.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 31, 2010)

malraux said:


> I've seen World of Darkness and a bunch of other games on Borders/B&N shelves in the 2000's.  WotC has always had competitors.




But not for "D&D", not in a very long time.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Ah.  You see, when I look at 4e, that's not what I see at all.  I think they saw that online games had revealed some things about game design, in general, that were popular, and they decided to tap into some of that wisdom.



 I would agree with that.  But only as a completely separate point that in no way diminishes the on-topic point.  
I actually agree that 4E picked up some good mechanical innovations from WOW.  There is *some* truth to the "they made 4E like WOW" claim.

But, imo, there is only a smidge of truth to it, and what there is, is good.

But, again, all of that is compatible with my point.



> I've seen no notable effort to market specifically to MMO players.  I merely see design elements that draw things from MMOs that are applicable to the tabletop.  Design is not marketing.



I don't think they are marketing to "MMO players" so much as they are seeing that MMOs can market to the general market rather than then gamer market, so we should be able to as well.  And they have made mistakes in their reasoning there.




> Marketing to non-gamers is the only way they have to get new people into the hobby.  You'd prefer the market leader engaged in navel-gazing, Orouborous-style business?



You are not understanding what I mean by non-gamers.  There are a LOT of people, an overwhelming majority of the population, that are not even a prospective gamer.  

Name calling the practice of targeting valid markets doesn't stop it form being a superior approach.

As I said, there are and always will be prospective gamers who, for one reason or another are not yet.  And targeting these people is very important.  

New people have been coming into the hobby for as long as the hobby exists.  So, the navel gazing of the past has worked so far.  




> The latter, of course, is true. The former remains an unsupported assertion - we don't have the sales information to tell.



shrug  
I'm comfortable with the reasonable doubt levels.



> The change in scale between the two is pretty much the point.
> 
> When you get up on, say, a lazy Saturday morning, and you consider what you're going to do with your time, do you first ask yourself what RPG you're going to play today, or do you ask yourself if you're going to BBQ or go to the movies or maybe play an RPG?
> 
> ...



Of course, but that is a huge "if".  I would suggest that "if" is even into the realms of delusional. 

And, what you are leaving out is the downside.

Picking up 30% of other RPG companies market place would be a small help.
But that isn't my point.
LOSING 30% of their existing market to other RPGs would be a major kick in the teeth.  And that threat is always real.

Your argument assumes that it is a choice between small growth and big growth.  It can also be a choice between small growth and big shrinking.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jul 31, 2010)

Let us not forget that many folks may have swayed that decision, base on the cries of abandonment on 3.5 material (there were tons of it) being out there.

Also, that during the early stages of the (first or second?) GSL makeover. That there was too, several 3.5 products put on hold waiting  to be  released.

A lot of factors (before and after) helped contributed to that decision down that road.






Bloodphantom said:


> The OGL also helped grow the industry to where it is now. The launch of 3E and the OGL was one of the best sales periods for the hobby. The OGL also allowed companies to create complimentary items to WotC products. WotC has never been known for there adventures. WotC also has stated that adventures were not very profitable. This is where company's like Paizo, Necromancer games, and Goodman games came in. They filled the role that WotC did not want to fill. Who fills the 4E adventure role now? *Pathfinder exists now because of WotC decisions that pushed Paizo to create it*.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2010)

the Jester said:


> So wait, is there a "gamer gene" or something?



Nature or Nurture?  Dunno.



> And are you saying that WoW players are not  gamers, despite often spending far more time at their game than any rpger does?



If it is easier to replace gamers with "tabletop RPGers", please do.  The term is pretty vague.

There are people who play bridge, chess, board games, you name it, with no interest in RPGs.  They could be called gamers.  In the context of this conversation I mean tabletop RPGers.



> Your post seems to indicate that you don't think people ever acquire new hobbies or interests, and that attempts to grow the gaming market are wasted effort. Is that an accurate depiction of your position?



That's a pretty radical interpretation.

I never in any way claimed that people don't acquire new hobbies or interests.

I am saying that for 90+% of the population becoming a tabletop RPG gamer is not ever going to happen.  And marketing to these people is a poor use of resources.


----------



## TheNovaLord (Jul 31, 2010)

possibley

we had bought lots of 3.5, but where getting a little tired with it

when 4 came along i think we maybe bought 5 of each book between the ten of us, but very few splat books. we played some home written stuff, LFR and a few of the bog mods. 2 became subscibers. After 6 months we all got a bit 'mweh' with it

PF came out, and we already appreciated how good its module where. I think we have 7 core books, and 3 of beastie. BUT we have bought loads PFS mods and , stacks of the flipmats and lots of AP

ok, seems like wotc lost out in our case.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 31, 2010)

Bloodphantom said:


> Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect on 4E?







Wicht said:


> I think dropping the OGL has hurt WotC in multiple ways.





Setting aside what WotC does outside of D&D, it's pretty obvious from looking at what Paizo does and how many employees they can support, that WotC would have been a lot better off with Paizo pulling in the same direction with a synergistic business model.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 31, 2010)

Stalker0 said:


> While I liked the OGL, I think its important to note that it was the OGL that has allowed Paizo to directly compete with WOTC in the way they have. Without it, games like Pathfinder couldn't exist to compete with the DND brand.





SJG, Kenzer and a number of others have proven otherwise.  The OGL certainly made things generally less difficult but it has always been possible to directly compete.  It's Paizo's overall quality that raises their materials closer to the same weight class and the Internet that helps them market as they do.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 31, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> The suggestion that WotC is not "competing" against Paizo is fallacious. It assumes that those customers who purchased _Pathfinder_ products were never going to purchase 4E products, no matter what. Take away that unjustified and breathtakingly dismissive assumption - and that argument has no clothes -- and no logic.




It is neither unjustified nor dismissive.  It's an observation.

To a first approximation, there are two kinds of gamers: those who buy multiple games, and those who pick one game and stick to it.  Among these latter gamers, the products are not like toothpaste here having gotten one means they won't get another.  The competition here isn't so much with each other as it is with the customer's internal guidelines as to hat makes a good game.  Buying Pathfinder does not mean this person won't buy 4e, so they aren't really in competition for this customer.  

For the latter bunch, there's more strong competition in general. However, for 4e the dynamic here is more complicated.  When 4e came out, people didn't need Pathfinder, or anything else, to continue playing 3e.  Given the controversies, and the differences between 4e and 3e, I honestly don't think Pathfinder's existence (at the time, still a beta-test question mark) was a major player in the decision to not play 4e.  I think the folks who play Pathfinder would have stuck with 3e anyway.  They are, I suspect, much better off and happier because Pathfinder exists, but that's a different concern.

If folks weren't going to buy 4e whether or not Pathfinder existed, then they aren't in competition.

In a couple years, this argument will no longer hold - we'd be talking more about people who have to make a fresh choice between the games, and they'll be in more direct competition.  But for now, I don't think Pathfinder sales are noticeably cutting into 4e sales.




> Did WotC expect this would happen? *Not a frikkin' chance*.




Well, I think WotC did full well expect to lose some 3e players when they brought out 4e.  Whether someone else picked them up afterwards wasn't really a concern, as they would have been lost either way.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 31, 2010)

TheNovaLord said:


> ...ok, seems like wotc lost out in our case.




From your own description I don't think this is the case: 



TheNovaLord said:


> ...when 4 came along i think we maybe bought 5 of each book between the ten of us, but very few splat books. we played some home written stuff, LFR and a few of the bog mods. 2 became subscibers. *After 6 months we all got a bit 'mweh' with it*
> 
> (then*)
> 
> *PF came out*...



(*added by me for emphasis only, as it was an unspoken element...kind of like "you" as a subject in a sentence that doesn't specifically say it...)

I think this is probably quite typical and highlights something I believe to be true: If someone already didn't like 4E, and was leaning towards not playing it anyways (or switching back to 3E or another game), then Pathfinder did not steal them away from WotC. They had already left or were already looking to leave. WotC did not lose them to Paizo, as they were _already_ lost to them.

The only way customers were stolen away from WotC, is if someone was a customer of 4E, planned on staying with 4E, but then switched because of, and only because of, Pathfinder. I'm not saying there aren't some people out there for which this is true, and quite likely some of the very people in this thread, but I think they are probably a very very small group. I'd bet that most people who bought Pathfinder were those who had already decided to stick with 3E/3.5E, and those who were already disapointed with 4E, whether they had bought 4E books or not.


Although not scientific, and really wouldn't "prove" anything, I'd be interested to see what a poll would show if it asked:

*For those playing Pathfinder as their primary game, what was your status before choosing Pathfinder?*


Options:

Originally preferred 4E but thought Pathfinder was better when I saw it. (Woo'd away from 4E.)
Had already decided to stay with 3E/3.5E, but saw Pathfinder as it's successor.
Originally switched to 4E, but became disapointed with it...then Pathfinder released.


----------



## Wicht (Jul 31, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> Options:
> 
> Originally preferred 4E but thought Pathfinder was better when I saw it. (Woo'd away from 4E.)
> Had already decided to stay with 3E/3.5E, but saw Pathfinder as it's successor.
> Originally switched to 4E, but became disapointed with it...then Pathfinder released.




That doesn't hit me. I was prepared to switch, as I had bought into every edition before. But Paizo had me enough that I was willing to follow their lead. Because Paizo did not switch, I did not either and 4e was far from appealing enough to change this. So yeah - WotC lost me to Paizo when 4e came out but they might have had me if they had made different choices.

edit: Bear in mind, Paizo announced their decision before 4e was released.


----------



## ancientvaults (Jul 31, 2010)

Maybe they didn't see it coming, but where I am Pathfinder outsells 4e completely. There is no competition, none, because the 4e books gather dust and the Pathfinder books sell. I have no problem finding an oldschool or Pathfinder game to play in, but 4e? Not happening.

I hate edition wars, but looking at how many of us "oldschoolers" also play Pathfinder (some also play 4e, to be fair) I see that Paizo has blown the doors off of 4e. 

And why this is, I do not know. Our group tried 4e and didn't care for it, but people somewhere have to be playing it.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 31, 2010)

I think a couple posters around here have a very limited view of what constitutes competition. Paizo doesn't have to steal a customer completely away from WotC because people often do buy into more than one RPG. They just have to attract money from a gamer's budget that would probably have gone to WotC, and we're seeing that even with 4e players who prefer to buy Pathfinder APs and adapt them rather than buy WotC 4e adventures much less PF and 4e players who would rather buy the PF Advanced Player's Guide than one of the 4e supplements.

*That's* competition. It doesn't matter if WotC is much bigger than its competitors and also competes against other media. WotC and Paizo are in competition as surely as Coke competes with Pepsi, just on substantially different terms than the two relatively equal-sized obesity generators.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 31, 2010)

Wicht said:


> ...edit: Bear in mind, Paizo announced their decision before 4e was released.




Just for clarification, what specific decision are you referring to?  The decision to not go 4E and stay 3E/3.5E (as concerns their adventures and adventure paths)? Or their decision to make Pathfinder?  Or another decision entirely?

And, do you think there should be another option on the poll?  How would you word it?


----------



## Wicht (Jul 31, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> Just for clarification, what specific decision are you referring to?  The decision to not go 4E and stay 3E/3.5E (as concerns their adventures and adventure paths)? Or their decision to make Pathfinder?  Or another decision entirely?
> 
> And, do you think there should be another option on the poll?  How would you word it?




The decision to produce their own rules and stick with the OGL was made before the release of 4e. WotC had been stringing companies along, promising an OGL game, reneging, refusing to release a GSL and refusing to allow 3pps to even look at the rules. Paizo was reaching a point where they had to decide which rules to use with future APs about to begin development. The decision to stay with the OGL and not go with 4e was all made at once before 4e was released. They then released the Alpha rules and then the Beta. IIRC that was all happening around February and March and 4e was released in August of that year at Gencon. 

Option for the Poll: Would have gone with 4e but stuck with Paizo instead.


----------



## Perram (Jul 31, 2010)

Umbran said:


> It is neither unjustified nor dismissive.  It's an observation.
> 
> To a first approximation, there are two kinds of gamers: those who buy multiple games, and those who pick one game and stick to it.  Among these latter gamers, the products are not like toothpaste here having gotten one means they won't get another.  The competition here isn't so much with each other as it is with the customer's internal guidelines as to hat makes a good game.  Buying Pathfinder does not mean this person won't buy 4e, so they aren't really in competition for this customer.
> 
> ...




Well, based on both the experiences of my game store and the sales at my FLGS, I have to say you are wrong Umbran.  

The majority of the gaming groups in my area switched to 4e when it came out.  The major and active groups pre-ordered the core books and all the products coming out.  

They were EXCITED to have a new edition of the game.  

We sold a TON of it at launch.  I bought a ton of it myself!  We gave 4e its chance.  We bought it and we played it.  Myself I purchased *every single book for 4e* all the way up to the DMG II.  I had a DDI subscription to boot!

But we didn't love it.

With the Pathfinder Beta having come out right around the launch of 4e, it HAS been in competition with 4e since the start.  While the final release of pathfinder only happened a year later, there have been QUALITY products on the shelf with the Pathfinder brand on them for months BEFORE 4e's launch.

Leading up to Pathfinder, we took notice!  Several game groups in my area did.  We played the Beta for awhile as sort of a testing the waters situation, we read the adventures and adventure path material...

Golarion was one of the BEST game worlds we've seen in a long while!  Especially compared to the '2 books and forget it' format for the 4e game worlds.

And slowly, nearly all of the 4e game groups in my area became Pathfinder game groups.

People traded in their 4e collections in droves at my store.  For a period of time we had to STOP taking the trades, because we were getting flooded with stock and no one was buying it!

As of right now, Pathfinder rule books out sell 4e rulebooks on the shelf.  Our Pre-Owned 3.5 / 3e era books out sell the 4e supplements easily.

Of the 6 most active 4e game groups I know of in the area that, only 2 of them still play 4e (And one of those have recently purchased Pathfinder rulebooks in strong numbers...).  3 of us have switched to Pathfinder entirely, and 1 plays star wars.

Yes, this in all anecdotal evidence.  But it shows that there certainly are areas where Pathfinder and 4e compete.  *I'm certain the numbers balance differently in different areas, where 4e is dominate.*

And even MORE importantly to existing customers.  Because the active groups in our area are playing PATHFINDER now, the new players that are just now getting into Role Playing... are being absorbed into the Pathfinder groups.

THAT is undeniably a lost 4e sale there.  They haven't formed any opinion on game system yet, and they will play whatever the group they get invited to plays.  And right now they are joining Pathfinder groups.

Gamers do not have infinite money or more importantly infinite time.  I wish we did!  Supporting and playing multiple systems in the /SAME/ genre is a lot harder to justify than, say, playing two completely different games.

So in short:  Yes,* Pathfinder and 4e DO compete*.  I do not think it is the next Blood War, but gaming dollars are being spent on Paizo Products that are not being spent on WotC products.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 31, 2010)

Wicht said:


> The decision to produce their own rules and stick with the OGL was made before the release of 4e. WotC had been stringing companies along, promising an OGL game, reneging, refusing to release a GSL and refusing to allow 3pps to even look at the rules. Paizo was reaching a point where they had to decide which rules to use with future APs about to begin development. The decision to stay with the OGL and not go with 4e was all made at once before 4e was released. They then released the Alpha rules and then the Beta. IIRC that was all happening around February and March and 4e was released in August of that year at Gencon.
> 
> Option for the Poll: Would have gone with 4e but stuck with Paizo instead.





I believe that 4E was released on June 6th, 2008, though the decision(s) by Paizo came well before that.


----------



## Dykstrav (Jul 31, 2010)

Perram said:


> So in short:  Yes,* Pathfinder and 4e DO compete*.  I do not think it is the next Blood War, but gaming dollars are being spent on Paizo Products that are not being spent on WotC products.




I have to back up Perram's experience with my own. At my own FLGS, the 4E material is sort of just sitting there gathering dust on the shelf. When a new splatbook comes out, they will sell a few copies, but it's obvious that the Pathfinder material outsells it by a large margin. It's still uncommon to find a copy of the _Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook_ in the store--most of them are snapped up the day they hit the shelf.

The owners are ordering far less 4E material than they used to, although people do come in to the store to play 4E. _Living Forgotten Realms_ is actually one of their biggest nights at the store, and _D&D Encounters_ sees a healthy crowd too. However... The 4E players don't seem to buy much at the store. The players get their books online and come to the store for the events--and the store has to run these events to keep their status with WotC. The store isn't really making much on the 4E crowd, they buy some snacks and drinks and that's about it. A few people buy their 4E material there, but it's obvious that 4E is not the major contributor to the store's income.

As an additional anecdote, my local used bookseller (Edward McKay's on Capital Boulevard here in Raleigh), has about an equal spread of 3E/3.5 material and 4E material in stock at any given time. At least in my neck of the woods, I'd take this as an indication that not every 4E adopter has stayed with the game.


----------



## BenBrown (Jul 31, 2010)

Wicht said:


> The decision to produce their own rules and stick with the OGL was made before the release of 4e. WotC had been stringing companies along, promising an OGL game, reneging, refusing to release a GSL and refusing to allow 3pps to even look at the rules. Paizo was reaching a point where they had to decide which rules to use with future APs about to begin development. The decision to stay with the OGL and not go with 4e was all made at once before 4e was released. They then released the Alpha rules and then the Beta. IIRC that was all happening around February and March and 4e was released in August of that year at Gencon.
> 
> Option for the Poll: Would have gone with 4e but stuck with Paizo instead.




Was it made before the release, or before the announcement of the release?  By this I mean, did Paizo already know that 4E wouldn't be OGL before they put together Pathfinder?


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 31, 2010)

Wicht said:


> The decision to produce their own rules and stick with the OGL was made before the release of 4e. ...




Crap!  Pathfinder did come out first, or close enough as to be considered concurrent.  I kept thinking that 4E released first, but yeah, the Alpha of Pathfinder came out first.  The final version was after 4E but the argument could probably be made that it had the majority of it's fans with the Alpha version.

Now I don't know what to think!  Damn You!

I guess it comes down to, as far as competing with eachother, whether one considers Pathfinder an extension of 3E/3.5E (3.75E?), or is it a completely different game.  If it's just an extension, I still don't think it's competing, as most of those who play it prefer it because it's esentially a continuation of 3E - and therefore not potential 4E customers anyways.  If they consider it a different game, and came to it that way, then it may just be in direct competition...

However, you don't count! (just kidding)  It sounds like you would have stayed with Paizo, regardless of edition or system.  You're the exception that doesn't prove or disprove the rule...  (see what I mean, you're muddying the waters, throwing off the curve, changing the premise...)  I guess the competition thing isn't as black and white as I'd like to think.

But, as to the OP, do I think WotC underestimated the Paizo effect (in light of their decisions and actions)?  I'd still have to say No.  In the end, I think WotC expected to not win over some people.  Whether some of those people went with, or stayed with, Paizo is incidental...they didn't expect to have them anyways.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2010)

Wicht said:


> edit: Bear in mind, Paizo announced their decision before 4e was released.



That is a bit misleading though.

The bulk of 4E was a known quantity well before the official release date.  
The debates about the strengths and weaknesses before the release date weren't substantially different than they are now.

And the "GSL" was announced before Pathfinder started.  And there was a long road of 4E pseudo-OGL trial efforts before the GSL came to be.

Paizo choices were well informed on:
The mechanical changes in 4E
The flavor changes in 4E
The market responses to 4E
The license implications of 4E

All well before the final call of PF was made.  The June 2008 street date of 4E is largely a footnote.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 31, 2010)

Personally...in retrospect, I think WOTC could've kept the OGL and STILL killed off the 3pp market for 4e.

DDI pretty much kicks the teeth in of any 3pp product that isn't an adventure.

If DDI was up and running during 3e, I'd expect the same effect really...


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 31, 2010)

BenBrown said:


> Was it made before the release, or before the announcement of the release?  By this I mean, did Paizo already know that 4E wouldn't be OGL before they put together Pathfinder?





4E was never going to be OGL, but rather the terms of the alternate licensing (the GSL) were being debated, delayed, and devalued repeatedly over the course of time between the announcement of an eventual 4E and the actual release of 4E.  A few major 3PPs like Paizo hung on for quite some time trying to lobby for a better licensing outcome but eventually when it appeared that WotC's was never going to move in a more favoable direction, companies like Paizo proceded with their own plans.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Jul 31, 2010)

BenBrown said:


> Was it made before the release, or before the announcement of the release?  By this I mean, did Paizo already know that 4E wouldn't be OGL before they put together Pathfinder?




Going off memory here, but by the time they decided to stick with the OGL it was known that wotc would not be using the OGL. It was known they would be using an still unseen GSL and 3PP kept waiting and waiting while the GSL was still a no show.

So paizo had to make a call as they could not stop making products while waiting for the still unseen GSL and  new rule set.


----------



## doctorhook (Jul 31, 2010)

I don't think there even is a "Paizo effect". Paizo is just another smaller competitor for WotC, and I don't think Pathfinder is doing nearly as good a job bringing new players to RPGing as 4E does. While 4E fans can market their product as "the newest and coolest version of D&D", lots of PF fans seem to be stuck nerdraging at potential new players about how much "teh newest verison of D+D suxx! (U shud buy Pathfinder instead!)".


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 31, 2010)

BryonD said:


> That is a bit misleading though.
> 
> The bulk of 4E was a known quantity well before the official release date.
> The debates about the strengths and weaknesses before the release date weren't substantially different than they are now.
> ...





What 4E was or was not going to be is secondary to the licensing issues.  It is misleading to claim that the content of 4E and it's release date were at the heart of the problem in Paizo and WotC coming to some accord.  Without licensing favorable to both parties, it was never going to happen anyway and Paizo held out as long as they could before abandoning the hope.  At the point at which they walked away from the table, their design and print schedules would not allow them further time be wasted on what proved later to have been a lost cause.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> I don't think there even is a "Paizo effect". Paizo is just another smaller competitor for WotC, and I don't think Pathfinder is doing nearly as good a job bringing new players to RPGing as 4E does. While 4E fans can market their product as "the newest and coolest version of D&D", lots of PF fans seem to be stuck nerdraging at potential new players about how much "teh newest verison of D+D suxx! (U shud buy Pathfinder instead!)".




Well said


Edit:  Heh, My sarcasm gets XP as sincere.  I mean, come on, this has to be the most nerd-raging, unsubstantiated, irrational post in the thread.


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 31, 2010)

El Madhi's "poll" missed the most important question(s), I think, which Perram later referenced in his: "Are you a Pathfinder player who has _never_ played D&D? "


----------



## Wicht (Jul 31, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> I don't think there even is a "Paizo effect". Paizo is just another smaller competitor for WotC, and I don't think Pathfinder is doing nearly as good a job bringing new players to RPGing as 4E does. While 4E fans can market their product as "the newest and coolest version of D&D", lots of PF fans seem to be stuck nerdraging at potential new players about how much "teh newest verison of D+D suxx! (U shud buy Pathfinder instead!)".




And yet, my son had my cousin over for a sleep-over and we played Dungeons and Dragons with him, using Pathfinder, gave him a set of extra dice as he was going home, and he took his character sheet because he has a friend who plays Dungeons and Dragons.  Not once did we denigrate 4e as we played and I suspect if I buy him a Core Rulebook for Christmas, Paizo has a new 12 year old gamer.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 31, 2010)

BryonD said:


> ...The bulk of 4E was a known quantity well before the official release date...




For me, I don't agree with this one. I thought I had a really good grasp on what 4E was going to be from articles, sneak peeks (most of them right here on ENWorld - it's what brought me here in the first place), and the _"Classes and Races"_ and _"Worlds and Monsters"_ books. But when I got my core book set in the mail and read them, it seemed like a whole different animal to me than what I expected. I've heard the same thing from a lot of others. I think we had some idea of what it would be, but as a complete whole, a lot of us were quite surprised.



BryonD said:


> Paizo choices were well informed on:
> The mechanical changes in 4E
> The flavor changes in 4E
> The market responses to 4E
> The license implications of 4E




I don't agree with this either, I think it was purely for the license implications only.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> What 4E was or was not going to be is secondary to the licensing issues.  It is misleading to claim that the content of 4E and it's release date were at the heart of the problem in Paizo and WotC coming to some accord.  Without licensing favorable to both parties, it was never going to happen anyway and Paizo held out as long as they could before abandoning the hope.  At the point at which they walked away from the table, their design and print schedules would not allow them further time be wasted on what proved later to have been a lost cause.



Sorry, I'm not sure I'm entirely following your point.  I can't tell where you are agreeing and where you are disagreeing.

I know there were multiple elements to the choice.  I don't claim that any one of them was or was not "at the heart".  I don't know.  But I know they have made comments about all of the above playing into their choice.

There is zero doubt that the GSL was a big deal, and being in control is an important factor.  

But they also clearly stated that the OGL SRD was a better game system for the way they wanted to go.

Obviously, they could have built their own game from the ground up had they wanted to go that route.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 31, 2010)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> Going off memory here, but by the time they decided to stick with the OGL it was known that wotc would not be using the OGL. It was known they would be using an still unseen GSL and 3PP kept waiting and waiting while the GSL was still a no show.
> 
> So paizo had to make a call as they could not stop making products while waiting for the still unseen GSL and  new rule set.





Correct but with the stipulation that at that point I believe the GSL had been seen but had changed a couple of times and was touted as WotC as still being potentially amended.  As it turned out, it was never going to be amended enough to prove favorable.


I think the assessment of AllisterH is also spot on.  It is clear that even if the GSL had been more favorable, the restrictive nature of the DDI, in regard to what it could allow of 3PP material, makes any expansive ambitions of a 3PP under the GSL a relative death march.  Certainly, there are ways to pick up some table scraps (as compared to being a more fully-fledged 3PP partner in the 3.XE era).  Even the strongest of GSL partners seems to be liquidating stock from the last two years.


----------



## Wicht (Jul 31, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> 4E was never going to be OGL,




Actually, WotC originally said 4e would be OGL. They then backed off of that, but it had been said.

And while Paizo had an idea of the direction of 4e (like many of us did) there is a vast difference between having access to the prereleased material and actually getting to see the bulk of the rules. IIRC, and I think I do, WotC did not let Paizo see the rulebooks before their general release. They wanted the 3pps to commit to coming on board purely on faith. While at the same time they also continued to move the release date of the GSL.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 31, 2010)

I never got the impression that WOTC hated all 3PP products.

Indeed, they WANT adventures produced. What WOTC found annoying my guess was that "supplementary rules a.k.a monsters/feats/etc"  products were competing directly with their own products.

That's NOT what WOTC wanted for the OGL IMO.

When integrating a 3pp product with a WOTC product into a campaign is the same diffculty (as it was during 3.x era), there's no great incentive to choose the WOTC product over the 3pp product.

When even DRAGON AND DUNGEON material gets incorporated into DDI for 4e (as mentioned earlier, how does this work if Paizo ran both magazines still), yeah, the WOTC product is likely to be more chosen.

As an aside, it should be mentioned that DDI might also be possibily cannibalizing sales from WOTC dead tree line. On 4e forums here, @ penny arcade, @rpg.net etc, when asked by people "what products should I buy?".

The answer is usually..."PHB (might be ESSENTIALS soon), DMG and then get yourself DDI."

(hell, we don't even mention MM and if you're an old hat DMing, I'd drop buying the DMG as well)


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> For me, I don't agree with this one.  I thought I had a really good grasp on what 4E was going to be from articles, sneak peeks (most of them right here on ENWorld - it's what brought me here in the first place), and the _"Classes and Races"_ and _"Worlds and Monsters"_ books.  But when I got my core book set in the mail and read them, it seemed like a whole different animal to me than what I expected.  I've heard the same thing from a lot of others.  I think we had some idea of what it would be, but as a complete whole, a lot of us were quite surprised.



OK

I'm pretty surprised to read that.  But so be it.

I know I kept getting told over and over that none of my complaints were valid because I hadn't seen the "whole context".  I got the books and found nothing new.  It was exactly what I'd been led to expect.  And I know I'm not alone in that.

But, clearly, not everyone experienced the same thing.  So, while I will claim that I think the Paizo guys were at least as astute to the game as I was, clearly the final market reaction piece was less firm than my claim.

So I stand corrected on that.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Actually, WotC originally said 4e would be OGL. They then backed off of that, but it had been said.



They tried to use the term "OGL".  But they never used *the OGL*.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 31, 2010)

billd91 said:


> They just have to attract money from a gamer's budget that would probably have gone to WotC




That's the trick though, isn't it - knowing when that money would probably have gone to WotC instead, as opposed to, say, into a PS3 game?  

This is why I mentioned the single-gamer and the multi-gamers.  I expect the single-gamers are apt to be the bulk of the gaming population (as they seem to be pretty common around here).  I don't know how often those folks are going to cross brand lines once they've made a decision - it implies they're still considering and watching the other company's products.



> ...and we're seeing that even with 4e players who prefer to buy Pathfinder APs and adapt them rather than buy WotC 4e adventures much less PF and 4e players who would rather buy the PF Advanced Player's Guide than one of the 4e supplements.




You got numbers?  I don't have numbers.  I just don't see people _talking_ about doing that.  I see people talk about how they wouldn't have played 4e if you paid them...


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> The answer is usually..."PHB (might be ESSENTIALS soon), DMG and then get yourself DDI."



One clear thing that, I *think* PF and 4E fans will agree on is that subscription based services are here to stay.


----------



## Perram (Jul 31, 2010)

If this helps the thread, here is the announcement for Pathfinder RPG:
paizo.com - Paizo / Paizo Blog / Tags / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game


----------



## Wicht (Jul 31, 2010)

BryonD said:


> They tried to use the term "OGL".  But they never used *the OGL*.




Well, they obviously never used the OGL itself, but it is my recollection that it was originally implied that 4e would use the same license as 3e. I don't think that lasted long, and I may be misremembering, but it is what I seem to remember.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 31, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Actually, WotC originally said 4e would be OGL. They then backed off of that, but it had been said.





I'd have to see some verification of that because, as a publisher keen to be part of it, my own recollection was that from the start the claim was that while it would not be OGL it would have some similar licensing in place, which became the GSL.  Not being a major player I was not in on the conference calls (which proved to be fruitless) but I was in touch with Scott Rouse by phone in November of 2007 and felt from the exchange at that time that nothing close to the OGL was going to be in existence.  However, my cynicism in that regard was also predated by my early discontinuation of use of the d20 logo (when they first changed it to include a morals clause).  I had thought (and said) even back then that the folks who were gaining traction within WotC licensing decisions were moving away from the OGL.  The primary thing they needed to do to really move off was to basically invent new terminology, essentially reclaiming the IP vernacular of D&D, so that it could not be easily cloned via the OGL (as many manage with the broader terms of previous editions that are now in general use throughout many RPGs).


----------



## Wicht (Jul 31, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> Not being a major player I was not in on the conference calls (which proved to be fruitless) but I was in touch with Scott Rouse by phone in November of 2007 and felt from the exchange at that time that nothing close to the OGL was going to be in existence.




By November, yeah it was clear. I am more thinking of the time period around the original 4e announcement. But again, I may be misrecollecting.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 31, 2010)

Oh certainly...subscription based services are the true winners in the edition wars.

(as an aside, while I've heard many a 4e player grouse about the 4e adventures vs paizo adventures...never really heard about grousing about the PF APG vs 4e crunch products

4e players have generally been happy about the crunch...mixed opinions rest on the fluff though)


----------



## El Mahdi (Jul 31, 2010)

BryonD said:


> One clear thing that, I *think* PF and 4E fans will agree on is that subscription based services are here to stay.




Yeah, I think it's probably the best way to consistently bring in revenue for games today.  Concerning DDI, it may even end up being worth more than the sales of books.  Of course, I don't know for sure, because we obviously don't have numbers...  But I think you're right, subscriptions are the way to go for the future.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 31, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Well, they obviously never used the OGL itself, but it is my recollection that it was originally implied that 4e would use the same license as 3e. I don't think that lasted long, and I may be misremembering, but it is what I seem to remember.



I consider that a very fair interpretation.

I seem to recall WotC presenting their non-open "open" license against the OGL as being 6 of one / half a dozen of the other.  So I don't think they would agree that they ever meant to imply *THAT* OGL, they just meant *AN OGL*.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 31, 2010)

Perram said:


> If this helps the thread, here is the announcement for Pathfinder RPG:
> paizo.com - Paizo / Paizo Blog / Tags / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game





Yup.  They were gearing up prior to that date but waited before making their own official announcement, in deference to old business relationships I suppose, for the release of 4E on June 6th, 2008, because that is also when WotC released the "final" version of the GSL and supplementary FAQ information.  Fortunately, Paizo had their ducks in a row knowing that the "final" GSL could just as well prove to be no better than previous versions, as so it turned out to be.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 31, 2010)

Wicht said:


> By November, yeah it was clear. I am more thinking of the time period around the original 4e announcement. But again, I may be misrecollecting.





Even going back much earlier in 2007, some were in discussions with WotC in regard to what the new licensing would look like, and it was clear then that they would not be using the OGL for 4E.  Remember, even though they made the official 4E announcement at Genon 2007, rumors had already been flying for months before hand due to sightings of odd releases on Amazon that indicated a transition period.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 31, 2010)

I still find it a little crazy that WotC shut down Paizo's Dungeon and Dragon.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 31, 2010)

Given how integrated Dragon and Dungeon has become to DDI, not sure how it would work under Paizo control. 

My understanding of current DRAGON at least is that all material not only goes through "regular" editorial review but also "rules review" by WOTC and even after that, it something slips through, it then gets updated at the end of the month and it is still possible for it later on to see errata as well.

Here's an interesting question.

What would happen to the 3pp for PF if Paizo funded their own DDI version of Pathfinder.


----------



## Wicht (Jul 31, 2010)

Alright, I'm not misremembering...

Chris Pramas in November of 2007 was still under the impression that 4e would be OGl and furthermore makes it clear that at Gencon they had been pretty much assured that 4e would be released under the OGL.



			
				Chris Pramas said:
			
		

> When 4th edition D&D was announced at Gen Con, the immediate question that publishers like GR asked was, "What's going to happen with the Open Game and d20 Licenses?" There was a meeting that Friday night and we thought we'd be getting info from WotC then. Turns out they were looking for feedback from existing publishers and they did not yet know what they were going to do with the two licenses. A few things were clear coming out of that meeting. 4th edition would be released under the Open Game License and they wanted to create a new d20 logo that was more of a mark of the quality than the original became.




In the same blog post, Pramas quotes Scott Rouse, writing on ENworld about 4e as saying, ""There will be the OGL and Wizards D&D products period." 

That was November 7, 2007. Shortly thereafter it became clear, if I remember aright, that WotC had changed their mind and would not go with the OGL.


----------



## pawsplay (Jul 31, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Given how integrated Dragon and Dungeon has become to DDI, not sure how it would work under Paizo control.
> 
> My understanding of current DRAGON at least is that all material not only goes through "regular" editorial review but also "rules review" by WOTC and even after that, it something slips through, it then gets updated at the end of the month and it is still possible for it later on to see errata as well.
> 
> ...




I would recoil in horror?


----------



## billd91 (Jul 31, 2010)

Umbran said:


> You got numbers?  I don't have numbers.  I just don't see people _talking_ about doing that.  I see people talk about how they wouldn't have played 4e if you paid them...




I don't have numbers any more than *you* have numbers indicating that WotC and Paizo *aren't* competing, so let's just drop that line of thinking, OK?
But maybe you aren't getting out on the message boards enough. Even here I'm seeing people discussing how much better Paizo adventures are than WotC adventures. If you think that's not resulting in some people choosing to buy the Paizo adventures over the WotC ones with their gaming budget, then I don't think we have views of the gaming world even remotely compatible.


----------



## Balthaczar (Jul 31, 2010)

To late for the earlier poll? My group and I were playing 3.5 Rise of the Runelords. 4e was coming down the line and we were genuinely excited. At the end of Runelords we had planned on switching and going fresh. 4e came out, turned out it was nothing like what we wanted so we stuck with 3.5. I was going to keep doing Ap's and buying pathfinder supplements because of the quality. Switched to ALPHA ,BETA and Final and have not looked back.
I think the style and release strategy of the Essential line answers this threads main premise. While Scott Rouse did say they had a multiyear strategy, and one of those years was bringing in new players, this is a bit of a modification of that. The classes have 3rd edition and a smattering of 2e glued on to 4e  style and rules. WOTC also experimented with a 32 page players supplement that seemed familiar.   They have felt the competition, they have altered the product lines because of the competition. They defiantly underestimated Paizo. If they thought Paizo was a bigger threat they may not have dithered with the GSL or changed a few things. 
apologies for the jumbles, at work and had to interrupt several times thus screwballing my noodle. also since tone does not register, i am not trying to sarcastic  or aggressive, i really have enjoyed this thread and contribute what my group has experienced


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jul 31, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I don't have numbers any more than *you* have numbers indicating that WotC and Paizo *aren't* competing, so let's just drop that line of thinking, OK?
> But maybe you aren't getting out on the message boards enough. Even here I'm seeing people discussing how much better Paizo adventures are than WotC adventures. If you think that's not resulting in some people choosing to buy the Paizo adventures over the WotC ones with their gaming budget, then I don't think we have views of the gaming world even remotely compatible.



Some people have a (deserved) reputation for attempted WotC damage control. I wouldn't let it bother you.


----------



## samursus (Jul 31, 2010)

billd91 said:


> I don't have numbers any more than *you* have numbers indicating that WotC and Paizo *aren't* competing, so let's just drop that line of thinking, OK?
> But maybe you aren't getting out on the message boards enough. Even here I'm seeing people discussing how much better Paizo adventures are than WotC adventures. If you think that's not resulting in some people choosing to buy the Paizo adventures over the WotC ones with their gaming budget, then I don't think we have views of the gaming world even remotely compatible.




I am one of those who thinks the PF Ap's are vastly superior than WotC's.  However, the point of modules, for me and many others, is that we don't have the time or inclination to create our own.  So your assertion (if I am reading it correctly) that there is a large segment of 4e players that buy PF AP's to *CONVERT* to 4e, seems counter intuitive to me.


----------



## redboxrazor (Jul 31, 2010)

I think WotC may have indeed underestimate Paizo's effect on 4E. I think the Essentials line of products stands as evidence to that to some extent - the return to that pre-4E feel. If anything, Paizo's success must have made it clear to WotC that the legacy classes and power in their essentials line would have some promise. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Azmyth (Jul 31, 2010)

I have never & will never play 4e.
I had all but given up on my beloved hobby and hated the direction Wizards had taken it.
Pathfinder has resurrected table top gaming for myself and many others.
I find Paizo's passion and level of excellence unmatched in the market.
I am doing EVERYTHING in my power to spread that passion.

WotC lost me a long time ago.
Paizo brought me back.

Here's a look at how Pathfinder is dominating in my neck of the woods:
Quest for Fun!: Pathfinder Rising


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 31, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Alright, I'm not misremembering...
> 
> Chris Pramas in November of 2007 was still under the impression that 4e would be OGl and furthermore makes it clear that at Gencon they had been pretty much assured that 4e would be released under the OGL.
> 
> ...





Fair enough since my own personal knowledge only extends to later in November and it's fair to say that the earlier licensing discussion between WotC and others may have still been using the d20 licensing scheme (plus the OGL) as a baseline terminology despite nothing having been produced (and ultimately turned out to be an avenue WotC decided was not in their interest to follow).


----------



## Victim (Jul 31, 2010)

I think WotC definitely underestimated the ill will generated by "firing" Paizo from Dragon and Dungeon.


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 31, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> I don't think there even is a "Paizo effect". Paizo is just another smaller competitor for WotC, and I don't think Pathfinder is doing nearly as good a job bringing new players to RPGing as 4E does.




I do think Paizo could be well served doing an easy entry to Pathfinder product to put out there on the shelves.  I suspect WotC is going to have some good success with their new box set for Essentials and I do hope it succeeds.  The hobby can use some more RPG gamers and I don't really care if you play 4e, Pathfinder, 3.x, 1e, 2e or OD&D.

But I think Pathfinder does have a grassroots path into their system for new players.  As in a lot of folks playing Pathfinder will recruit new folks into the game and the game they introduce people to is Pathfinder.  So while there are no formal box sets or campaigns to bring the new to RPG gamers to Pathfinder, I think there is likely a strong grassroots effort out there.


----------



## JohnBiles (Jul 31, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> Pulling the older edition PDFs of OOP products, especially the 3e/3.5e products which are pretty much compatible with _Pathfinder_, is ample proof they have at least noticed Paizo has had some effect.




Actually, it has nothing to do with Pathfinder whatsoever and everything to do with them being paranoid about piracy of PDFs which was rife up to that point.


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 31, 2010)

JohnBiles said:


> ..... everything to do with them being paranoid about piracy of PDFs which was rife up to that point.




I agree they were super concerned with piracy of their PDFs and books, but their pulling PDFs didn't really solve the problem did it?  It just kept people willing to pay money to be legit from having that option.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 31, 2010)

I'm not sure how much "Paizo" has to do with this, but I think WotC underestimated the radicalness of the changeover from 3e to 4e. I think that Essentials (with their callback to earlier editions, like autohit magic missile, schools of magic, domains, backstab, "mage" and "thief" builds, as well as the classic artwork on the redbox) shows that WotC understands the call for nostalgic elements in D&D, even if they're just names and some subtle nods to difference in power structure. 

In short, I doubt WotC would be worrying about calling back "lapsed" players like this if there wasn't some small threat from well supported OGL games like retro clones or Pathfinder.


----------



## doctorhook (Jul 31, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I still find it a little crazy that WotC shut down Paizo's Dungeon and Dragon.



Why? It was WotC's property, and they wanted to do something very different with it. What's crazy about taking it back so that they can do that?

I'm guessing it's the "something very different that they wanted to do" that bothers you.



Victim said:


> I think WotC definitely underestimated the ill  will generated by "firing" Paizo from Dragon and Dungeon.



Maybe in a few cases. IME though, more people were upset that they weren't going to be dead-tree products anymore than were upset about the change in management.



redboxrazor said:


> I think WotC may have indeed underestimate Paizo's effect on 4E. I think the Essentials line of products stands as evidence to that to some extent - the return to that pre-4E feel. If anything, Paizo's success must have made it clear to WotC that the legacy classes and power in their essentials line would have some promise. Just my 2 cents.



That's a legitimate theory, although I dispute whether Paizo really has anything to do with it. Certainly Essentials has shown a lot of "older-D&D" class flavour, so obviously WotC is aiming to attract people familiar with previous editions, but it's not clear that Pathfinder fanbois are the sole or even primary target for that development.



Azmyth said:


> I have never & will never play 4e.
> I had all but given up on my beloved hobby and hated the direction Wizards had taken it.
> Pathfinder has resurrected table top gaming for myself and many others.
> I find Paizo's passion and level of excellence unmatched in the market.
> ...




Paragraph removed. Keep real-world politics and name-calling off these boards, please. -Eridanis



IronWolf said:


> I do think Paizo could be well served doing an easy entry to Pathfinder product to put out there on the shelves.  I suspect WotC is going to have some good success with their new box set for Essentials and I do hope it succeeds.  The hobby can use some more RPG gamers and I don't really care if you play 4e, Pathfinder, 3.x, 1e, 2e or OD&D.
> 
> But I think Pathfinder does have a grassroots path into their system for new players.  As in a lot of folks playing Pathfinder will recruit new folks into the game and the game they introduce people to is Pathfinder.  So while there are no formal box sets or campaigns to bring the new to RPG gamers to Pathfinder, I think there is likely a strong grassroots effort out there.



I agree, the ol' "Here's a big fat rulebook for you to read" strategy of recruiting new players is gradually going extinct. That said, don't underestimate the grassroots marketing of 4E, either; it may well be that Pathfinder is spreading well through the "hardcore" gaming community, but I would lay money on 4E selling a hell of a lot better among new and casual gamers. D&D still has a much wider brand recognition than Pathfinder, and 4E is arguably a much easier game to run.


----------



## General Lopez (Jul 31, 2010)

Victim said:


> I think WotC definitely underestimated the ill will generated by "firing" Paizo from Dragon and Dungeon.




This and pulling the PDFs did not help there cause. Anyone ever hear of Starwars galaxies? They upset a descent size portion of there fan base in 2005 by trying to make there game more like Warcraft, and it pretty much destroyed the game. It is still around, but only because Sony refuses to shut it down and admit what they did in 2005 was a mistake. They could never rebuild there fan base because they always had those disgruntled fans ready to tell everyone how bad the company/game is. The disgruntled fans of the game still attack it and Sony till this day though the internet. 

The internet is a powerful weapon for word off mouth. One of the last things you want as a business in this day and age is to have disgruntled a descent portion of your fan base. These fans can easily attack you through the internet, one example look at the amazon reviews for instance. The 4E Players handbook has 88 1 star reviews. If I was a brand new player and was considering buying the book I would surely think twice based on all of those negatives reviews.

I agree that Wizards believed they would have some people upset with the new edition, but they should have been looking at ways to minimize the amount of those people. I believe they just added fuel to the fire with some of the poor business decisions they made outside of the new edition.

Paizo has given some of these disgruntled fans a company to rally around, and a second option for people who did not like the direction there game took with 4E.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 31, 2010)

samursus said:


> I am one of those who thinks the PF Ap's are vastly superior than WotC's.  However, the point of modules, for me and many others, is that we don't have the time or inclination to create our own.  So your assertion (if I am reading it correctly) that there is a large segment of 4e players that buy PF AP's to *CONVERT* to 4e, seems counter intuitive to me.




And yet people do it, including Danniger on these boards. Sometimes, people *do* have time for some conversions and but want to maintain the general theme and content. I've converted several 1e adventures to 3e and am even doing a bit for PF. It takes a little time, but it's easy enough to do over lunch hours, other downtimes, a bit at a time.


----------



## Azgulor (Jul 31, 2010)

Bloodphantom said:


> How different would 4E be if WotC had brought Paizo on board? I am not saying that 4E is not selling good for them, but you have to admit that a good size percentage of there 3.5 base did not move on to the new edition. WotC in effect by not bringing Paizo on board created there biggest competition in the D&D market.
> 
> I believe this was one of their biggest mistakes in there handling of 4E. They now have a company that puts out some of the best products in the industry for what was their old D&D system. Paizo would have complimented them so well in 4E with Paizo's strength being adventures and WotC weakness being adventures.
> 
> Also while there are always people who do not move on to a new edition, how many more did not move on this time, because their system of choice was still going to be supported by one of the best companies in the gaming industry?




I don't think WotC underestimated Paizo, I think they didn't even factor them into their decisions.  As Umbran stated, WotC was hoping to have 4e compete with other entertainment.  Given their market share & the D&D brand, they felt few would really leave for good.

That said, I think WotC, in trying to change the RPG business model so extensively, took their eye off the ball.  They created a competitor where previously they had a partner.  Now I'm not suggesting that 4e isn't doing well nor am I saying that Pathfinder is a serious threat to D&D's dominance of the RPG market.

I am suggesting, however, that Paizo's business model has put the lie to the theory that adventures don't sell.  The APs are Paizo's primary line, supplemented by the Companions, Chronicles, and now the RPG.  What Paizo has shown is that adventures that are well-written & well-produced _do_ sell.  And guess what, all that top-shelf adventure & setting info drives interest in other Pathfinder & Golarion products.

When 4e launched and the GSL was released, I didn't see a very rosy picture for future RPG-related purchases aside from picking up the occasional OGL or d20 book I hadn't got to yet.  Today, the number of Paizo products I want to buy continues to grow, as does the quality.  I'm a very happy GM these days.


Best of luck to WotC with 4e.  Whether they underestimated Paizo, flubbed the PR campaign for 4e, or wasted much goodwill by abandoning the OGL & introducing the GSL, or were willing to "let me go" as a customer, I can't say.

I can say things appear to be going marvelously for Paizo and I'm glad I've picked that horse to run with.


----------



## IronWolf (Jul 31, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> I agree, the ol' "Here's a big fat rulebook for you to read" strategy of recruiting new players is gradually going extinct. That said, don't underestimate the grassroots marketing of 4E, either; it may well be that Pathfinder is spreading well through the "hardcore" gaming community, but I would lay money on 4E selling a hell of a lot better among new and casual gamers.




I agree, there is certainly a grassroots community for 4e that acts as a new player's first exposure to a fantasy RPG.  And I suspect that as you said, if you compare numbers 4e's numbers outnumber Pathfinder's numbers in new recruits.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 31, 2010)

I think that this was a major mistake on WotC's part. As much as I love 4E, WotC simply can't write adventures that are as good as what Paizo does. I think they were under the impression that they could, and that it would be no big deal, but it is a seriously big deal to me.

For me, the best 4X adventure out there is War of the Burning Sky, which is produced by people here and not by WotC. After that, I rely on the opinions of people like Morrus who say some of the paragon adventures are more interesting, but I haven't bought them because of how poor the early ones were.

I've even stopped looking at Dungeon for the most part, because when I do I see nothing but "fight, skill challenge, fight, fight, the end." Strong and interesting modules do a lot to sell a game to people.

It's been a few years now, but my friends still talk about some of the adventures from Shackled City or Age of Worms. They're still talking about Burning Sky and how much fun the last battle we had was. Thunderspire Labyrinth?  Keep on the Shadowfell? I'm not sure they could tell you anything about them. They do remember Pyramid of Shadows, but that's because it's where we stopped to start Burning Sky.

So if Paizo were onboard, I'd say that 4X would be a more vibrant edition. Of course I could do a similar thread about Pathfinder and rules (I'd say as good as Paizo is at adventures, their rules are about as good as WotC's adventures, which is to say not so good...). For me the Paizo does the adventures for WotC's rules is the perfect solution. I'm sad it didn't come to pass.

--Steve


----------



## jaerdaph (Aug 1, 2010)

JohnBiles said:


> Actually, it has nothing to do with Pathfinder whatsoever and everything to do with them being paranoid about piracy of PDFs which was rife up to that point.




Only if you take Hasbro's Corporate Speak PR Machine at face value.


----------



## Uder (Aug 1, 2010)

I honestly think if WotC was still WotC and not Hasbro, we'd be seeing their old pattern of buying Paizo out of business right about... yesterday.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 1, 2010)

Something has to be for sale before it can be bought.


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 1, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Something has to be for sale before it can be bought.



Anything's for sale for the right price, and who says Paizo wouldn't have been anyway? Then again, speculating about alternate histories is a fool's game, I suppose.


----------



## Riley (Aug 1, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I would not be surprised to learn that Paizo has jumped from owning about 5% of the RPG market to somewhere between 25 and 40%.




Ummm.... I would be very suprised to hear anything like that.  Heck, I'd be suprised if they even had 5% of the RPG market.  And I'm a Paizo subscriber.


----------



## DaveMage (Aug 1, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> Only if you take Hasbro's Corporate Speak PR Machine at face value.




For those that do, please let me know.

I'd like to start a database...


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Aug 1, 2010)

Riley said:


> Ummm.... I would be very suprised to hear anything like that.  Heck, I'd be suprised if they even had 5% of the RPG market.  And I'm a Paizo subscriber.





ICv2 has reported for the 2Q of 2010 the top five selling RPG's are

1: Dungeons & Dragons

2: Pathfinder

3: Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

4: ShadowRun

5: Rogue Trader/Dark Heresy

The 1Q were

1: Dungeons & Dragons

2: Pathfinder

3: Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

4: Rogue Trader/Dark Heresy

5: Dragon age


So yes pathfinder is firmly in 2nd place for table top RPG sells


----------



## Wicht (Aug 1, 2010)

Riley said:


> Ummm.... I would be very suprised to hear anything like that.  Heck, I'd be suprised if they even had 5% of the RPG market.  And I'm a Paizo subscriber.




Black Diamond Games reported they were selling Pathfinder over 4e by a 2 to 1 margin. Other store owners have reported similar swings. Whether it lasts or not is a matter for speculation, but I think Pathfinder is pretty well positioned for an underdog.


----------



## Markn (Aug 1, 2010)

SteveC said:


> I think that this was a major mistake on WotC's part. As much as I love 4E, WotC simply can't write adventures that are as good as what Paizo does. I think they were under the impression that they could, and that it would be no big deal, but it is a seriously big deal to me.




I think WotC chooses NOT to design adventures like Paizo.  I don't think its a case of CAN'T.  Since the start of 3e, WotC drastically reduced the number of modules they released (generally leaving that to 3pp).  In 4e, its still the same but now the entire game seems to be targetted to newcomers (as others have said, the grassroots level)  and therefore modules design has to follow that tenant as well.  Thus simple adventures are a necessity for WotC.  Its also my opinion that WotC believes veteran players tend to write their own stuff and therefore there is a smaller market segment to appeal to, which in turn produces diminished returns in adventure designs of that area.  Lastly, since Paizo already designs adventures of this type, the market segment is even that much more smaller and competing just doesn't make sense.

Remember, the expectation of sales for WotC is a lot different than the expetation of sales for Paizo.

You simply can't compare the two, because each company is focusing on a different segment of the market which is by choice, not because they can't.


----------



## Azmyth (Aug 1, 2010)

Post removed because the post it references has been addressed by moderators. Please report problematic posts instead of arguing back.  ~ PCat


----------



## Shemeska (Aug 1, 2010)

I don't think WotC even considered the possibility that 4e would be anything else but a smashing success. Given past history, they probably didn't need to, but they didn't seem to consider that such a radical departure from D&D up to that point in history might not fly with many people. The PR goofs in the runup to the game didn't help either.

Clearly things didn't go fully according to plan (and if I can't get you to accept that assertation of mine -even if nothing else- we're on different planets), and I can't help but read various recent developments with WotC as being suggestive of some increasingly nervous jitters and some "ahhh crud..." moments. I suspect that they've lost market share to other games (20, 30, 40%?), and are really at a loss of how to cope with it without alienating the people that genuinely like the 4e game, their own professional pride in the game that they created, and pressure from up top if the line falls below projected income.

The development of the Essentials line being rushed to market seemingly ahead of other things and having gone from 'getting new people on board' to backtracking and marketed increasingly as more to get non-4e adopters on board with 4e. Reorganization of the design team and big name layoffs, some books being cancelled or being pushed back, layoffs not during the annual Xmas-time layoffs, and even little things like some new 4e books recycling art at an almost 50% level (Demonomicon as an example) suggesting tighter budgets all around (and if no new DDI programs are announced at GenCon that too would be telling), point me to not all being well in the state of WotC's D&D segment (as well as that being a horribly long sentence).

If Essentials doesn't do well to bring 4e back up to where they expected it to be in the market originally, I see big changes in the future. But of course, I could be entirely off base. We'll see in a year or two.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 1, 2010)

Please keep in mind that M:TG is selling like gangbusters for WOTC (and even Hasbro is mentioning it in their quarterly reports with reporters) so WOTC itself as a company is probably in fantastic shape.

As for DDI, WOTC isn't going to say peep about it until the product is one to two weeks away. WOTC learned its lesson that it better to say NOTHING than even hint at something.


----------



## Roland55 (Aug 1, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Black Diamond Games reported they were selling Pathfinder over 4e by a 2 to 1 margin. Other store owners have reported similar swings. Whether it lasts or not is a matter for speculation, but I think Pathfinder is pretty well positioned for an underdog.




I wouldn't really know.

I can report that an impressive number of PF products have shown up in my rather populous neck of the woods.  Right next to the WOTC products.

Frankly, I was surprised.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 1, 2010)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> So yes pathfinder is firmly in (. . .)





Paizo has a pretty big direct sales/subscription program (and I do not know if anyone else on that list has one at all).  I'm not sure how those rankings are surmised but that is something to consider, too.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Aug 1, 2010)

That takes into account whats distributors and such buy, I am pretty sure it does not include direct sales as Paizo does not share that info.


----------



## Azgulor (Aug 1, 2010)

Uder said:


> I honestly think if WotC was still WotC and not Hasbro, we'd be seeing their old pattern of buying Paizo out of business right about... yesterday.




WotC is a division of Hasbro.  It's got it's own execs, staff, budgets, etc.  Hasbro provides sales & business targets, I'm sure, but this recurring theme of Shadowrun-fueled nonsense that WotC is gamers-like-us and Hasbro is the evil-megacorp is tired and wholly unrealistic.  Is it possible?  Remotely, I suppose.

WotC makes it's own decisions - that's why they have their own execs.  While it's possible they may have been given unrealistic targets by Hasbro, WotC is the one who would formulate the business plan on how to meet those targets.  Otherwise, Hasbro's paying a lot of money for figureheads.  I'm sure Hasbro has better things to do than micro-manage WotC.

Perhaps even plotting shadowruns against their rivals....


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Aug 1, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> We'll see in a year or two.



We'll probably see around Christmastime again (nudge nudge), or just afterwards when holiday sales figures are known.


----------



## Uder (Aug 1, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> WotC is a division of Hasbro.  It's got it's own execs, staff, budgets, etc.  Hasbro provides sales & business targets, I'm sure, but this recurring theme of Shadowrun-fueled nonsense that WotC is gamers-like-us and Hasbro is the evil-megacorp is tired and wholly unrealistic.  Is it possible?  Remotely, I suppose.
> 
> WotC makes it's own decisions - that's why they have their own execs.  While it's possible they may have been given unrealistic targets by Hasbro, WotC is the one who would formulate the business plan on how to meet those targets.  Otherwise, Hasbro's paying a lot of money for figureheads.  I'm sure Hasbro has better things to do than micro-manage WotC.
> 
> Perhaps even plotting shadowruns against their rivals....




Uhhh... reread what I wrote? _Before_ WotC was ever owned by a large corporation, it had a habit of buying out competitors*. It doesn't now (probably since WotC's competitors in cards and RPGs are such small fry as far as Hasbro is concerned).

I didn't make a single comment about executives, gamers vs. suits, megacorps, Shadowrun (ffs, no go away), or the current corporate culture at Hasbro. Whatever you're railing against, it ain't me.



* You may be familiar with a popular RPG previously owned by one of those competitors...


----------



## billd91 (Aug 1, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Anything's for sale for the right price,...




Totally and utterly not true.


----------



## Azgulor (Aug 1, 2010)

Uder said:


> Uhhh... reread what I wrote? _Before_ WotC was ever owned by a large corporation, it had a habit of buying out competitors*. It doesn't now (probably since WotC's competitors in cards and RPGs are such small fry as far as Hasbro is concerned).
> 
> I didn't make a single comment about executives, gamers vs. suits, megacorps, Shadowrun (ffs, no go away), or the current corporate culture at Hasbro. Whatever you're railing against, it ain't me.
> 
> ...




I saw the "when WotC was WotC and not Hasbro" as a continuation of the "Hasbro corporate speak" thread immediately preceding, rather than a pre-Hasbro buyout statement.  My mistake.


----------



## utopia27 (Aug 1, 2010)

*missing the point*

I think a lot of folks here are missing the actual initial point of hte thread.  If WotC had had an actual appreciation for the Paizo factor, how would their business decisions surrounding 3.5/4e have looked different?

It's my personal belief that WotC had the impression that the DnD fanbase was theirs to do with as they would, and that there was no alternative to 4e.  If they had an actual appreciation fo the fact that one (or more) of their OGL ecosystem would defect and cannibalize heir 4e migration with a successful OGL follow-on, then WotC might have moderated their "dramatic thought leadership" in 4e, and actually produced a product that the majority of their existing customer base might have found more appealing.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 1, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> Some people have a (deserved) reputation for attempted WotC damage control. I wouldn't let it bother you.




You mean me, perhaps?  If so, let's not be passive-aggressive about it, please.

No, I don't do WotC damage control.  I simply have a dislike for poorly founded arguments.  Normally, the folks of EN World are actually pretty good at analysis and critical thinking, except when it comes to Gaming Business.  In this one realm, we regularly fail to be able to recognize the difference between solid reliable information, and wild-headed inference.  We make dire predictions and come to hefty conclusions based on hearsay and anecdote, treating it as if we've seen the balance sheets.

I find that disappointing, and try to inject more solid logic into the discussion.

If someone were trying to make similar accusations of abject failure of business sense on Paizo, I'd react similarly.


----------



## mudbunny (Aug 1, 2010)

I think that there are two different conversations happening at the same time here.

1 - Is Paizo competing with WotC.
2 - Is Paizo *competing* (in a market-domination sense) with WotC.

In the first case, of course they are. Paizo saw an opening in the market (WotC moving to 4E and no longer supporting 3.5 and the OGL) and, LIsa and the other honchos at Paizo not being stupid, they took advantage of it. Having supported 3.5 for so long via the magazines, as well as the other supplements they published, they had a very good grip on the pulse of the market.

In the second case, I have great doubts that Paizo is competing with WotC for market share. (Note, this is not a slam against Paizo. They make good stuff.) I just find it very difficult to believe that Paizo, or, to be honest, any other RPG company, is in any sort of position to take *significant* amounts of RPG market share away from WotC. 

Upon the release of 4E, did Paizo gain some customers that WotC lost?? But, and this is important, anyone who thinks that WotC released 4E expecting 100% customer retention is being rather unrealistic. They *knew* that they would lose customers when 4E released. The amount of money that WotC losing to Paizo is probably rather close to insignificant when compared to WotC D&D revenue as a whole. Now, that doesn't mean that WotC is not concerned with what Paizo is doing. They see the quality products that Paizo is putting out, look at them and ask, "Is there a reasonable return on investment if WotC puts forth the effort to do the same type of thing??" And that is what we don't know. What would be a highly successful product for Paizo would, if sold in identical amounts by WotC, probably be a flop. Again, this is not a slam against Paizo, they do great stuff, it is just the reality of the economics of the comparative sizes of the two compnies.

For those that want to do some quick math, the DDI subscribers group (which is only those people that both have an active subscription to DDI *and* have registered on the forums, according to WotC) currently has over 37,000 members. Who are currently paying between $6 and $10 a month in subscription fees.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 1, 2010)

utopia27 said:


> It's my personal belief that WotC had the impression that the DnD fanbase was theirs to do with as they would, and that there was no alternative to 4e.  If they had an actual appreciation fo the fact that one (or more) of their OGL ecosystem would defect and cannibalize heir 4e migration with a successful OGL follow-on, then WotC might have moderated their "dramatic thought leadership" in 4e, and actually produced a product that the majority of their existing customer base might have found more appealing.




I have my doubts. I find it hard to fathom that WotC couldn't see the competition they face from their own old products much less the products of other companies. Now, maybe they had fallen into a bit of a thought pattern based on the success of 3e's launch, that the success of 3e under WotC's stewardship did very well so 4e would as well. But that doesn't ring very true with me.

My guess would have more to do with the designers trying to come up with a game that worked well for their easiest-tapped feedback source,  organized play, assuming it would be sufficiently representative to base a game around for the general market. 3e had gone through some pretty strict limiting to support Living Greyhawk in a reasonably balanced fashion. 4e has clearly been designed to make the sort of balance you want in organized play a central focus.
I think that may be a bit of a limited scope, personally, but it does serve to make a pretty robust skirmish subgame within D&D. I think that the designers made their choices honestly thinking they'd be good for the game, not because of some arrogant idea that their disgruntled (former-) customers would have no place to go. Most of the designers at WotC, I'm sure, play more than one RPG. They would *know* quite well that competitors (including their own previous editions) would exist even if they didn't know Paizo would become one of them.

I also think that there's a separate element at WotC, let's call them the business management side of things, who moved to keep WotC intellectual property home on the farm rather than releasing it for anyone else to run with. I think it's probably the business management end that is responsible for the GSL trouble and probably withdrawing PDFs from sale.

I can see why, taken together, one might see these moves indicating a certain arrogance, an entitlement to their base of customers who would follow the brand no matter what. But I really do think it's a stretch. I have no reason to believe the designers weren't honest and forthright in their attempt to improve the game.

Now, if WotC had correctly divined what would happen with a chunk of the fan base and Paizo, what would they have done? I honestly don't know. The designers might have designed the game for a little more backward compatibility, which would have been pretty easy to do with the flavor side of things if not mechanics. I have my doubts that the business side of things would have changed much, though.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 1, 2010)

doctorhook said:


> Why? It was WotC's property, and they wanted to do something very different with it. What's crazy about taking it back so that they can do that?
> 
> I'm guessing it's the "something very different that they wanted to do" that bothers you.




Crazy in the sense of I think it was baldly a bad decision.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 1, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Please keep in mind that M:TG is selling like gangbusters for WOTC (and even Hasbro is mentioning it in their quarterly reports with reporters) so WOTC itself as a company is probably in fantastic shape.




Whether being robust overall matters with respect to D&D, I think, would depend on how the company is managed. Does each division have to pull its own weight? Unless the Magic side of WotC has been suffering the layoffs the RPG side has suffered, I'd hazard a guess that D&D is expected to pull its own weight.



AllisterH said:


> As for DDI, WOTC isn't going to say peep about it until the product is one to two weeks away. WOTC learned its lesson that it better to say NOTHING than even hint at something.




In other words, they're starting to act like a software company, at least with their software. There's a reason software companies are vague about dates if they're positive about features or vague about features when specific with dates.


----------



## Shemeska (Aug 1, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> Upon the release of 4E, did Paizo gain some customers that WotC lost?? But, and this is important, anyone who thinks that WotC released 4E expecting 100% customer retention is being rather unrealistic. They *knew* that they would lose customers when 4E released. The amount of money that WotC losing to Paizo is probably rather close to insignificant when compared to WotC D&D revenue as a whole.




How high do you think the 3.x to 4e conversion rate was? I'm curious.

I would have initially guessed 70%, though I've heard estimated rates of just over half that mentioned by people I knew.


----------



## mudbunny (Aug 1, 2010)

Shemeska said:


> How high do you think the 3.x to 4e conversion rate was? I'm curious.
> 
> I would have initially guessed 70%, though I've heard estimated rates of just over half that mentioned by people I knew.




My guess would be around 80%.

But again, that is my guess. WotC, OTOH, probably had an estimate that came within 5% of the actual conversion numbers.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 1, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> For those that want to do some quick math, the DDI subscribers group (which is only those people that both have an active subscription to DDI *and* have registered on the forums, according to WotC) currently has over 37,000 members. Who are currently paying between $6 and $10 a month in subscription fees.




I was actually about to post just this, when I saw you had beaten me to the punch. 37.000 (and rising) subscribers, at an average $8 a month, that's $3.5 million a year, just from the DDI. Also the subscription number available to us are only those who have an account on the WotC forums.. From personal experience, the real number could easily be 2 to 5 times as big. That's a decent amount of money, just from their digital initiative.

In my mind, there is no doubt that Paizo can't compete with WotC when it comes to $. I am however not surprised that they can compete when it comes to the quality of their products. Paizo are after run and made up largely by great former WotC talent. They made awesome stuff for WotC, why shouldn't they be able to continue doing so, especially with the 3.5 engine freely available due to the OGL.

I play 4e but I also subscribe to the PF adventure paths. Both companies make outstanding products, in each their own way. 

There is however only one of them able to use the Dungeon & Dragons brand name, which will reflect a lot on the sales numbers. 

Cheers


----------



## Riley (Aug 1, 2010)

Riley said:


> Ummm.... I would be very suprised to hear anything like that.  Heck, I'd be suprised if they even had 5% of the RPG market.  And I'm a Paizo subscriber.






Hunter In Darkness said:


> ICv2 has reported for the 2Q of 2010 the top five selling RPG's are
> 1: Dungeons & Dragons
> 2: Pathfinder
> 3: Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay
> ...




ICv2 was citing "Top 5 Roleplaying Games (hobby channel)."  I am not suprised to hear that Pathfinder is #2 in the hobby market, but that leaves out the entire book trade, Amazon, and mainstream store trade - and the direct DDI subscription income, as mentioned above.

I'll still be very surprised to learn that Paizo has even 5% of RPG sales.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Aug 1, 2010)

utopia27 said:


> I think a lot of folks here are missing the actual initial point of the thread. If WotC had had an actual appreciation for the Paizo factor, how would their business decisions surrounding 3.5/4e have looked different?




Given how matters have turned out? I'm not sure, but my guess is that they would have gone with a continuation of the OGL, if for no other reason than to keep all the focus on 4E and not to give birth to a direct competitor. 

But that's with PERFECT foresightedness. The real world doesn't work that way. They made the decision they made at the time they made it based upon reasonable expectations. Was it the wrong call, based upon what they knew at the time? 

Evaluate the decision on that basis? No. I don't think so. You can blame them for the decision to publish so many 3.5 books so fast -- which lead to the push to release 4E much too early in the dev cycle...

But not on the whole OGL/GSL thing. I can't blame WotC for that decision. It seemed a reasonable one to make at the time, given the quality issues with 3.xx 3rd party material.

*shrug* In any case, there are no mulligans in the business world. You place your bet and spin the wheel and live or die by your business judgment. 

Now - it turns out that a culmination of events and circumstances lead to the present market place and a real competitor now selling competitive, as opposed to complimentary products. 

But could WotC reasonably see that coming? Maybe - but I think it's a weak _maybe_. I'm not sure that WotC can be blamed for their lack of "vision" -- though they are paying the price for it, just the same. 



> If they had an actual appreciation of the fact that one (or more) of their OGL ecosystem would defect and cannibalize heir 4e migration with a successful OGL follow-on, then WotC might have moderated their "dramatic thought leadership" in 4e, and actually produced a product that the majority of their existing customer base might have found more appealing.



I don't think that was really the issue with slower adoption/conversion to 4E at the beginning of the game's release. Sure, I'll agree it may be an issue for some NOW, but THEN? No. I don't think the focus on release was in any manner on what 4E was and wasn't; or, as far as the overwhelming number of consumers were concerned -- what was in the OGL or the GSL (or wasn't).

I think the main issue that 4E had was that it was released two years too soon. There was going to be resistance in the marketplace whether it was the *Best. Game. Evar*.... or not.

Now, add the market resistance to _any_ new edition, a perception that there was a real departure from previous rules, GSL terms which encouraged retention of rights under the OGL, Dragon/Dungeon cancellation -- and the prior licensing of same to Paizo + the Goodwill that went with it?

Add all that together -- yes -- maybe you could have seen _Pathfinder_ coming and rethought the whole thing a little. 

I still think that the major event in all of those circumstances was the timing decision of 4E. Take that away? I think matters change drastically. And that in turn stemmed from a decision to publish a vast amount of 3.5 material in a very short time period.

When whoever it was decided that one hardcover a month was the publication schedule in the 3.5 era? The die was cast at that point in time.  Since then, we've been essentially playing out the consequences of that decision in the marketplace. 

I put it to you that if 4E was being released next week? Even if it was in exactly the same form as it was released 2+ year ago?

My guess is that it would be received NOW *much* better than it was THEN.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 1, 2010)

re: DDI

I think WOTC itself was somewhat surprised by how well DDI has done. Like I said earlier, if WOTC had known what DDI would become, there would be NO reason to actually bother coming up with the GSL IMO.

Keep the OGL, produce DDI and WOTC would've accomplished the same thing WITHOUT the rancor that the GSL produced.

Same thing with DRAGON and DUNGEON. If DDI had been up and running right at the launch of 4e, I imagne more people would've been accepting of WOTC's decision to return DRAGON and DUNGEON in house.

re: Magic vs WOTC.

Billd91, You're quite right that WOTC doesn't use one game to support another game. WOTC isn't stupid to allow that to happen as this has sinked many a game (hell, not just game) company.

That said, I expect that WOTC has different levels of "what is a success" for each game they produce.

Remember, WOTC isn't JUST M:TG and D&D but also Duelmasters, Axis & Allies and Heroscape. While Duelmasters has sales higher than even M:TG (apparently, in SE Asia, it trades #1 CCG with Yuigi-oh), I doubt that A&A and Heroscape are expected to make sales even approaching half of D&D.


----------



## Wayside (Aug 1, 2010)

Umbran said:


> In this one realm, we regularly fail to be able to recognize the difference between solid reliable information, and wild-headed inference.  We make dire predictions and come to hefty conclusions based on hearsay and anecdote, treating it as if we've seen the balance sheets.



But...but...some guy posted a graph on his blog without even labeling the Y axis! Surely this must be evidence of something.



Riley said:


> ICv2 was citing "Top 5 Roleplaying Games (hobby channel)."  I am not suprised to hear that Pathfinder is #2 in the hobby market, but that leaves out the entire book trade, Amazon, and mainstream store trade - and the direct DDI subscription income, as mentioned above.



They don't seem to be treating all the World of Darkness settings as a single RPG, either. I have a hard time believing that the World of Darkness doesn't outsell Shadowrun, if not Warhammer.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 1, 2010)

Umbran said:


> You mean me, perhaps?  If so, let's not be passive-aggressive about it, please.



No, not "perhaps".  And oh, the irony. As ever.



> No, I don't do WotC damage control.



In thread after thread, sure you do. Well, attempt. As I said.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 1, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> No, not "perhaps".  And oh, the irony. As ever.
> 
> In thread after thread, sure you do. Well, attempt. As I said.




Meh, while on the flipside, there are those who would claim that WOTC is TEH EVIL if they were giving away free puppies.

Funny how you can read a thread like this, and know EXACTLY what people are going to post before you read it.

If you have hard numbers to argue, then, let's hear them.  Otherwise, wild speculation is just more dueling anecdotes (Well, my FLGS is selling SO many of my favourite product) and navel gazing.  

What would likely blow my mind is if someone's opinion of the level of Pathfinder sales didn't graph in direct proportion to how much they either like Pathfinder or hate 4e.


----------



## IronWolf (Aug 1, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> Upon the release of 4E, did Paizo gain some customers that WotC lost?? But, and this is important, anyone who thinks that WotC released 4E expecting 100% customer retention is being rather unrealistic. They *knew* that they would lose customers when 4E released. The amount of money that WotC losing to Paizo is probably rather close to insignificant when compared to WotC D&D revenue as a whole.




WotC certainly should have known they would lose some and I suspect they did.  There are people that don't like change and wouldn't accept whatever was sold as 4e, even if it was just smaller tweaks, much less a major rework.

Where I think Paizo causes the most surprise is that now, all those people who did not move to 4e have had their choice reaffirmed.  This is a factor I figure WotC was likely not expecting.  It is quite possibly WotC knew some people wouldn't move on to the new system right away, but over time as the support of 3.x products dwindled people would begin to move just because 4e was the supported system.  Instead, Paizo filled a void and those that remained with 3.x had someone that released compatible material and a ruleset that was much more inline with their idea of how D&D should be.

Of course what this means in terms of sales dollars versus sales dollars we can only speculate.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 1, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Meh, while on the flipside, there are those who would claim that WOTC is TEH EVIL if they were giving away free puppies.




Tasty, tasty puppies.


----------



## NiTessine (Aug 1, 2010)

Wayside said:


> They don't seem to be treating all the World of Darkness settings as a single RPG, either. I have a hard time believing that the World of Darkness doesn't outsell Shadowrun, if not Warhammer.




They do, actually. 2009 4th quarter, _World of Darkness_, fifth place: ICv2 - Top Q4 2009 Roleplaying Games

Not surprising that they've dropped from the top spots, really, considering that they've been so quiet with their RPG material lately that there was recently confusion on whether they're still in the business at all.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 1, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> I was actually about to post just this, when I saw you had beaten me to the punch. 37.000 (and rising) subscribers, a
> 
> ...
> 
> From personal experience, the real number could easily be 2 to 5 times as big. That's a decent amount of money, just from their digital initiative.




It is amusing to me that store after store can speak up about their sales and that's just unsubstantiated supposition.

And yet last time this topic came up it was resolved that we really don't know if the number is current, or just a rolling total of ever was subscribers.

To be clear, if it is just 18,000 subscribers, then that is a hell of a lot of money and the DDI is doing gangbusters.  I'm not arguing that.

I am laughing at the double standard of what constitutes facts versus suppositions  (that we then casually throw 2-5X multipliers upon).


----------



## BryonD (Aug 1, 2010)

NiTessine said:


> They do, actually. 2009 4th quarter, _World of Darkness_, fifth place: ICv2 - Top Q4 2009 Roleplaying Games
> 
> Not surprising that they've dropped from the top spots, really, considering that they've been so quiet with their RPG material lately that there was recently confusion on whether they're still in the business at all.



Doesn't Shadowrun have a really new release also?  I don't really follow it, but it seems I heard that, and it would certainly make a difference.


----------



## LurkMonkey (Aug 1, 2010)

Bloodphantom said:


> Also while there are always people who do not move on to a new edition, how many more did not move on this time, because their system of choice was still going to be supported by one of the best companies in the gaming industry?




Personally, I think that it was a congruence of different factors that led to Paizo's success following the whole silly Edition Wars.

1. OGL: It is there. It will always be there. If Paizo hadn't been around to capitalize on it, there would be other companies using the OGL to cater to gamers unwilling to switch systems.

2. Paizo: A great company, staffed by well-known game designers in the RPG field. They were in the right place at the right time, and by working on making quality products with more of a mature edge, they kept a lot of the 'grognards' aboard (me being one of them).

3. Marketing: It's been debated _ad nauseum_ about the intent of WotC's marketing. I won't rehash this, but I think it is pretty evident that the initial rollout left a lot of folks cold.

Now, will Paizo ever be dominant over WotC? No. Will they survive and thrive in their niche? Assuredly. There's plenty of room for both. Would things be different if Paizo had somehow been included in 4e? 4e might have gotten some better adventures, but I'm sure that there would have been other companies willing to step into the OGL market. Plus I doubt, judging from remarks made the folks at Paizo, that they would have ever felt comfortable putting their business future in the hands of another company again, especially after the Dragon/Dungeon issue. So, what happened is basically good for everyone. Competition is the best thing for any enterprise, keeps the wits sharp.


----------



## Herschel (Aug 1, 2010)

WotC "took back" Dungeon & Dragon, saw what the OGL had become and threw the market a (for them) dried-out bone. The OGL had (from a WotC standpoint) likely already watered-down the 3E product line and material and rules bloat had hist a saturation point with little flexibility to expand (which they built in to 4E).

Paizo's doing (in a manner of speaking) what WotC doesn't "bother" with: Centralizing around modules/adventure paths, and doing so with an obsolete (from WotC's standpoint) system. 

WotC knew full well that someone (Paizo was probably the better's choice) would fill that niche because there is some demand there. I highly doubt they were surprised by much of anything. We see WotC employees on the sites so we know they're fully aware of what internet rants look like.


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 1, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> But not on the whole OGL/GSL thing. I can't blame WotC for that decision. It seemed a reasonable one to make at the time, given the quality issues with 3.xx 3rd party material.




You had me up until this. "Reason" at no time factored into WotC's decision-making process for the role of Open Gaming and Fourth Edition that I recall. 

Now, I don't claim to have any special insight into their thinking here; rather, I believe it was obvious to anyone who was paying attention. I attended the seminar that WotC held at Gen Con 2007 to discuss the future of 4E and Open Gaming...only to find that WotC had no plan or outline, but was instead asking for ideas.

I've heard some people say that was them being proactively involved with the third-party community. Maybe so, but it seemed to me that they had no idea what they were going to do, and were opening the floor to suggestions because they didn't have any decision-making process going on in this area at the time.

This proved to be case as the months passed. If I recall correctly, they announced that 4E would be OGL, but with a new d20 License. Then that there'd be a $5,000 buy-in to use said license. Then that the $5,000 would only be for early-adoption, and after six months or so everyone could use it. Then a long silence where even the companies who wanted to pay couldn't. Then the release of the GSL (and the long struggles of Clark Peterson, Scott Rouse, and Linae Foster). Then the GSL revisions. And I'm sure I'm forgetting some of the other missteps that were made between then and now.

Between how many times they changed their stance on this, and how long it went between each revision, there's really no way to look at the process that led to the GSL as some sort of informed, rational decision on WotC's part.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Aug 1, 2010)

Two things when discussing this.

Saying WoTC underestimated things refers to the company as a monolithic group mind, which from what I've seen is not the case.  At some rather small companies I've seen different marketing managers and CEOs come and go, and there can me major changes in company policy, not to mention internal squables with other departments.  Based on what I saw with their 3PP licensing issues (we'll have a license, we may not have a license, we can't release the license yet), I suspect there's a lot of differences in opinion going on at WoTC.  While I know what the original poster meant, it should also be noted that organizations are made up of individuals, and that I'm sure internal debated occurred during the planning stages of 4e and after.

The one other thing I'd caution is saying "Will Paizo ever beat WoTC" as "never" as it was an unshakable fait acompli.  At one time, Microsoft "won" the browser wars, with over 90% of the market, while Netscape retrenched and eventually came back as Firefox.  Now, in the last few years we have a healthy alternatives with Firefox, Safari, and Chrome, while IE use continues to shrink.  One thing to remember in many cases competition always starts as small.  Paizo has sort of moved towards the #2 gaming publisher, if the ICV2 charts are accurate.  That's quite an accomplishment.  You gotta remember that competition usually starts little--remember when WoTC was a small little company that once had to worry about TSR?


----------



## JohnRTroy (Aug 1, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> Between how many times they changed their stance on this, and how long it went between each revision, there's really no way to look at the process that led to the GSL as some sort of informed, rational decision on WotC's part.




That's not a sign of "being irrational", rather, I think it is the result of departments or internal corporate conflicts.  There were probably people for supporting 3pp, and people against it.  And I think both arguments could be logical, informed, and rational.

The way they botched it was continuing debating this internally instead of saying "yea" or "nea" clearly and effectively, instead of waffling so much and causing so much angst on the part of the 3pp.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Aug 1, 2010)

LurkMonkey said:


> Would things be different if Paizo had somehow been included in 4e? 4e might have gotten some better adventures, but I'm sure that there would have been other companies willing to step into the OGL market.



I would not have moved on from 3.5 if any company other than Paizo had led the way.  (Not even companies I like a huge amount, like Green Ronin.)  Paizo's people, production values, and proven track record with 3.5 were all instrumental in me coming along for the ride.  (And I believe there are a _lot_ of Pathfinder players who feel similarly.)

In short, another company might have tried to do what Paizo has done.  IMO, they would have failed.  

That said, my going Pathfinder wasn't a blow to WotC, because I would not have adopted 4E regardless.  I just don't like the game.  As I did with 2E, I'd have hunkered down and started playing other games (and have, in fact) like Mutants & Masterminds, along with 3.5, waiting to see what 5E looked like.

On the other hand, I think that many or most people who went with Pathfinder might have eventually relented and gone 4E if Pathfinder didn't exist.  So while I personally am not a gamer WotC and Paizo are in competition for (with each other), there are many, many gamers who are.

There's no doubt in my mind that WotC created their biggest competition ... though I'm not speculating about just how much competition that is.


----------



## Ycore Rixle (Aug 1, 2010)

I think WotC underestimated Paizo and overestimated the ability of 4e and the brand to retain current players.

I think the (terribly named) Essentials line is a clear albeit indirect indication of WotC worrying about lost players. Those lost players are still gamers, and judging by sales, anecdotes, internet traffic, and conventions, Paizo has a significant number of those gamers.

I think the idea that WotC and Paizo are not in competition is risible. 

I'd write more but... see status.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Aug 1, 2010)

I imagine Paizo versus WOTC it's like a 4E PC trying to kill a MM1 style solo...

PC: 30 damage! HAHA!  Fear my incredible beatdown!  
Monster: You know, I have like 600 hp left.
PC: *sigh*

If Paizo really does topple WOTC in some obvious way, we would be the first to know.


----------



## NiTessine (Aug 1, 2010)

BryonD said:


> Doesn't Shadowrun have a really new release also?  I don't really follow it, but it seems I heard that, and it would certainly make a difference.



The 20th anniversary rulebook was released a year ago. I haven't kept an eye on the game line, either. Catalyst did have an embezzlement scandal during the time period, which might have energised the fanbase into buying more product, but that sounds a bit flimsy as well.

Hell, I have no idea where that came from. Maybe the fourth place and lower are all selling more or less the same and it's a roll of the die on who's gonna be up there during a given reporting period. I don't know.


----------



## czak (Aug 1, 2010)

Perram said:


> If this helps the thread, here is the announcement for Pathfinder RPG:
> paizo.com - Paizo / Paizo Blog / Tags / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game





There is also this 30 page poll / request for comments / regular updates about what they'd heard about the gsl thread.  It starts in October I think and the last posts are in march where they are still saying they've heard nothing about the GSL.

To add to the pseudo-math - Interesting numbers thrown out by Mr. Mona at the start, 20-30% of wotc's numbers being a wild success. I think you can search the boards here and find quotes from Paizo people saying Pathfinder has been successful beyond their wildest dreams.

paizo.com - Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition / Archives / 4.0: PAIZO IS STILL UNDECIDED


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 1, 2010)

Mark CMG said:


> SJG, Kenzer and a number of others have proven otherwise.  The OGL certainly made things generally less difficult but it has always been possible to directly compete.  It's Paizo's overall quality that raises their materials closer to the same weight class and the Internet that helps them market as they do.




I would add that it's not only their use of the internet to market (gasp! $9.99 core books! The sky is falling yet again) but rather, their understanding of the value of story. All of their adventurers take place in the same setting. That setting is supported. It's also a fairly module setting where you can take and choose quite a bit of it.

WoTC decided that wasn't a model that wanted to follow anymore. For those who enjoy the unfolding of a setting from adventurers and sourcebooks, it left them behind. This is a deliberate decesion. You can't blame the fan base for not buying what your not producing.


----------



## Perram (Aug 1, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> I would add that it's not only their use of the internet to market (gasp! $9.99 core books! The sky is falling yet again) but rather, their understanding of the value of story. All of their adventurers take place in the same setting. That setting is supported. It's also a fairly module setting where you can take and choose quite a bit of it.
> 
> WoTC decided that wasn't a model that wanted to follow anymore. For those who enjoy the unfolding of a setting from adventurers and sourcebooks, it left them behind. This is a deliberate decesion. You can't blame the fan base for not buying what your not producing.




There is a lot of truth in this, at least for me.

The main reason I even gave Pathfinder a look was because of their setting, which I thought was rather amazing.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Aug 1, 2010)

NiTessine said:


> The 20th anniversary rulebook was released a year ago. I haven't kept an eye on the game line, either. Catalyst did have an embezzlement scandal during the time period, which might have energised the fanbase into buying more product, but that sounds a bit flimsy as well.
> 
> Hell, I have no idea where that came from. Maybe the fourth place and lower are all selling more or less the same and it's a roll of the die on who's gonna be up there during a given reporting period. I don't know.




Unlike Wod, shadowrun has had steady releases for a while now. Other then that one money issue they have been reliable and steady in getting stuff out, also keep in mind they also have an  active organized play campaign as well called shadowrun Missions 

So yeah I do buy that they are outselling Wod.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 1, 2010)

MichaelSomething said:


> I imagine Paizo versus WOTC it's like a 4E PC trying to kill a MM1 style solo...
> 
> PC: 30 damage! HAHA! Fear my incredible beatdown!
> Monster: You know, I have like 600 hp left.
> ...




True...but even at 30 HP a hit, it can still be done.  Won't happen quickly, but it can still happen.

Of course though, it all depends on whether the Monster starts hitting back...


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 1, 2010)

czak said:


> There is also this 30 page poll / request for comments / regular updates about what they'd heard about the gsl thread.  It starts in October I think and the last posts are in march where they are still saying they've heard nothing about the GSL.
> 
> To add to the pseudo-math - Interesting numbers thrown out by Mr. Mona at the start, 20-30% of wotc's numbers being a wild success. I think you can search the boards here and find quotes from Paizo people saying Pathfinder has been successful beyond their wildest dreams.
> 
> paizo.com - Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition / Archives / 4.0: PAIZO IS STILL UNDECIDED




If Mona has access to current WotC numbers, I would be a bit surprised. Sure, they are friends, but I am pretty sure any WotC employee sharing those numbers is risking his job. Of course, anything can happen after a couple or 10 beers


----------



## Wicht (Aug 1, 2010)

Hunter In Darkness said:


> Unlike Wod, shadowrun has had steady releases for a while now. Other then that one money issue they have been reliable and steady in getting stuff out, also keep in mind they also have an  active organized play campaign as well called shadowrun Missions
> 
> So yeah I do buy that they are outselling Wod.




Last time I went into my local Books A Million there was 4e, Pathfinder, Dark Heresy, WFRP, and Mouse Guard. I don't remember seeing Shadow Run, but the WoD books have been pretty thin in the last year. Dark Heresy and Pathfinder were the main alternatives to 4e on the shelf iirc. I can well believe though that WoD is not a major seller right now.


----------



## Herschel (Aug 1, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> You gotta remember that competition usually starts little--remember when WoTC was a small little company that once had to worry about TSR?





And Iron Crown, and......there's always been competition.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Aug 1, 2010)

Herschel said:


> And Iron Crown, and......there's always been competition.




I'm not sure if that's to confirm what I said or to argue against.  

I never said that there wasn't competition, just that sometimes the unexpected happens.  WoTC used to be a little fish, then they purchased TSR lock-stock-and barrel.  Stuff like that could happen again.


----------



## czak (Aug 1, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> If Mona has access to current WotC numbers, I would be a bit surprised. Sure, they are friends, but I am pretty sure any WotC employee sharing those numbers is risking his job. Of course, anything can happen after a couple or 10 beers




Well he said that back in 2007 so I'm sure he's not talking current numbers. But given where they all used to work they probably have a good idea of numbers from the 3rd edition and they know the TSR numbers better than anyone. (for ex things like this:  http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboard...tReprintingCoreDungeonsDragonsBooks&page=2#52 
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboard...abilityAsAGameSystem&page=3&source=search#103)

In any event even roughly 20-30% of D&D's sales based on 3rd ed #s is a lot


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 1, 2010)

Paizo purchasing WOTC?

Maybe if WOTC was an independent company and ONLY sold D&D.

But Hasbro as a company DOES NOT sell off assets. Especially one with the brand-name of D&D. 

Remember, even though there may be only a couple of million TTRPG players (ALL games from PF to Shadowrun) in the US (maybe double that number worldwide), the actual "brand" is MUCH more well known.

IIRC, when WOTC paid a few million to do the surveys (apparenty, a well done survey isnt cheap), D&D _IS_ WOTC's best known property. Something like 1 in 4 adults have at LEAST heard about D&D and a 1/3 knew at least something about it even if it was something silly like "that game where you play elves".

Even though M:TG and Duelmasters absolutely crush D&D in sales, D&D beats them hands down in terms of "branding".

No way, no how does Hasbro let go of that. Even if they shelf it for a few years (which Hasbro has done before see both Transformers and GI Joe), no chance of the actually selling it.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 1, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I would not be surprised to learn that Paizo has jumped from owning about 5% of the RPG market to somewhere between 25 and 40%.



I would.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Aug 1, 2010)

Oh, I didn't want to imply that Paizo could buy D&D.  WoTC happened during a time before major corporate investment occured with any gaming property.

But maybe at some point one of these guys might beat the market share, or get a significant share.  

And if Hasbro does decide to shelve it, who might be one of the few posed to take over the hole in the market the lack of D&D?


----------



## ggroy (Aug 1, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> And if Hasbro does decide to shelve it, who might be one of the few posed to take over the hole in the market the lack of D&D?




World of Warcraft?


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 1, 2010)

czak said:


> Well he said that back in 2007 so I'm sure he's not talking current numbers. But given where they all used to work they probably have a good idea of numbers from the 3rd edition and they know the TSR numbers better than anyone. (for ex things like this:  http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboard...tReprintingCoreDungeonsDragonsBooks&page=2#52
> paizo.com - Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Older Products / Pathfinder RPG Prerelease Discussion / Alpha Playtest Feedback / General Discussion / Archives / Pathfinder's survivability as a game system)
> 
> In any event even roughly 20-30% of D&D's sales based on 3rd ed #s is a lot




Yes, it is indeed. I am not sure you can do the math on the two comments, but it is definitely a possibility. 

TBH, I am personally beyond caring. I like 4e, but I also like Paizo's AP's and Golarion. If Paizo has gained enough following to be almost as big, just as big, or even bigger than WotC, that's cool with me, as long as both companies continue to produce products with the current quality. I am the winner here


----------



## crazy_cat (Aug 1, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> If Paizo has gained enough following to be almost as big, just as big, or even bigger than WotC, that's cool with me, as long as both companies continue to produce products with the current quality. I am the winner here



Now this I can agree with - personally i don't like 4e but as lots of other people do like it I've got no particular desire to see WOTC fail.


----------



## malraux (Aug 1, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Yes, it is indeed. I am not sure you can do the math on the two comments, but it is definitely a possibility.
> 
> TBH, I am personally beyond caring. I like 4e, but I also like Paizo's AP's and Golarion. If Paizo has gained enough following to be almost as big, just as big, or even bigger than WotC, that's cool with me, as long as both companies continue to produce products with the current quality. I am the winner here




Yeah, as long as the competion is around who can produce the best game (with whatever that entails), I'm gonna get better quality stuff at reasonable prices.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 1, 2010)

Very true. The recent Game Master Guide by Paizo for example, is made of win for any fantasy game.



Jack99 said:


> Yes, it is indeed. I am not sure you can do the math on the two comments, but it is definitely a possibility.
> 
> TBH, I am personally beyond caring. I like 4e, but I also like Paizo's AP's and Golarion. If Paizo has gained enough following to be almost as big, just as big, or even bigger than WotC, that's cool with me, as long as both companies continue to produce products with the current quality. I am the winner here


----------



## mudbunny (Aug 1, 2010)

BryonD said:


> It is amusing to me that store after store can speak up about their sales and that's just unsubstantiated supposition.
> 
> And yet last time this topic came up it was resolved that we really don't know if the number is current, or just a rolling total of ever was subscribers.




For me, there is a world of difference between the two situations.

In the first case, for every store where someone says "4E products sell out the minute they get on the shelf" you get other people who say "at my store, 4E stuff sits on the shelf for months". The sample selections in those cases are so small, and we don't actually have any hard numbers of any sort to compare to. All we have are scattered anecdotal reports, and no matter how much people (on both sides of the debate) want it to be true, the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.

The second, with the number of people in the DDI group, we have the numbers, and they are current. With those numbers, we can make calculations and reasonable guesses from those numbers. The *accuracy* of those numbers, on the other hand, is something that can be (and should be) examined. But we have data that we can look at.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 1, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Very true. The recent Game Master Guide by Paizo for example, is made of win for any fantasy game.




Is it that good? If I have all DMG's made for all editions, does it bring something new to the table? It's an honest question, because if the answer is yes, I am definitely off to buy it, but I haven't gotten around to look into reading reviews etc.


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 1, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Is it that good? If I have all DMG's made for all editions, does it bring something new to the table? It's an honest question, because if the answer is yes, I am definitely off to buy it, but I haven't gotten around to look into reading reviews etc.




If you have all of the DMG's, then I'm not sure the GMG is going to bring anything to the table (pun intended) that you don't already have.

The bulk of the book is sage advice for people who are new to GMing, or want to brush up on their skills. How to set up good adventures, good campaigns, finding players, dealing with problem players, world construction, NPC archetypes, etc. It's a top-shelf resource for its coverage of the basics; but if you don't need to brush up on the basics, then it's value to you may be lessened.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 1, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> If you have all of the DMG's, then I'm not sure the GMG is going to bring anything to the table (pun intended) that you don't already have.
> 
> The bulk of the book is sage advice for people who are new to GMing, or want to brush up on their skills. How to set up good adventures, good campaigns, finding players, dealing with problem players, world construction, NPC archetypes, etc. It's a top-shelf resource for its coverage of the basics; but if you don't need to brush up on the basics, then it's value to you may be lessened.




Thanks. I just realized that the PDF is only $10, so I have downloaded it.


----------



## Perram (Aug 1, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Thanks. I just realized that the PDF is only $10, so I have downloaded it.




Its a really good resource, you'll appreciate it.

Besides the advice (which I recommend a read over, if for no other reason that to get a refresher) it has a lot of really neat tools / tables that make setting up your game much easier.

The NPC collections alone are worth the $10 of the PDF!


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 1, 2010)

I'd like to point out some things about that graph. The blog post its from is July 2010, so I assume that the "sales figures" on the graph are from July 2009 to July 2010. The products compared are the Pathfinder core book (which launched in August 2009) and the 4e PHB (which launched in June 2008). Keep in mind that most reports indicate a roleplaying book gets the majority of its sales in the first year, and that year has already passed for the PHB.


----------



## Perram (Aug 1, 2010)

The Little Raven said:


> I'd like to point out some things about that graph. The blog post its from is July 2010, so I assume that the "sales figures" on the graph are from July 2009 to July 2010. The products compared are the Pathfinder core book (which launched in August 2009) and the 4e PHB (which launched in June 2008). Keep in mind that most reports indicate a roleplaying book gets the majority of its sales in the first year, and that year has already passed for the PHB.




I've seen that graph posted quite a few months ago, certainly before July 2010, so I believe that July 2009 might be an accurate date for the sales figures.  I don't thing that that pie chart takes into account Pathfinder Sales this year at all, one way or the other.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 1, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> Thanks. I just realized that the PDF is only $10, so I have downloaded it.




Let us know what you think.

I found it a good read. Too often times these types of books tend to be... boorish, like the author is the only one whose ever role played before. This one I enjoyed with its take on player types (some crossover with those already done by WoTC mind you), advise on speeding up combat, world crafting, and other bits.

The difference for me between a good book and an okay book, is a good book doesn't make me go, "Yeah, seen all this before" because it's well written while a poorly written one makes me go "old hat."

And yeah, here is another place that WoTC could definately learn. $9.99 core books. The core book, the Bestiary, this book, and the Advanced Player's Guide are all $9.99. That's a hell of a deal for it. 

And like I said prior, I found a lot of the advise useful to any campaign.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 2, 2010)

Markn said:


> I think WotC chooses NOT to design adventures like Paizo.  I don't think its a case of CAN'T.  Since the start of 3e, WotC drastically reduced the number of modules they released (generally leaving that to 3pp).  In 4e, its still the same but now the entire game seems to be targetted to newcomers (as others have said, the grassroots level)  and therefore modules design has to follow that tenant as well.  Thus simple adventures are a necessity for WotC.  Its also my opinion that WotC believes veteran players tend to write their own stuff and therefore there is a smaller market segment to appeal to, which in turn produces diminished returns in adventure designs of that area.  Lastly, since Paizo already designs adventures of this type, the market segment is even that much more smaller and competing just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Remember, the expectation of sales for WotC is a lot different than the expetation of sales for Paizo.
> 
> You simply can't compare the two, because each company is focusing on a different segment of the market which is by choice, not because they can't.



I think this is a good point, but WotC has put out some excellent adventures (Red Hand of Doom immediately comes to mind) but if I remember the folks who put together the adventures I enjoyed for 3X, they tended to be the Paizo people, so I don't necessarily know if they have the talent in-house at the moment to make them.

I think 4E is incredibly easy to write the mechanics of an adventure for. You pretty much have a road-map for the encounters and treasures spelled out for you in the DMG's encounter creation rules.

What's more difficult, and has mostly eluded the 4E adventure writers is the story, whether that's an interesting backstory for the adventure, well motivated villains, or even exceptionally interesting set pieces for the adventures.

My group still talks about the gnome village that was the first adventure for Shackled City. The WotC adventures just haven't had something to match that kind of backdrop. Frankly, they haven't had something as interesting as EnWorld's Fire Forest either. 

Is that intentional? I hope not, but what I do know is that when my group finishes up Burning Sky (and that's going to take a while...) I don't have a similar replacement for them. That saddens me greatly.

I can only think that an incredible adventure path as a kick-off for the new edition would have sold a lot of people who were on the fence at the time.

--Steve


----------



## IronWolf (Aug 2, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> And yeah, here is another place that WoTC could definately learn. $9.99 core books. The core book, the Bestiary, this book, and the Advanced Player's Guide are all $9.99. That's a hell of a deal for it.




Agreed!  That $9.99 for core rulebooks in PDF format is an *excellent* price point!  Makes it easy for me to own the hardback and justify spending some more money to have the PDF for easy access when I am on the computer or away from my books.  It is also a great way for me to get my hands on an anxiously awaited book (APG, I'm looking at you) while I wait for my hardback to ship.


----------



## Shazman (Aug 2, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> Entirely my opinion...I don't think WotC understimated the effect.
> 
> I think what we are talking about is what would have been the state of things if WotC had brought Paizo in as a partner from the start of 4E.  The posible forms I think that may have manifested as were: renewing Dungeon and Dragon for Paizo; working with Paizo to develop and possibly host DDI; and/or having Paizo as a third party publisher of 4E materials, or as an official publisher.  And would there have been Pathfinder.
> 
> ...




I've heard a number of people state that they tried 4e, didn't like it, and switched to Pathfinder.  How is Pathfinder not stealing customers from 4E? It is stealing them.  We just don't know how many it's stealing.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Aug 2, 2010)

Alzrius said:


> If you have all of the DMG's, then I'm not sure the GMG is going to bring anything to the table (pun intended) that you don't already have.




You are discounting 50 pages of NPC statblocks, magic items and -- above all -- a BOAT LOAD of exceedingly useful tables for everything under the sun -- including an extremely robust Random Magic Item series of charts -- in all their 1st edition glory.

GMG is not just a DMG2 or Advanced Gamemastery Guide. While it does cover those essnentials, it's true value lies in the things I have noted above, imo.


----------



## radferth (Aug 2, 2010)

SteveC said:


> I think this is a good point, but WotC has put out some excellent adventures (Red Hand of Doom immediately comes to mind) but if I remember the folks who put together the adventures I enjoyed for 3X, they tended to be the Paizo people, so I don't necessarily know if they have the talent in-house at the moment to make them.
> 
> I think 4E is incredibly easy to write the mechanics of an adventure for. You pretty much have a road-map for the encounters and treasures spelled out for you in the DMG's encounter creation rules.
> 
> ...




It is my belief that what WotC underestimated was not specifically Paizo, but the effect of greatly decreasing the number of 3pp adventures being published.  When wizards was switching from the OGL to GSL, I think they were trying to shake folks like Green Ronin and Mongoose, who were primarily publishing crunch books and rules variants (Freeport notwithstanding).  I assume they were hoping to keep folks like Necromancer, Goodman, and Paizo publishing adventures.  I think WotC didn't realize what a positive effect having so many talented folks writing adventures for 3E was, and how effectively licensing issues would end up chasing said talent away from writing  4E adventures.  To be sure they are some doing so, and the system would have turned some of these writers off regardless of licensing, but 4E would be in much better shape if they could have figured out how to keep more of these guys on board.


----------



## Henry (Aug 2, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> You are discounting 50 pages of NPC statblocks, magic items and -- above all -- a BOAT LOAD of exceedingly useful tables for everything under the sun -- including an extremely robust Random Magic Item series of charts -- in all their 1st edition glory.
> 
> GMG is not just a DMG2 or Advanced Gamemastery Guide. While it does cover those essnentials, it's true value lies in the things I have noted above, imo.




However, I thought the above post was in the context of "made of win for any fantasy game." In which case, all of the above are Pathfinder-specific. In my case, I can't say, as I haven't read it, but most of my skimming had me putting it down in the store because I play some Pathfinder, but don't DM it, and if I were to DM it most of the NPC stablocks, random magic tables, etc. wouldn't be of much use to me because of my old 3.5 material.


----------



## Henry (Aug 2, 2010)

For the original question: Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect? I think they might have been surprised at Pathfinder's success, but I doubt the numbers estimates were enough to make them regret it.

From what I've seen, Paizo is still thriving off of "long tail" consumer base, rather than taking a huge bite out of the market. For a small business, this is a fantastic position to be in; I know I'd rather have 50,000 loyal fans nation-wide buying most of my stuff for years on end, and just having to concentrate on quality, than having a half-million fans buying a fraction of my stuff when it fits their needs and when the mood strikes them -- and having to keep investors happy in addition to recessions, market whims, and quality control.

I don't mean this as insulting to Paizo, quite the contrary -- if they keep the target fanbase they've identified happy, I don't think they have anything to worry about.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 2, 2010)

Henry said:


> For the original question: Did WotC underestimate the Paizo effect? I think they might have been surprised at Pathfinder's success




I think Paizo might have been surprised by their success too


----------



## Perram (Aug 2, 2010)

Crothian said:


> I think Paizo might have been surprised by their success too




I don't think ANYONE expected the Paizo effect, especially not Paizo themselves.


----------



## Alzrius (Aug 2, 2010)

Henry said:


> However, I thought the above post was in the context of "made of win for any fantasy game." In which case, all of the above are Pathfinder-specific.




Well said, and quite right.


----------



## malraux (Aug 2, 2010)

Shazman said:


> I've heard a number of people state that they tried 4e, didn't like it, and switched to Pathfinder.  How is Pathfinder not stealing customers from 4E? It is stealing them.  We just don't know how many it's stealing.




Presumably they'd not like 4e even if pathfinder existed.  The only people that pathfinder steals are the ones that decide they don't like 4e because pathfinder came out.


----------



## carmachu (Aug 2, 2010)

SteveC said:


> I think this is a good point, but WotC has put out some excellent adventures (Red Hand of Doom immediately comes to mind) but if I remember the folks who put together the adventures I enjoyed for 3X, they tended to be the Paizo people, so I don't necessarily know if they have the talent in-house at the moment to make them.




Some is a stretch. RHoD is pretty much the best one they put out, and  Return to the TOEE was the only other one that I think qualifies. After that there's really not anything else.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 2, 2010)

malraux said:


> Presumably they'd not like 4e even if pathfinder existed.  The only people that pathfinder steals are the ones that decide they don't like 4e because pathfinder came out.




I think you are underestimating the "shininess" effect, especially among GMs. While there are certainly those that have been playing with their same original 1E PHBs and DMGs, I think most GMs like having new stuff. They LIKE spending their money, because gaming -- specifically, D&D gaming -- is their hobby, and people spend money on their hobbies. This creates a powerful internal motivation to adopt the new edition of a favorite game. I love old school D&D, for example, but the retroclones have allowed me to spend money on shiny new D&D stuff, and this pleases me.

But Pathfinder isn't a retro-clone. it is "current D&D" competing directly with official D&D, simply because it exists. Many of those people that don't like 4E may well have stuck with it if it was the only currently published and supported D&D, but because of Pathfinder it isn't. That means that the GM can get their "shiny" fix and not have to conform to a kind of D&D they don't like.

I think it is important to differentiate Pathfinder from the FantasyCrafts and True20s and even Conans. While those are all great fantasy games based on the OGL, none of them are D&D in the way that Pathfinder is. D&D 3.x lasted nearly 10 years. That is a lot of time to build a dedicated following and create a whole generation of D&D players who, like the old school and my own "middle school", identify D&D as this particular kind of play and game -- plus convert and hold a bunch of earlier fans.

Certainly more players moved on to 4E than switched to Pathfinder, but I don't think anyone is claiming that Pathfinder is bigger than 4E. Rather, I think the suggestion is that Pathfinder is *significant* in a way that no other OGL fantasy game is (I say it that way because I think M&M is a truly significant OGL game, but that's a different issue) and its success is going to impact 4E. Those pointing out the "grognardization" of Essentials are spot on.

And here's one last anecdote: I run Pathfinder because the people I play with had absolutely no interest in 4E and preferred to stay with 3.5. I lobbied for Pathfinder because I wanted the shiny, as well as wanted a few "fixes" to 3.5. These guys have been playing D&D since 1981 or so. To them, Pathfinder *is* D&D now, and 4E might as well not exist at all. What's more is that we have introduced one new player via 3.5/Pathfinder in the 4E era, and one player and myself both have kids just about to make their first forays into gaming -- and we're not going to tell the kids that they can finally play Pathfinder with us grown ups; we're going to tell the kids they can finally play D&D with us and we're going to do so via Pathfinder.


----------



## Markn (Aug 2, 2010)

SteveC said:


> I think this is a good point, but WotC has put out some excellent adventures (Red Hand of Doom immediately comes to mind) but if I remember the folks who put together the adventures I enjoyed for 3X, they tended to be the Paizo people, so I don't necessarily know if they have the talent in-house at the moment to make them.
> 
> I think 4E is incredibly easy to write the mechanics of an adventure for. You pretty much have a road-map for the encounters and treasures spelled out for you in the DMG's encounter creation rules.
> 
> ...




I agree with you on everything you said.  

I will just add, that Red Hand of Doom is an adventure that came out near the end of 3.5.  As product options dry up, WotC seems to invest a lot more in module design and this seems to be where they have the most success with modules.

And FWIW, I feel your pain on what to run.  As it stands, I plan on converting a lot of Pathfinder stuff myself.  I find conversions pretty simple.


----------



## Waylander the Slayer (Aug 2, 2010)

As an aside, James Jacobs was one of the primary authors of Red Hand of Doom.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 2, 2010)

malraux said:


> Presumably they'd not like 4e even if pathfinder existed.  The only people that pathfinder steals are the ones that decide they don't like 4e because pathfinder came out.




I guess most Paizo customers are ones who would not have liked 4E in any case. 

And those who do not stick with WOTC 3.5, whether because of balance issues, or just wanting a supported game. It is a complicate equation, but it is not so simple, as Mairaux says.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 2, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I would recoil in horror?



No, you'd roll your eyes in annoyance. 

I think that the folks saying that there are new players who's first experience being Pathfinder is where the competition kicks in may have the right of it, that and the folks that _they in turn_ either bring into the hobby or convert from 4.0.

I run a Pathfinder game for teens once a week or so, there was one temporary player (over for a visit) who was hard set on 4e, and wouldn't play 3.5. He was more than willing to play Pathfinder though.... (I admit it - I do _not_ understand his reasoning.) He now has his own Pathfinder set, and plays both PF and 4e. The rest do not play 4e at all, though I think two of them do own the core three for 4e. For most of them Pathfinder is their first game, and the only one that they own books for.

The Auld Grump


----------



## SteveC (Aug 2, 2010)

carmachu said:


> Some is a stretch. RHoD is pretty much the best one they put out, and  Return to the TOEE was the only other one that I think qualifies. After that there's really not anything else.



This is very definitely a situation of personal tastes, but as I look on my gaming shelf, I also like the Ravenloft and Greyhawk books that were put out, again largely by folks at Paizo.

I think that the skills necessary to write an excellent module are very different from those for writing game rules or even game background fluff. It's clearly something that the folks at Paizo have, and something that the folks at WotC lack (or, as some have suggested, are deliberately not using in the same way).

Again it's all my opinion, of course...


----------



## Hussar (Aug 2, 2010)

SteveC said:


> /snip
> What's more difficult, and has mostly eluded the 4E adventure writers is the story, whether that's an interesting backstory for the adventure, well motivated villains, or even exceptionally interesting set pieces for the adventures.
> /snip
> 
> ...




I honestly think it's 100% intentional.  I think that WOTC modules are using the old 1e modules as a model - backstory limited to about a page (if that) and not a whole lot else for the most part.

I think the reason for this is a belief that many 4e players are very inexperienced gamers and that bombing them with as much backstory as say, Shackled City, would scare them off.  After all, how does a new player know what is important and what isn't?  

Running a bare bones module is simply easier than a fully fledged one.  The downside is that those of us who expect a fully fledged module are not going to be particularly happy with the stripped down ones that WOTC produces.

But, at the end of the day, I do not think that most of the people who are posting in this thread, whether they like 4e or not, are the target audience for most of WOTC's modules.

Which is why I think Paizo modules are so much better received by experienced gamers.  We have the experience to be able to take these very flavour heavy adventures and use them.  We want all these details (or at least a lot of us do) about setting and history and whatnot.  

Expecting a 16 year old DM who's been gaming for six months to be able to pick up the Shackled City AP and run it well is too much IMO.  And that is the DM WOTC modules are aimed at.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 2, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I honestly think it's 100% intentional.  I think that WOTC modules are using the old 1e modules as a model - backstory limited to about a page (if that) and not a whole lot else for the most part.
> 
> I think the reason for this is a belief that many 4e players are very inexperienced gamers and that bombing them with as much backstory as say, Shackled City, would scare them off.  After all, how does a new player know what is important and what isn't?
> 
> Running a bare bones module is simply easier than a fully fledged one.  The downside is that those of us who expect a fully fledged module are not going to be particularly happy with the stripped down ones that WOTC produces.




Eh, there's a middle ground here. A bit of backstory actually makes some elements of an RPG adventure easier to run. I'd recommend anyone contrast experiences with *Keep on the Borderlands*, definitely bare bones as far as NPC characterization and story, with *Return to Keep on the Borderlands*. The latter I found much easier to deal with because there is a lot more detail - it was just organized and written for a beginner with a lot of advice and clarity.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 2, 2010)

JoeGKushner said:


> Let us know what you think.




It was a good book. Nothing new in it, but well presented and very well written. Except for the worldbuilding chapter which fits in my awesome category. I was inspired to make a new world, and I haven't been that in many years. 

Cheers


----------



## Reigan (Aug 2, 2010)

I see the growth of Paizo is a result of WotC pitching their products back at their mainstream audience, the casual player. 3e is a good game, it brought in hard core gamers who previously didn’t play D&D, but it’s also a complex and time consuming one. For a while, everyone was happy, however, in time casual players started to complain, not that 3e was a bad game, they simply didn’t have the time or commitment to make it work. This has been the main driver to how 4e was designed. Unfortunately, this process left a rump of disenfranchised and angry hardcore gamers who were the main beneficiaries of the 3e era. Paizo has quite happily stepped in to fill the needs of these players. This model works in many areas, the big multinationals sell their products to the mainstream, smaller companies thrive catering to the specialist, niche and connoisseur markets.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 2, 2010)

re: casual vs hardcore

That's an interesting notion Reigan and somewhat contrasted nicely with the apparent resurgence of M:TG.

I've seen many attribute it's recent upswing in the last couple of years to focusing more on the casual gamer (more multiplayer support like THG) and supporting them and letting go of the hardcore market (the letting go of Randy Bheuler)


----------



## GodDelusion (Aug 2, 2010)

reynard said:


> -- and we're not going to tell the kids that they can finally play pathfinder with us grown ups; we're going to tell the kids they can finally play d&d with us and we're going to do so via pathfinder.




qft!


----------



## Shazman (Aug 2, 2010)

malraux said:


> Presumably they'd not like 4e even if pathfinder existed.  The only people that pathfinder steals are the ones that decide they don't like 4e because pathfinder came out.




I really can't agree.  They said that they tried 4E, and didn't like it.  If they were dead set on sticking with 3.5 or one of it's derivatives, I doubt that they would have spent the money and taken the time to try out 4E. They would have went straight to Pathfinder  or stayed with 3.5 without even trying 4E. They left 4E and went to Pathfinder because after trying both, they conclued that Pathfinder was a superior game for their tastes.  If I like a try a certain brand of something and switch to another brand because I like it better, than I think it's safe to say that the other brand stole me from the original brand.  I hear over and over of whole gaming groups switching to Pathfinder after trying 4E.  I have yet to hear about one person trying Pathfinder and then switching to 4E.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 2, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Eh, there's a middle ground here. A bit of backstory actually makes some elements of an RPG adventure easier to run. I'd recommend anyone contrast experiences with *Keep on the Borderlands*, definitely bare bones as far as NPC characterization and story, with *Return to Keep on the Borderlands*. The latter I found much easier to deal with because there is a lot more detail - it was just organized and written for a beginner with a lot of advice and clarity.




Oh definitely.  There are certainly extremes.  

I don't know if the WOTC modules are quite as bereft of detail as KotB.  They do have named NPC's after all.    But, OTOH, I'm very, very sure they are less detailed than Paizo adventures.  

Like I said though, even with a very light skimming of flavour, I think most people who like Paizo modules will not be happy.  There seems to be a pretty solid audience of modules who want a module to almost be a mini campaign setting, replete with history and whatnot.  Aren't the Pathfinder modules actually printed that way?  Half module, half flavour?  Or something to that effect.

Reigan - good thoughts.

Shazman - confirmation bias perhaps?  The idea that there is not one single gamer out there who tried Pathfinder and then went back to 4e is a bit of a stretch dontcha think?  Couldn't it easily be that those who tried 4e, then tried Pathfinder, then went back to 4e don't feel the need to evangelize the fact quite so strongly as those who prefer Pathfinder?


----------



## Shazman (Aug 2, 2010)

I didn't say that no one had switched from Pathfinder to 4E.  I said that I haven't heard of anyone doing so.  My main point was that I don't see how someone can claim that having customers switch from 4E to Pathfinder doesn't equate to Paizo stealing customers from WotC.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 2, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Personally, I think Paizo's success has been greater than anyone in either company truly expected. I would not be surprised to learn that Paizo has jumped from owning about 5% of the RPG market to somewhere between 25 and 40%.



I agree with your first sentence. I'm a bit dubious about your estimate in the second sentence, though.

If you are right, then rpgs have really declined tremendously, overall. If Paizo was really controlling 40% of the rpg market, it would have to be because the market has shrunken.

Are you pulling your estimate out of thin air or is there some factual basis?


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Aug 2, 2010)

Shazman said:


> I hear over and over of whole gaming groups switching to Pathfinder after trying 4E.  I have yet to hear about one person trying Pathfinder and then switching to 4E.




I've been seeing / hearing this locally as well. Actually to be more accurate people have been playing 4E less or out right stopping and moving on to other games, not just Pathfinder. This isn't meant to be gospel or anything just an observation. It's entirely possible that the particular groups that I've observed are in fact playing BOTH Pathfinder AND 4E and or other games. Which in all honesty would be fricking awesome.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 2, 2010)

Reynard said:


> But Pathfinder isn't a retro-clone. it is "current D&D" competing directly with official D&D, simply because it exists. Many of those people that don't like 4E may well have stuck with it if it was the only currently published and supported D&D, but because of Pathfinder it isn't.




I would argue the opposite, that if Pathfinder did not exist, we would have had to invent it. I can't really imagine 4e being shiny enough for me to touch it; the emotions I have around it are similar to the ones I had around late AD&D 2e, which led to a decade-long hiatus from D&D (that ended with the publication of 3e). 

Anecdotally, as a writer, I had several 3e projects in various stages of development. When Pathfinder came out, I started adapting the material. Otherwise, I would have been releasing them as 3e products. I'm not the only one. The "shiny" could have kept rolling for probably a couple of years even without a Pathfinder taking the lead.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Aug 2, 2010)

I think that WOTC and 4E are doing their thing over here and Paizo and Pathfinder are doing their thing over there. 

I think that crossover (and I mean players) between the two are few and far between and that's fine too. 

Even if WOTC lost 30% (really unlikely) of the 4E players that it had at the beginning of the launch they'd STILL be the number one RPG because of brand name recognition. There are plenty of people who play the game who dont post on message boards. they just go about their business and play the game 

Paizo has the fans that it has because of they care about crafting backgrounds and stories as well as superior production values. They make a GREAT looking product very much on par with WOTC (and sometimes surpassing them). They are also a haven for a lot of people who didnt like 4E for whatever reason. So as long as I have a player base (which was one of my fears when 4E came out and I realized the it wasn't a game that I was interested in running or playing) I don't care about 4E. I dont mean that in a negative way, it's just that it doesn't impact me in the slightest. Paizo makes a product that I want, WOTC does not. I was a customer of WOTC for 8 years straight. I have enough WOTC 3.0  & 3.5 books to choke a donkey.  Now I am not their customer. Paizo gets most if not all of my money these days.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 2, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> I think that crossover (and I mean players) between the two are few and far between and that's fine too.




Not sure about that. I remember polls here have suggested a fair amount of crossover, and I have seen little Pf or 4e in used book stores.


----------



## bouncyhead (Aug 2, 2010)

Speaking from my own experience, I think the whole 'Paizo stole customers from WotC' idea is far more nuanced and malraux is about right.

Our group were eager 4E switchers - we actually competed to see who would get hold of the core books first. So WotC got (and kept) their 4E cash from us - call it 7 sets of 3 core boxed sets at c. £50 each.

We all dived in to the rules and came up a little underwhelmed but kicked off with KotS, played through, had a think and decided we would pass. It's a taste thing. A perfectly good game and all of that. I absolutely understand the thinking behind the re-worked spine of the game, but the end result was not for us.


Because of RL issues we don't play as much as we should - 4E had actually been the shiny to get us playing again - and we kind of lapsed back into semi-retirement.

To get things ticking over again I thought I'd follow up something I'd heard about Paizo adventure paths - I knew virtually nothing about them at this point - and liked the look of Rise of the Runelords - from there I found out about the PF Beta. Downloaded, sought out a print copy and haven't looked back.  We all bought the Core Rules, a couple of us have the Bestiary and I have just bought a Game Mastery Guide.


So PF didn't switch us from 4E, or 'steal' us from WotC. We had jumped off that train already. There is an argument that if 4E had been a better to fit for us we would have also dropped £xxx on the next two rounds of core rules, perhaps a couple of adventures and three or four of us would maintain a DDI sub, but that's another bucket of frogs entirely.


To the OP - I very much doubt that WotC underestimated the 'Paizo effect'. As has been said elsewhere, they must have anticipated that those that did not adopt 4E would be a great target market for a 3PP under the OGL.


----------



## olshanski (Aug 2, 2010)

Speaking as a DM:
Since the release of 4E:
I've spent $240 on Paizo products (2 adventure paths).
I've spent $0 on WoTC products.
I've spent $30 on NecromancerGames products for 3.5E.
I've spent $80 on Goodman Games products for 3.5E.


If WoTC would have had a decent GSL that allowed Necromancer Games and Paizo to publish modules for 4E, I probably would have spent:
$120 on WoTC products
$75 on Goodman Games products for 4E
$100 on Necromancer Games products for 4E
$240-$480 on Paizo products for 4E

I've saved a lot of money overall, so Thanks, WoTC, for driving me away from RPGs.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 2, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I agree with your first sentence. I'm a bit dubious about your estimate in the second sentence, though.
> 
> If you are right, then rpgs have really declined tremendously, overall. If Paizo was really controlling 40% of the rpg market, it would have to be because the market has shrunken.
> 
> Are you pulling your estimate out of thin air or is there some factual basis?




People keep mentioning they disagree with my statement so I thought I would take a moment to defend it.  

I'm most certainly not giving solid numbers. I don't know what the numbers are. What I am saying is that I would not be suprised to find though the numbers were somewhere in that range, at the moment at least. Also, please note I didn't say 40%, I said _between _25 and 40%. Also, by market, I don't mean what people are playing, I mean what people are buying. That is an important distinction. I would guess the number of RPG players or groups to be doing Pathfinder to be between 10 and 25% of the whole; though I again would not be surprised to see that number increase. 

The numbers are just speculation, though mildly informed speculation. Last year, somewhere between 10 and 15% of the members of this messageboard iirc answered to playing Pathfinder predominantly. Since then, Paizo has only improved their position in the market. They are the #2 selling RPG according to most avalaible rankings. They outsell 4e in some regions and even on Amazon they maintain a pretty decent showing in the RPG ranks.  

I do find the idea that some people have, that Paizo can only be successful in a shrinking market, to be strange. Markets change. Nothing, in business remains static forever. When I was a kid IBM was The Computer Company. But I suspect my children have little or no idea what IBM is. There is always the possibility of the market growing and new players seizing sizeable chunks of business real-estate. Paizo's products appeal to people. To many of us, they are far more appealing than 4e. I am not so naive to think that others like whatever I like. At the same time, I do think I have a decent amount of taste and can recognize quality when I see it. I also have faith that most other people can as well, if they care to do so.

Edit: One other point to consider when asking "what are people buying?" How many 4e DMs buy Paizo adventures and setting books to mine them for idea. A few? More than a few?  Now ask yourself, "When is the last time you heard a Pathfinder DM say they were buying a 4e adventure or setting book to mine it for ideas. Less than a few would be my guess. Close to none in fact. Think about that: even non-pathfinder players buy Paizo products. Anecdotally, that does not seem to be working in reverse. I know that I haven't bought a single WotC product since the release of 4e that I can think of (though I have bought several Hasbro products). My kids have bought a few magic decks and I have _considered _buying the New 3Dragon Ante but thats it.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 2, 2010)

olshanski said:


> Speaking as a DM:
> Since the release of 4E:
> I've spent $240 on Paizo products (2 adventure paths).
> I've spent $0 on WoTC products.
> ...




Before Paizo's APs started, I spent about 40% of my rpg gaming budget on WotC 3.x books. About 50% on Kenzer's Kalamar books and about 10% on other 3pp. 

When the APs started, that went to probably about 30% WotC, 30% Kenzer, 30% Paizo and 10% other 3pp.

Since 4e has been released WotC gets 0% of my gaming budget, Paizo gets about 70% of my gaming budget and the other 30% goes to 3pp that support Pathfinder or the OGL.


----------



## MortonStromgal (Aug 2, 2010)

I believe there is just a general disconnect between hands at WOTC right now. 

Here is what I mean, they want to attract new players but rather than another Forgotten Realms game we got Dragon Age. Which in turn sparks its own Pen and Paper RPG. You also have a fairly complex rule set with digital subscriptions and bringing everything in house alienating the old timers and OGL players giving rise to Pathfinder. You also have these game store events coming out like encounters to bring back former gamers (whom many have moved on to Savage Worlds or something else) and try to bring in new kids with a box set (direct competition to Dragon Age). It would appear that rather than target a particular group old guard, young kids, etc you have 1/2 dozen or more strategies on the table, some of which go against some of the others.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 2, 2010)

Wicht, there's the fact that many a 4e player doesn't see "PAIZO" as "THE EVIL" so have no problem picking it up.

Contrastingly, there's a large sgment of players who wont touch 4e products JUST because it is WOTC.

There's also that WOTC hasn't actually put out THAT much "fluffy stuff". There's the adventures of course and the campaign guides (which were settings that most 3.x fans ALREADY had access to) but really, most of WOTC's outlay has been crunch heavy or retreads of previous 3.x material (underdark, secrets of the astral sea etc all have 3.x equivalents)

The newest "new" product that WOTC would actually be this month's Dark Sun as there is no 3.x equivalent to mind (other than the DS articles from DRAGON and those were widely panned)


----------



## Wicht (Aug 2, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Wicht, there's the fact that many a 4e player doesn't see "PAIZO" as "THE EVIL" so have no problem picking it up.
> 
> Contrastingly, there's a large sgment of players who wont touch 4e products JUST because it is WOTC.
> 
> ...




I think you are over generalizing.  I don't think most of us Pathfinder players think of WotC as "evil," even if we don't agree with their apparent gaming philosophy. There are some who do , of course, just as there are WotC supporters who are convinced Paizo doesn't deserve any recognition as they are just building with toys WotC gave to them.  But for me personally, and I think it is a general consensus, I don't by WotC products, not because I dislike them (I wish them and the brand all the best), but  because they don't make anything I want. Paizo does and so I buy from them. 

Still, in the end, the "whys" are irrelevant (or only relevant to those laying down future business plans in either company). The fact of the matter is: Paizo sells to a large segment of the gaming population and WotC has shrunk their appeal down to basically just those people that play their game. Paizo has cross game appeal; WotC does not. That sort of trend has to have some short and maybe long term effects.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 2, 2010)

Wicht said:


> The fact of the matter is: Paizo sells to a large segment of the gaming population and WotC has shrunk their appeal down to basically just those people that play their game. Paizo has cross game appeal; WotC does not. That sort of trend has to have some short and maybe long term effects.




That looks more like an opinion to me, not a fact.  I've seen a large number of non-4e players state they are looking forward to buying the new Red Box set, and others say they are looking forward to buying the Dark Sun setting.  The interest level in Gamma World seems high as well.  Earlier, it seems like many non-4e players bought WOTC miniatures.

And of course, lots of people play Star Wars, Heroscape, MTG, Axis & Allies, Duelmasters, etc..  

So it sure looks to me like WOTC had, and continues to have, plenty of cross game appeal.  In fact, if I had to bet, I'd bet WAY WAY WAY more people in the world buy WOTC products than Paizo products, even if you entirely eliminated Dungeons and Dragons 4e from the equation.  So as far as selling to the larger percentage of the gaming population, I'd guess WOTC wins that hands down.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 2, 2010)

*chuckle*

I'll defend Wicht here...

He's obviously referring to D&D specifically when talking about cross gamer appeal (and you're right...I have seen many a people at least interested in Darksun who normally don't play 4e).

As a D&D focused messageboard, we always tend to forget at times that WOTC is more than D&D.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 2, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> That looks more like an opinion to me, not a fact.  I've seen a large number of non-4e players state they are looking forward to buying the new Red Box set, and others say they are looking forward to buying the Dark Sun setting.  The interest level in Gamma World seems high as well.  Earlier, it seems like many non-4e players bought WOTC miniatures.
> 
> And of course, lots of people play Star Wars, Heroscape, MTG, Axis & Allies, Duelmasters, etc..
> 
> So it sure looks to me like WOTC had, and continues to have, plenty of cross game appeal.  In fact, if I had to bet, I'd bet WAY WAY WAY more people in the world buy WOTC products than Paizo products, even if you entirely eliminated Dungeons and Dragons 4e from the equation.  So as far as selling to the larger percentage of the gaming population, I'd guess WOTC wins that hands down.




I'm sorry Mistwell, I thought it was obvious I was talking about Role Playing Games, most specifically fantasy role playing games of the Dungeons and Dragons genre. I apologize for confusing you. If we factor in both board and card games, then of course, Paizo is still small potatoes. 

I must disagree however about the number of non-4e players that seem enthused about buying essentials. Have you looked at this thread? There is more unanimity about us non-4e players _*not*_ buying essentials than anything I have ever seen in any thread asking preferences from a sub-group.  I think most of us are pleased WotC is trying to make some changes but that is not going to compel us to buy it.


----------



## IronWolf (Aug 4, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I think you are over generalizing.  I don't think most of us Pathfinder players think of WotC as "evil," even if we don't agree with their apparent gaming philosophy. There are some who do , of course, just as there are WotC supporters who are convinced Paizo doesn't deserve any recognition as they are just building with toys WotC gave to them.  But for me personally, and I think it is a general consensus, I don't by WotC products, not because I dislike them (I wish them and the brand all the best), but  because they don't make anything I want. Paizo does and so I buy from them.




I'll just agree with Wicht here.  It seems Pathfinder players are often getting lumped into this stereotype that we all think WotC is "evil".  I just don't see that as being the case as much as it is we don't agree with their current gaming philosophy as Wicht has said.

I don't like the path WotC took with 4e.  But I don't think WotC is evil, I just don't agree with their direction.  I wish them success with 4e and I am happy to see a large number of players happy with 4e.  It just wasn't the choice for me.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 4, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> As a D&D focused messageboard, we always tend to forget at times that WOTC is more than D&D.





Indeed.  I think I saw somewhere that there are hundreds of employees, and they have all sorts of other game lines both card and board games and more.  Even with the phasing out of the SW stuff, they're still a very busy company with a very large parent, too.  This practically guarantees that D&D will be around in some form or another no matter how things play out from year to year, and that's a good thing.


----------



## BigWeather (Aug 4, 2010)

For me the defining moment was WotC killing off Dungeon (and, specifically, removing Paizo from Dungeon).  I've always been an adventure lover, in fact I play sparingly but love to read the adventures and the fluff and Dungeon was such a great addition to my hobby when it started in 1986.  The quality dipped very noticeably prior to Paizo taking over and then, once they did, it came roaring back as good as ever.  Paizo, particularly late in 3.x, increasingly became the face of D&D for me.  I understand that WotC can do what they want with Dungeon but it felt like a betrayal to have my favorite magazine of all time, under perhaps the best stewardship it had ever seen, killed like that.  Add in that Paizo was very smart to offer transitioning of Dungeon subscriptions to their AP (I believe I got the first four issues "free" this way -- and was thereafter hooked) and I'm not sure that WotC fully saw what was coming.  Maybe it wasn't this way for others, this is all in my opinion of course.

My interest in D&D had waned some with 2e (particularly late in that edition's span) but the OGL brought me back *big time* (the adventure-y fluffy parts, that is).  So that getting killed off didn't make me a very happy camper either.  

Among my group of players at the time one went to 4e, I went to Pathfinder, and five others just quit outright (and have yet to come back).  I suspect that if Pathfinder hadn't been there I'd have left as well, so I guess Paizo didn't cost 4e a customer in my case.

As for revenue (and here I'm referring to D&D not WotC as a whole) I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo's is much more than 5% of WotC's (D&D only, again).  Everything I hear from my FLGS is that Pathfinder holds its own and often outsells 4e and while one could argue DDI gives WotC an unseen edge I bet Paizo's subscription revenue is nothing to sneeze at either.


----------



## jaerdaph (Aug 4, 2010)

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the answer to the question is "No, WotC did not underestimate the effect of Paizo and _Pathfinder_". WotC has taken all the steps to insure that when 5e comes out, nobody will be able to successfully produce a 4e "_Pathfinder_". The OGL and SRD made _Pathfinder _possible, and those pieces just don't exist for 4e. 

I also believe that only Paizo could have made _Pathfinder _happen. Only Paizo had the name recognition (thanks to the years of publishing DRAGON and DUNGEON), the creative staff, the and the customer base to make it work. If Paizo didn't produce _Pathfinder_, there was nobody in the position to produce a continuation of 3.5e. Sure, we would have had a lot more "fantasy heartbreakers" from 3PPs and others, but I believe taken together, all those attempts would not have equaled the success of _Pathfinder_. 

I'm also under no delusions that anything sells more than 4e D&D or even competes with WotC's 800 lb gorilla. But there still was enough of a market for Paizo to tap into to be a successful business nonetheless. 

It's kind of like this awesome little candy store around the corner from me. They make the best chocolates, and I would buy a box of their candy over a box of Russell Stovers any day. And even though I know they will never become as large as or make the money that Russell Stovers makes, I still think they have the superior product.


----------



## el_vakero92335 (Aug 4, 2010)

Eww!! Russell Stovers--chocolates filled toothpaste!!


----------



## Krypter (Aug 5, 2010)

Though I was never a huge fan of 3.5, WotC's 4E marketing campaign was quite insulting. They "fired" their existing customers and Paizo snapped them up with superior customer service, great production values and good deals. That was a huge mistake on WotC's part, and one they're now trying to address with the Essentials line, which bears more of a resemblance to 3.5 than classic 4E. 

The cancellation of the print versions of Dungeon and Dragon was also a terrible mistake, one I'm not likely to forgive soon.


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 5, 2010)

Krypter said:


> They "fired" their existing customers and Paizo snapped them up with superior customer service, great production values and good deals.



They did? Funny, I play in two groups that were playing 3.5 in 2008, and now both groups play 4E.


----------



## olshanski (Aug 5, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> They did? Funny, I play in two groups that were playing 3.5 in 2008, and now both groups play 4E.




I suspect that Krypter was referring to the marketing of 4E.  4E was not marketed as a brand new tabletop game, as much as it was marketed as an improvement over 3.5 which was broken and unfun in very many ways.  By inference, if you were playing 3.5, you were playing an unfun game that could be improved by going to 4E.  If you really enjoyed 3.5, then you were insane.

I have not been able to find any marketing material related to the design of 4E that doesn't talk about the problems of 3.5E.

Here's an excerpt: from the Design and Development article on 4E's Core Mechanic.


> Grab a d20. Roll high.
> That’s the basic rule of 4th Edition just as it was in 3rd Edition, but the new edition puts that mechanic more solidly in the core of the game than ever.
> 
> Ever faced one of those life-or-death saving throws? Hours, weeks, or even years of play can hang in the balance. It all comes down to that one roll. There’s drama in that moment, but it’s drama you didn’t create, and you don’t want.
> ...




You see, almost everything is phrased in terms of how much better it is than 3.5.  The marketing for the game was "STOP PLAYING 3.5, START PLAYING 4.0".  I was a hardcore 3.5 player, but I am also human and not immune to marketing tricks.  After reading article after article about how crappy 3.5 was, I began to believe it, and I stopped playing 3.5.

Maybe Krypter was referring to something else, but I certainly got a vibe of "your game sucks" from the WoTC marketing department.


----------



## Wayside (Aug 5, 2010)

NiTessine said:


> They do, actually. 2009 4th quarter, _World of Darkness_, fifth place: ICv2 - Top Q4 2009 Roleplaying Games



Sorry, I meant the sum of White Wolf's RPG properties. In the past I've seen Exalted, for example, listed separately. Without access to their methodology or actual numbers I'm not buying the results, even with a narrow focus on the hobby channel.

I mean, what happens to the Q4 2009 results if, instead of listing FFG twice for games that are both Warhammer 40K, the two are combined? I'm guessing FFG would leapfrog Paizo. What about when you combine Exalted with White Wolf's other lines? The same thing, I'd expect.

Even if we limit ourselves to properties represented in RPGs, companies like Games Workshop, White Wolf and WotC have honest-to-goodness media franchises. They've developed them through video games, novels, comics, etc. Paizo is obviously doing well within their niche, but it's a small niche, and it's their whole business.


----------



## mudbunny (Aug 5, 2010)

olshanski said:


> You see, almost everything is phrased in terms of how much better it is than 3.5.  The marketing for the game was "STOP PLAYING 3.5, START PLAYING 4.0".




I am not sure how to phrase this without coming off as snarky, and I am really trying ('cause it isn't intended to be snarky, let me reassure you of that), but what else were you expecting them to say?

They are releasing a new edition of the game, and they want to try to convert as many 3.5 players to 4E. Of course they are going to tell you that 4E is better than 3.5.


----------



## Agamon (Aug 5, 2010)

The funny thing is that WotC was going to anger a lot of people, regardless of what it could have foreseen.  It's ironic that, if WotC released an updated 3.5 that was very similar to what became PF, the likely resulting rage would have been spectacular to witness.  However, WotC puts out a completely new edition, Paizo puts out PF.  In the former, WotC are money-grubbers that hate their customer base and in the latter, Paizo is heralded as the savior.  Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't.


----------



## Agamon (Aug 5, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> I am not sure how to phrase this without coming off as snarky, and I am really trying ('cause it isn't intended to be snarky, let me reassure you of that), but what else were you expecting them to say?
> 
> They are releasing a new edition of the game, and they want to try to convert as many 3.5 players to 4E. Of course they are going to tell you that 4E is better than 3.5.




This is a good point.  I was watching the extras on the 1st season of BSG disc.  One of them concerned the move from miniseries to series (I assume it was included in the miniseries DVD when it was released on it's own).  And the actors kept saying, over and over, that, if you like the miniseries, the series is even better, and here's why.  And for some reason, I didn't jump out of my chair, all annoyed that they could dis the miniseries like that... 

It's called PR.  I only jumped into PF recently, so I wasn't around for the PF alpha and such, but how did Paizo go about explaining changes? "We really, really like how 3.5 does this...but we're going to change it anyway."  I kinda doubt it.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Aug 5, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> I am not sure how to phrase this without coming off as snarky, and I am really trying ('cause it isn't intended to be snarky, let me reassure you of that), but what else were you expecting them to say?
> 
> They are releasing a new edition of the game, and they want to try to convert as many 3.5 players to 4E. Of course they are going to tell you that 4E is better than 3.5.



Not snarky at all.

However, I think they could have done it in a different way, trying to be more inclusive of their entire customer base. If the spin had have been more inclusive rather than alienating then they may have got more people on board judging the game on its merits rather than being turned off by the WotC "Marketing Machine".



			
				WotC said:
			
		

> Grab a d20. Roll high.
> That’s the basic rule of 4th Edition just as it was in 3rd Edition, but the new edition puts that mechanic more solidly in the core of the game than ever.
> 
> Ever faced one of those life-or-death saving throws? Hours, weeks, or even years of play can hang in the balance. It all comes down to that one roll. There’s drama in that moment, but it’s drama you didn’t create, and you don’t want.
> ...




The WotC quote from Olshanski is absolutely cringeworthy and perhaps with a little 20/20 hindsight is indicative of where WotC went wrong (and where in comparison, Paizo got it right).

It still comes across as:
- We still have the d20 but "these go to 21"!
- You want resolution in a single roll? Ain't gonna happen. You want to blunt combat effectiveness so that every combat length extends to a mathematically precise average? Our number-crunchers have made it happen!
- Have you ever failed to read your own ruleset and not realized that wizard's can get criticals? Well we have and now we've made sure that in 4e wizard's can now get criticals... no more of that playing a wizard and being envious of the fighter... [turns to his confused sidekick ("wait did I get that arse about")]
- Are you dumb enough to be confused by normal AC, touch AC and flat-footed AC? Well we're going to dogpile you with four, not three defenses and a truck full of modifiers so that you feel even dumber!

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Zaran (Aug 5, 2010)

If only WotC would have given us the ability to purchase a mule in the PHB.  Then 4e would have been perfect and we wouldn't be having discussions like this.  Oh, WotC!  How can you be so cruel!


----------



## MoxieFu (Aug 5, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> I am not sure how to phrase this without coming off as snarky, and I am really trying ('cause it isn't intended to be snarky, let me reassure you of that), but what else were you expecting them to say?
> 
> They are releasing a new edition of the game, and they want to try to convert as many 3.5 players to 4E. Of course they are going to tell you that 4E is better than 3.5.




My Momma always said, "It ain't always what you say, but how you say it."

And that is the essences of marketing. Good marketers know HOW to say it. Bad marketers don't.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Aug 5, 2010)

Agamon said:


> The funny thing is that WotC was going to anger a lot of people, regardless of what it could have foreseen. It's ironic that, if WotC released an updated 3.5 that was very similar to what became PF, the likely resulting rage would have been spectacular to witness. However, WotC puts out a completely new edition, Paizo puts out PF. In the former, WotC are money-grubbers that hate their customer base and in the latter, Paizo is heralded as the savior. Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't.
> 
> It's called PR.  I only jumped into PF recently, so I wasn't around for the PF alpha and such, but how did Paizo go about explaining changes? "We really, really like how 3.5 does this...but we're going to change it anyway."  I kinda doubt it.



Regardless of any sympathy Paizo had garnered for having the custodianship of Dragon and Dungeon taken away from them, or admiration for their RPG leading customer service, I think Paizo went about "3.75" the right way.

They presented an Alpha for people to try out and give input on, mixed all of this into a beta before throwing it open to the masses to play with again, before finally releasing their Core Book. Even if you were disappointed in certain options/ideas being left in/taken out/changed in the final product, there was no arguing with the process which was completely inclusive and fan driven. The level of interactivity between Jason Bulmahn and the thousands of fans who downloaded and tried out the beta was something incredibly ***special. They still have all the threads in their forum if you wanted to see how it all happened. If anything, it was all about respecting the game and the people who played it.

On the other hand, WotC had an infinitely tougher sell. Perhaps half of what you are saying is right: they were damned from the start. They had to draw a bloody big line in the sand and so they set themselves up for failing a significant proportion of their audience. Perhaps the telling thing is that if 4e had have been a much better game than it is, they would have pulled everyone over to it regardless. Instead, the horrible marketing veneer became quickly scratched.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

*** In my opinion this is one of the most special things ever done for the game. The amount of time and effort that it took was completely unbelievable.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 5, 2010)

Agamon said:


> This is a good point.  I was watching the extras on the 1st season of BSG disc.  One of them concerned the move from miniseries to series (I assume it was included in the miniseries DVD when it was released on it's own).  And the actors kept saying, over and over, that, if you like the miniseries, the series is even better, and here's why.  And for some reason, I didn't jump out of my chair, all annoyed that they could dis the miniseries like that...




You always expect them to say that the follow-up is better, otherwise, why would anyone want it when it's a replacement (in the case of BSG, it's not a replacement at all, it's a continuation, so the comparison is dubious). 

It's *how* you say you've improved it.


> Ever faced one of those life-or-death saving throws? Hours, weeks, or even years of play can hang in the balance. It all comes down to that one roll. There’s drama in that moment, but it’s drama you didn’t create, and you don’t want.




Really? I didn't want that drama? Then why was I playing a D&D game which has always had save or die moments? Does WotC think I was somehow not choosing to play of my own free will? It's a bit patronizing. So was the grappling video. Those are ways *not* to say it.

The comment about wizards getting to crit with spells, that's a much more upbeat and positive way to spin a change that they consider an improvement. "Hey, this is cool. Now other classes get to do it too!" That was good, this is better. Not that was bad or something "you don't want". And that is partly why I thought 4e marketing was surprisingly clumsy and amateurish and annoyed me to an increasing degree with the 4e launch.


----------



## Stormonu (Aug 5, 2010)

I'm not sure this has been brought up, but a lot of what I have been seeing in my area is that a good portion of people excitedly moved to 4E, but within about 6 months or so became so disenchanted with the game they either switched over to Pathfinder or sought out an entirely different game (my group didn't take 6 mo., but after Keep on the Shadowfell, we essentially switched over to WoD).

I think Piazo has gained quite a bit of folks who have "tried it, didn't like it" and that it may be gaining momentum as people find 4E doesn't meet their expectations.

Of course, folks may do the same eventually with Pathfinder - it's just approaching it's 6-month birthday.


----------



## ggroy (Aug 5, 2010)

Stormonu said:


> I think Piazo has gained quite a bit of folks who have "tried it, didn't like it" and that it may be gaining momentum as people find 4E doesn't meet their expectations.
> 
> Of course, folks may do the same eventually with Pathfinder - it's just approaching it's 6-month birthday.




It's already at its 1-year birthday. 

(Pathfinder was first released at Gencon 2009).


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 5, 2010)

Zaran said:


> If only WotC would have given us the ability to purchase a mule in the PHB.  Then 4e would have been perfect and we wouldn't be having discussions like this.  Oh, WotC!  How can you be so cruel!










WHERE IS YOU GOD NOW?​


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 5, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Really? I didn't want that drama? Then why was I playing a D&D game which has always had save or die moments? Does WotC think I was somehow not choosing to play of my own free will? It's a bit patronizing. So was the grappling video. Those are ways *not* to say it.



Easy answer: like me, you played D&D *despite *those things, because you enjoyed the rest of it enough to put up with them. They're certainly not speaking to everyone with every quote, but that would be impossible.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 5, 2010)

The threads getting back off track again if we are reduced to once more arguing about whether people felt insulted by the WotC Marketing. Short answer: some people did find it insulting; some did not. If you did not; you are not going to convince others they were not insulted. Nor will you make any friends by doing so. So why bother arguing about it.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 5, 2010)

Wayside said:


> Even if we limit ourselves to properties represented in RPGs, companies like Games Workshop, White Wolf and WotC have honest-to-goodness media franchises. They've developed them through video games, novels, comics, etc. Paizo is obviously doing well within their niche, but it's a small niche, and it's their whole business.




Paizo is still a relatively new player, it is true. They have had their game out for 1 year.  Of course they don't have a huge media franchise yet. But that doesn't really mean anything concerning their success, their future, nor how many books they are selling.

Dungeons and Dragons did not start out with a huge media franchise and the full power of Hasbro behind it. It started out as a small game, spread by word of mouth. 

Warhammer didn't release video games their first year either. Nor did WoD. Nor did they begin their games with a full court press of comics, novels and the like. Those things came later. Companies tend to start out small, and generally focused on a few core products. As these products gain support then they expand. 

Paizo is growing with Pathfinder. There does not seem any doubt about that. Where they end up is anyone's guess. But to dismiss them because they don't yet have a video game released for their product is rather naive. And, in case you missed it, the Novels are being released as we speak.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 5, 2010)

Fifth Element said:


> Easy answer: like me, you played D&D *despite *those things, because you enjoyed the rest of it enough to put up with them. They're certainly not speaking to everyone with every quote, but that would be impossible.




But then doesn't this beg the question of... if there are tons of fantasy rpg's that don't have save or die (or numerous other things unique to D&D), why not go play one of those?


----------



## Maggan (Aug 5, 2010)

I'll voice what might be a minority voice here (but that's ok, since it is MY minority voice! ).

We were all geared up for Pathfinder. But until it was released we decided to test D&D4e, and after that most of the group didn't want to continue with a 3.5 derived set of rules be it D&D3.5 or Pathfinder.

So I bought the Pathfinder core rule book because I promised to so here on EN World, but my group have played D&D4e exclusively. One DM has tried to get a Kingmaker campaign going without much luck. We're having too much fun with D&D4e.

So you could say that WotC snatched us from Pathfinder. 

/M


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 5, 2010)

Imaro said:


> But then doesn't this beg the question of... if there are tons of fantasy rpg's that don't have save or die (or numerous other things unique to D&D), why not go play one of those?



I answered this in my previous post already. Overall, 3.5 was my favoured game. That doesn't mean I thought it was perfect, or couldn't be improved. I don't refuse to play a system just because it has a few things I don't like, if it has a lot of things I do like.


----------



## Jor-El (Aug 5, 2010)

I think a lot of our opinions are definately skewed by our system/company preference. 

I don't think WoTC underestimated anything, other than maybe the current economy. WoTC's biggest competition, like someone mentioned upthread, is other forms of entertainment. 

One thing to keep in mind, is that the scales are totally different for WotC and Paizo (and any other RPG company). No doubt they vastly outsell all other product lines, but what's considered success for them? Certainly not the same thing as what is for Pathfinder. 

I'm a Paizo guy, I prefer Pathfinder, and don't really spend any money on WoTC products anymore, but I'm under no illusion that Pathfinder has suddenly gobbled up a large percentage of the RPG market. They just serve a really small niche of what is a niche industry. 

WoTC is in kind of a no win situation, in that they're almost too big for the D&D brand to be SUPER sucessful. The market for D&D just isn't there the way it is for MTG or was for Pokemon. At least not there for the kind of profits the bean counters really want. Ultimately I think the management of WoTC needs to adjust its expectations for the Brand, and realize that they are making tons more money than any other RPG company, and be happy with that, and that they're never going to make WOW style profits, or be able to compete with the video game industry. 

All IMHO of course!


----------



## ggroy (Aug 5, 2010)

Jor-El said:


> I don't think WoTC underestimated anything, other than maybe the current economy.




Not many pundits anticipated the economic meltdown of late-2008 and the subsequent aftermath, with the exception of the "permabears" who are always screaming "the sky is falling" anyways.  A broken clock is always right, two times every day.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 5, 2010)

Jor-El said:


> WoTC is in kind of a no win situation, in that they're almost too big for the D&D brand to be SUPER sucessful.



A good argument can be made for WotC being the wrong-sized company for the D&D brand right now.

As for Paizo's effect on 4e... they wouldn't have had any on my experience w/the system. While I hear Paizo makes great products, they simple aren't the kind I'm in the market for (I homebrew adventures and setting exclusively).


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Aug 5, 2010)

Well I'm an example of the opposite situation. I started a new homebrew campaign (is de facto several one-shots with different characters in the same gameworld) using PFRPG core + bestiary only.

My players jumped in it enthusiastically, and I recovered old ones too. I have 8 of them at the gametable, and could increase.


----------



## Jor-El (Aug 5, 2010)

I homebrew too, and PF works just fine. Like anything, you have to tweak and re-skin some things every once in a while, but that's no different than any edition of an RPG.


----------



## Agamon (Aug 5, 2010)

Kaiyanwang said:


> Well I'm an example of the opposite situation. I started a new homebrew campaign (is de facto several one-shots with different characters in the same gameworld) using PFRPG core + bestiary only.
> 
> My players jumped in it enthusiastically, and I recovered old ones too. I have 8 of them at the gametable, and could increase.




I'm in the same boat.  I lost a couple players when we played 4e, so I changed to HackMaster Basic, lost a couple different players playing that.  I was the only one harboring a grudge towards 3.5, thanks to my DMing the high-level adventures in AoW (3 years and I still cringe at the thought of it), but to get the group back together, I gave in and we're playing PF, with the conditions of no high-level play and core rules only.  And now I have all my players back plus a couple.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 5, 2010)

*Bow Down Before the Godsmite Donkeyhorse!*



Keefe the Thief said:


> WHERE IS YOU GOD NOW?​


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 5, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Not many pundits anticipated the economic meltdown of late-2008 and the subsequent aftermath, with the exception of the "permabears" who are always screaming "the sky is falling" anyways.  A broken clock is always right, two times every day.




My clock says 21:58.

At which two times a day is it right?


----------



## ggroy (Aug 5, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> My clock says 21:58.
> 
> At which two times a day is it right?




An old cuckoo clock.


----------



## Reigan (Aug 5, 2010)

After the change from 3.0 to 3.5 they were probably worried about asking people to switch again so soon. Hence the rather aggressive marketing campaign pointing out that this time there were real changes and why (they felt) players should make the switch.

Don't forget the market had saturated & sales had tailed off. Failing to make changes would have cost them many players as well.


----------



## TikkchikFenTikktikk (Aug 5, 2010)

I only read the first five pages of this thread.

But are there any sales or revenue numbers to be had at all? What were WotC's sales and revenue from D&D before the 4E announcement compared to 31 July 2010 (to pick the arbitrary date when this thread started). What were Paizo's sales and revenue from Pathfinder-branded RPG materials from the same dates? 

I don't think WotC breaks their numbers down by product line. And Paizo doesn't release numbers, since they are a privately held company. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Anecdotes from individuals and single FLGSs don't make for data. We can try to make inferences from the actions of the two companies. But they are just wild-assed guesses without financial statements. Yes, I expected wild-assed guesses because I am not new here, but I still hoped for the best.

The answer to the question posed by the OP would be extrememly interesting, but mostly because answering it would take leaked insider documents, someone with insider knowledge likely breaking an NDA, or the management of WotC to say something publicly that no one in their right mind would say if they valued their career. (You generally don't make management at a publicly traded company unless you value your career).

BTW, my sig proudly declares my biases, but I should point out that I paid for, downloaded, and read the Pathfinder rulebook and first adventure path and enjoyed them. I wish Paizo the best of luck. Competition in a free market tends to make products better for the consumer.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 5, 2010)

Maggan said:


> I'll voice what might be a minority voice here (but that's ok, since it is MY minority voice! ).
> 
> We were all geared up for Pathfinder. But until it was released we decided to test D&D4e, and after that most of the group didn't want to continue with a 3.5 derived set of rules be it D&D3.5 or Pathfinder.
> 
> ...



That's too bad, but hopefully your group will eventually adopt the One True System. 

1st edition Bunnies & Burrows.  

The Auld Grump, in case anyone wonders, that was a joke - there is no One True System, though Bunnies & Burrows really was fun, especially when crossed over with Call of Cthulhu.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 5, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Wicht, there's the fact that many a 4e player doesn't see "PAIZO" as "THE EVIL" so have no problem picking it up.
> 
> Contrastingly, there's a large sgment of players who wont touch 4e products JUST because it is WOTC.
> 
> ...




*Shrug* I don't get 4e products because they are WotC - I don't get 4e products because they are 4e. 

I actually purchased the _only_ D&D minis that I have ever bought well after 4e came out. (I blame the Remhoraz. He just looked so _cute!_  ) If WotC came out with material for Pathfinder I would, well, actually I would drop dead from shock, but after being revived I would at least look at the material.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Wayside (Aug 6, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Paizo is still a relatively new player, it is true. They have had their game out for 1 year.  Of course they don't have a huge media franchise yet. But that doesn't really mean anything concerning their success, their future, nor how many books they are selling.



It means a great deal concerning their success relative to the other companies I mentioned if we're going to start drawing up rankings lists. Specifically: Paizo isn't in the same league yet.



Wicht said:


> Dungeons and Dragons did not start out with a huge media franchise and the full power of Hasbro behind it. It started out as a small game, spread by word of mouth.



What's the number one predictor for a product's success?



Wicht said:


> Warhammer didn't release video games their first year either. Nor did WoD. Nor did they begin their games with a full court press of comics, novels and the like. Those things came later. Companies tend to start out small, and generally focused on a few core products. As these products gain support then they expand.



In other words, Paizo is orders of magnitude smaller than these other companies. The rest is unfounded speculation--and really poor reasoning. "All big companies started small" is not the same as "All small companies become big."



Wicht said:


> Paizo is growing with Pathfinder. There does not seem any doubt about that. Where they end up is anyone's guess. But to dismiss them because they don't yet have a video game released for their product is rather naive.



And to frame my point entirely in terms of video games is dishonest. Looking just at fantasy, D&D, Warhammer, Warcraft and other notable properties can all trace their success back to being first to market in one way or another. Obviously this is true of games like Shadowrun and the World of Darkness as well, and it's an advantage Pathfinder doesn't enjoy. If Warcraft, being a Warhammer clone like Pathfinder is a D&D clone, had been a miniatures game rather than an RTS, it would've sunk like a stone. Therein lies Pathfinder's problem: it's a clone trying to compete with the original on its own turf.



Wicht said:


> And, in case you missed it, the Novels are being released as we speak.



And when they reach the NYT Best Seller list we'll have something to talk about, especially if non-gamers are the ones buying. For now, though, comparing Paizo to the big boys is silly. They have a lot of brand building to do first.


----------



## ggroy (Aug 6, 2010)

Wayside said:


> What's the number one predictor for a product's success?




What is this predictor?


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Aug 6, 2010)

ggroy said:


> What is this predictor?




Being First to market?


----------



## Reynard (Aug 6, 2010)

Wayside said:


> And to frame my point entirely in terms of video games is dishonest. Looking just at fantasy, D&D, Warhammer, Warcraft and other notable properties can all trace their success back to being first to market in one way or another. Obviously this is true of games like Shadowrun and the World of Darkness as well, and it's an advantage Pathfinder doesn't enjoy. If Warcraft, being a Warhammer clone like Pathfinder is a D&D clone, had been a miniatures game rather than an RTS, it would've sunk like a stone. Therein lies Pathfinder's problem: it's a clone trying to compete with the original on its own turf.




First off, the only "first" in your list is D&D -- and that's arguable (Glorantha, Tekumel and Blackmoor all predate D&D). Warhammer was not the first tabletop fantasy miniatures game: there were Middle Earth and Hyborian wargames first. Dune and Dune 2 were the first RTS games. The World of Darkness was pre-empted by Palladium by years with Nightbane, and Shadowrun was neither the first cyberpunk game nor the first science fantasy game.

Second, I don't think you can qualify Pathfinder as a "D&D clone" because it exists very specifically as an alternative to the current edition of D&D. It is neither retroclone nor fantasy heartbreaker, but rather "spiritual successor". The biggest obstacle it has is that it does not possess the Brand Name (tm) of D&D, even if it possess the sould of that game.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 6, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Being First to market?




For every first you can think of, there's a pretty good chance that a little research will reveal some ideas/products/whatever that beat it to market. It isn't being first, or even being best. it's being the right *whatever* at the right time.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 6, 2010)

Wayside said:


> It means a great deal concerning their success relative to the other companies I mentioned if we're going to start drawing up rankings lists. Specifically: Paizo isn't in the same league yet.
> 
> In other words, Paizo is orders of magnitude smaller than these other companies.




I wonder what basis for comparison you are using for placing Paizo in some "minor" league not ready for the big time game yet? 

They have more employees than most RPG companies, excepting WotC and WotC, as has been pointed out, is much more than RPGs. I wonder how Paizo's numbers stack up against WotC RPG department. 

They have the sales. They are, as I'm sure you read earlier, the #2 RPG in the market at the moment. Subject to change, sure, but nothing to be sneezed at.

They most certainly have experience. I doubt there are many RPG companies with more experience in the industry.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 6, 2010)

While 4e made some marketing blunders, advertising axing out saving throws isn't one of them.  There's a reason Pathfinder _also_ made it their goal to try and put save or dies to sleep, if granted in a different fashion.

I don't think there is a "Paizo effect."  When 3e came out, plenty of people kept playing 2e.  The whole "Old school revolution" or whatever them crazy kooks call themselves these days is a pretty big sign that people never even transfered to 2e.  Now that 4e is out, people who still want to play 3e have an alternative in Pathfinder.

Nobody who disliked 3.x is going to like Pathfinder, I think that speaks for itself.  And plenty of people who play Pathfinder are those that would've never enjoyed 4e in the first place.  If you switched from 4e to Pathfinder, I'd wager that you would've switched from 4e _back to 3.x_ if Pathfinder weren't there in the first place.  It's not a new sale being lost, it's an old lost sale in new packaging as far as WotC is concerned.

Anyways, some people play and enjoy both games and give money to both companies.  420 play D&D everyday.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Aug 6, 2010)

I... i... agree with... *checks heart rate* i agree with Professor Cirno. Next: flying squirrels fight the death ninja rabbits of Castle Awesomesauce.

Though i still think Mona should copyright "Paizo Effect" and use it to market a 3.5 compatible perfume. "It rises like Runelords - the Paizo Effect! (TM)"


----------



## TikkchikFenTikktikk (Aug 6, 2010)

Whatever.

CLEARLY Paizo ripped off WotC's D&D IP to publish their little pretend RPG game.

The only reason WotC hasn't sued yet is because they laid off all of their on-retainer lawyers in early 2009 because of the worldwide economic meltdown. 

(Wake up, sheep! Read a newspaper!)

The only retaliation and leverage WotC could manage was the _Dungeon_ and _Dragon_ license, which has turned out to be a hidden blessing because hiding those publications behind a digital paywall is the best thing to ever happen to our hobby.

Jeez!!!

*Mod Note:*  This may have been intended as sarcasm, but some have noted a bit of confusion.  Please allow me to interject that the above statement is incorrect.  The Open Gaming License used for 3e made Pathfinder quite legal.


----------



## Bluenose (Aug 6, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I wonder what basis for comparison you are using for placing Paizo in some "minor" league not ready for the big time game yet?
> 
> They have more employees than most RPG companies, excepting WotC and WotC, as has been pointed out, is much more than RPGs. I wonder how Paizo's numbers stack up against WotC RPG department.
> 
> ...




I'm pretty sure his comparison is with other 'hobby game' companies; WotC, Games Workshop, FFG, to name three of the big ones. Paizo aren't even close to that size. And incidentally, number two in the market according to ICV2 for printed books across their whole range; I don't think anyone really knows what pdf sales are like across the industry, or how much is sold directly by the companies that do that. 

By the way, what is the figure for full-time employees at Paizo?


----------



## Intense_Interest (Aug 6, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> By the way, what is the figure for full-time employees at Paizo?




According to Erik Mona, about 26 full-time employees.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 6, 2010)

Bluenose said:


> I'm pretty sure his comparison is with other 'hobby game' companies; WotC, Games Workshop, FFG, to name three of the big ones. Paizo aren't even close to that size.




Except he compared Paizo to White Wolf and Catalyst in making his "league" comparison. 

But how many people does FFG employ? I would be surprised if it was much more than 30.  And Games Workshop does not have as many employees as they used to have iirc. Even game companies like Mayfair and Days of Wonder probably don't employ much more than Paizo fulltime, if that.  WotC is sort of the exception to the rule when it comes to number of employees in a "Hobby" company. But again, a better comparison is between Paizo and WotC's RPG department.


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Aug 6, 2010)

olshanski said:


> You see, almost everything is phrased in terms of how much better it is than 3.5. The marketing for the game was "STOP PLAYING 3.5, START PLAYING 4.0". I was a hardcore 3.5 player, but I am also human and not immune to marketing tricks. After reading article after article about how crappy 3.5 was, I began to believe it, and I stopped playing 3.5.
> 
> Maybe Krypter was referring to something else, but I certainly got a vibe of "your game sucks" from the WoTC marketing department.




To me that's a very cynical view of their marketing. It came off to me as "Here are some things in 3.5 that we thought weren't fun, could be more fun, or caused some confusion. And we tried to improve them for 4E."

I thought Paizo did the same thing in hyping up Pathfinder.  They saw points of 3.5 that they thought could be improved on and then tried to improve them for Pathfinder.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 6, 2010)

Wicht said:


> Except he compared Paizo to White Wolf and Catalyst in making his "league" comparison.
> 
> But how many people does FFG employ? I would be surprised if it was much more than 30.  And Games Workshop does not have as many employees as they used to have iirc. Even game companies like Mayfair and Days of Wonder probably don't employ much more than Paizo fulltime, if that.  WotC is sort of the exception to the rule when it comes to number of employees in a "Hobby" company. But again, a better comparison is between Paizo and WotC's RPG department.



Games Workshop has its own _stores_.  If anything I'd guess it's an order of magnitude bigger than WoTC.

RPGs are niche productions, played by people who don't spend much money.  Of course almost all RPG companies are tiny.  (I'd expect Paizo's main rival to be White Wolf unless they've given up when bought out by the owners of Eve)


----------



## Shazman (Aug 6, 2010)

billd91 said:


> You always expect them to say that the follow-up is better, otherwise, why would anyone want it when it's a replacement (in the case of BSG, it's not a replacement at all, it's a continuation, so the comparison is dubious).
> 
> It's *how* you say you've improved it.
> 
> ...




I agree.  It's one thing to say, "We think this thing in the new edition is better because, etc."  That's the right way to do it.  It's another to say "You know that game that you've been playing for years, and enjoy playing.  Well, that game isn't fun.  I mean who wants to use profession skills anyway.  That's not fun.  This new edition is going to stop all of that badwrongfun you've been having.  We can't tell you how or why, but it's awesome."  That is the wrong way to do it, and it is unfortunately the way WotC did it.  They may not have been quite that blunt, but they strongly implied that 3.5 wasn't fun.  If you liked 3.5 and were having fun with it, you aren't going to take that too well.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 6, 2010)

olshanski said:


> I have not been able to find any marketing material related to the design of 4E that doesn't talk about the problems of 3.5E.
> 
> Here's an excerpt: from the Design and Development article on 4E's Core Mechanic.
> 
> ...





Huh?

Really...you actually thought this was insulting? 

I honestly don't see ANYTHING wrong with what WOTC said here...

You know...here's a challenge then...take a statement from this design and development and make it a statement that you  would consider not to be insulting


----------



## billd91 (Aug 6, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Huh?
> 
> Really...you actually thought this was insulting?
> 
> ...




I thought the saving throw bit was patronizing. But it's easy to edit.



			
				original quote said:
			
		

> Ever faced one of those life-or-death saving throws? Hours, weeks, or even years of play can hang in the balance. It all comes down to that one roll. There’s drama in that moment, but it’s drama you didn’t create, and you don’t want.
> 
> That’s gone in the new edition.






			
				alternative said:
			
		

> Ever faced one of those life-or-death saving throws? Hours, weeks, or even years of play can hang in the balance. It all comes down to that one roll. There’s drama in that moment, too much drama for a single roll according to many comments from our customers. We agree.
> 
> That's gone in the new edition.


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 6, 2010)

There's a difference there?

The only difference in tone is that the latter EXPLCITLY is saying "we changed it because of YOU" whereas the former doesn't come out and say it.

So if WOTC had said/added "we changed this BECAUSE of you" to everythingit wouldn't be seen as insulting


----------



## billd91 (Aug 6, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> There's a difference there?
> 
> The only difference in tone is that the latter EXPLCITLY is saying "we changed it because of YOU" whereas the former doesn't come out and say it.
> 
> So if WOTC had said/added "we changed this BECAUSE of you" to everythingit wouldn't be seen as insulting




There's a difference. The first quote is telling me I didn't want it (that's the danger with talking to the collective with the plural "you" - it's a personalizing pronoun - people identify with it, think it means them personally). The second is saying that many customers didn't want it and they have chosen to agree with those customers. So, yes, there's a difference in tone. Saying that I didn't want something or that something is un-fun is different from saying that many customers didn't want something or found an element problematic.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 6, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Not many pundits anticipated the economic meltdown of late-2008 and the subsequent aftermath, with the exception of the "permabears" who are always screaming "the sky is falling" anyways.  A broken clock is always right, two times every day.




That's just not true, really. Buffett is hardly a bear.


----------



## ggroy (Aug 6, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> That's just not true, really. Buffett is hardly a bear.




He was one of the few non-"chicken littles" that saw it coming.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 6, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I wonder what basis for comparison you are using for placing Paizo in some "minor" league not ready for the big time game yet?




Paizo seems to have sales, yes.  And a goodly sized staff, and some kinds of experience.

There's one thing Paizo hasn't done yet that many folks might consider required to cement their position:  create their own game from the ground up, and have it sell well.

WotC, White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games, and some others - all these folks have demonstrated the ability to build their own and refresh, keeping themselves in a market that saturates fairly quickly.  That's Paizo's next real hurdle.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 6, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Paizo seems to have sales, yes.  And a goodly sized staff, and some kinds of experience.
> 
> There's one thing Paizo hasn't done yet that many folks might consider required to cement their position:  create their own game from the ground up, and have it sell well.
> 
> WotC, White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games, and some others - all these folks have demonstrated the ability to build their own and refresh, keeping themselves in a market that saturates fairly quickly.  That's Paizo's next real hurdle.




I think the tweaks to races and classes, the new classes in the APG, and the Golarion setting are parts of a strategy to brand the PFRPG. PFRPG is, essentially, D&D, but it's a flavor that Paizo would like associated with them.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 6, 2010)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Paizo seems to have sales, yes.  And a goodly sized staff, and some kinds of experience.
> 
> There's one thing Paizo hasn't done yet that many folks might consider required to cement their position:  create their own game from the ground up, and have it sell well.
> 
> WotC, White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games, and some others - all these folks have demonstrated the ability to build their own and refresh, keeping themselves in a market that saturates fairly quickly.  That's Paizo's next real hurdle.




Are you really suggesting that Paizo can't be considered a success unless they abandon their signature game and experiment with an unknown quantity?


----------



## LurkMonkey (Aug 6, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Paizo seems to have sales, yes. And a goodly sized staff, and some kinds of experience.
> 
> There's one thing Paizo hasn't done yet that many folks might consider required to cement their position: create their own game from the ground up, and have it sell well..




But that is the magic of OGL. Since the game mechanics are open source, it allows them to concentrate on other things besides reinventing the wheel. Just as a programmer with a good idea doesn't have to come up with a new computer language to make his program work, Paizo and its 3pp allies have a base of robust proven mechanics to build upon.

Whether a majority of players like those mechanics or not, is irrelevant. The OGL will always be there. The fact that anyone will be able to plug into them legally will make them attractive no matter what 'bugs' they have. Paizo will have a lot of success building on the OGL, or at least that is my personal prediction. I also predict they will not break with OGL mechanics to the point where it could be considered a radically different gameset.

The two companies seem to be evolving into a PC vs. Apple rivalry scenario. Open source vs. proprietary 'languages'. Of course, in this scenario the 'Apple' analog is the bigger player, but IMO open-source mechanics have a definite appeal in the market, especially for the small 3rd-party publishers and outsider designers.


----------



## jaerdaph (Aug 6, 2010)

Umbran said:


> WotC, White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games, and some others - all these folks have demonstrated the ability to build their own and refresh, keeping themselves in a market that saturates fairly quickly.  That's Paizo's next real hurdle.




Paizo doesn't even have to acknowledge that hurdle, let alone jump it. Their situation is unique - they were the only ones in a position to produce a successful continuation of a prior edition of D&D and they did so. All the right pieces were in the right place for them, internally and externally. And it is extremely unlikely that will ever happen again for anyone.


----------



## Jor-El (Aug 6, 2010)

Another thing to keep in mind about Paizo, is that most of the folks there used to work for WoTC, some as far back as with TSR before it was bought by WoTC. 

So in a way, it kinda still is their game, it always has been.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 6, 2010)

Reynard said:


> Are you really suggesting that Paizo can't be considered a success unless they abandon their signature game and experiment with an unknown quantity?




I make no claims on what others can and cannot consider "success".  You make your own determination.  However, I wouldn't fault someone for feeling that until Paizo cuts it chops on something entirely new, their own, then they aren't quite there yet.

I'd make an analogy to an author who writes only "shared world" stories, or only works with public domain worlds.  They may be good writers, but until they do something uniquely their own, they're still not quite top-notch.



jaerdaph said:


> Paizo doesn't even have to acknowledge that hurdle, let alone jump it. Their situation is unique...




I think, eventually, they'll need to acknowledge and jump it, or stumble and never be a major player in the race again.  Their starting situation was unique, but from this point on they are subject to the same market forces as every other game publisher out there.  

Eventually, the market will be saturated with Pathfinder materials.  That's the reality of the niche.  They will not be able to sit on 3e's laurels forever if they want to maintain their market position and size as a company.


----------



## LurkMonkey (Aug 6, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I make no claims on what others can and cannot consider "success". You make your own determination. However, I wouldn't fault someone for feeling that until Paizo cuts it chops on something entirely new, their own, then they aren't quite there yet.
> 
> I'd make an analogy to an author who writes only "shared world" stories, or only works with public domain worlds. They may be good writers, but until they do something uniquely their own, they're still not quite top-notch.




I would say that a lot of companies do quite well using shared content in MS-DOS even if they haven't created their own language.

I'd say Paizo isn't working a 'shared world' analogy. What the OGL covers is rules mechanics and a few stat sets for monsters after all. Instead of a 'shared world', think of it as a shared language. They are just using open source gaming code to underlie their quite original storylines.





Umbran said:


> I think, eventually, they'll need to acknowledge and jump it, or stumble and never be a major player in the race again. Their starting situation was unique, but from this point on they are subject to the same market forces as every other game publisher out there.
> 
> Eventually, the market will be saturated with Pathfinder materials. That's the reality of the niche. They will not be able to sit on 3e's laurels forever if they want to maintain their market position and size as a company.




I think  they aren't sitting on 3e's laurels. They took the gaming rules covered by the OGL, adjusted them to eradicate a few of the worst 'bugs', and published them as an underlying technical manual to play their game. Now they are expanding on the OGL-derived code set with all new classes and rules, which, although new and unique, are still 'backwards compatable' to OGL material with a few minor tweaks. They also have kept 'their' version open source to encourage 3pp participation.

Also, Lisa Stevens has said that she wants Paizo to remain small and nimble. She has been employed by several of the Big Guys and endured their growing pains, and has seen what happens when a company gets too big in this field.

Will the market be saturated? Who knows? There's obviously plenty of room for expansion now. I don't think they will ever devise some new 'D13' mechanic just to have their own proprietal system, there's no need. As I mentioned in another post, the OGL is there, and it is a proven robust ruleset. They are doing what they love, making great stories. They are also free to cross-fertilize with the best ideas from 3pps past and present. They often use the monsters and templates from the _Tome of Horror_ series and the _Advanced Bestiary_ in their Adventure Paths. I'm sure as some of the other new publishing houses like Rite Publishing, LPJ Design, Open Design, and others begin to gather steam they will all riff off each other's ideas.

Paizo has a lot of veterans working for them. They've seen the pitfalls of too much splat. They've seen corporate bloat. I think they are in a sweet spot where they can craft the stories they want and remain masters of their own destiny.


----------



## Imaro (Aug 6, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I make no claims on what others can and cannot consider "success". You make your own determination. However, I wouldn't fault someone for feeling that until Paizo cuts it chops on something entirely new, their own, then they aren't quite there yet.
> 
> I'd make an analogy to an author who writes only "shared world" stories, or only works with public domain worlds. They may be good writers, but until they do something uniquely their own, they're still not quite top-notch.




Just not seeing how this is a requirement for success? They have to make a system, just to make a system, regardless of whether it is necessary or needed in order to be considered successful by some? IMO, making the decision on whether this is necessary or not is the real key to success... perhaps WotC couldn't make the OGL work for them... but if Paizo can, I think that speaks volumes about their success.

As far as making something that is their own... they do that with every adventure path they put out.

I also disagree with the shared world analogy, if anything Paizo is using the foundation of the OGL and definitely building their own world, rules, adventures, etc. around it.





Umbran said:


> I think, eventually, they'll need to acknowledge and jump it, or stumble and never be a major player in the race again. Their starting situation was unique, but from this point on they are subject to the same market forces as every other game publisher out there.
> 
> Eventually, the market will be saturated with Pathfinder materials. That's the reality of the niche. They will not be able to sit on 3e's laurels forever if they want to maintain their market position and size as a company.




Are they really sitting on 3e's laurels. Again, I would say it takes more business savy to come up with the products and process to revitalize a system that the largest rpg company in the biz has procalimed "dead" and is actively competing against... than you are giving them credit for.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 6, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Eventually, the market will be saturated with Pathfinder materials.




Only insofar as the market gets saturated for any game's materials. Hence, new editions. It's reasonable to assume that somewhere down the line there will be a second edition of Pathfinder, and the core-adventure-supplement cycle will begin anew. Hopefully, it will be a long time from now 9as long as it needs to be, anyway) and it will preserve the same level of quality Paizo has shown so far.


----------



## ggroy (Aug 6, 2010)

Reynard said:


> Only insofar as the market gets saturated for any game's materials. Hence, new editions. It's reasonable to assume that somewhere down the line there will be a second edition of Pathfinder, and the core-adventure-supplement cycle will begin anew. Hopefully, it will be a long time from now 9as long as it needs to be, anyway) and it will preserve the same level of quality Paizo has shown so far.




Probably very few tabletop rpg companies can get away with saturating the market like how WotC did it during the 3.5E D&D era (ie. tons of Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Races of *, Complete *, environments, different monster types, etc ... hardcover books).

We'll see how long Pathfinder can maintain the treadmill, until even the hardcore Pathinder completionists get exhausted too and start to jump off.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 6, 2010)

For all the blunders 4e made with marketing, the Saving Throw comment there is not one of them.  Nobody likes save or dies.  WotC doesn't need to comment that humans need oxygen anymore then they need to claim "Well our customers claimed people don't like saving throw kills."  It's a fact of life.

If you see an issue in _that_ bit of marketing, you're going out of your way to find problems.  Fact is, Paizo _also_ axed off saving throws.  So hey, clearly it's not a WotC only problem.  And yet only one of those groups is under fire for it...


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 7, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Paizo seems to have sales, yes.  And a goodly sized staff, and some kinds of experience.
> 
> There's one thing Paizo hasn't done yet that many folks might consider required to cement their position:  create their own game from the ground up, and have it sell well.
> 
> WotC, White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games, and some others - all these folks have demonstrated the ability to build their own and refresh, keeping themselves in a market that saturates fairly quickly.  That's Paizo's next real hurdle.




But when you talk Steve Jackson Games and white Wolf, it ain't RPGs. Take a look at White Wolf's Gen Con Booth this year. Look at SJG rpg product release for the last few years. It's Munckin. Neither is a bad thing mind you but those companies are hardly models of role playing game companies that I'd want to hold up and say, "I want Paizo to be more like this." I like the actual printing and reading of RPG material.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 7, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Nobody likes save or dies.




I do. I also like energy drain that sucks levels. Both of those things add something to the game that cannot be replaced by simple "save or suck" or "you'll get better" mechanics.

So, what's that mean, other than you're painting with a broad brush?

More to the point of the thread, you can't equate 4E and Pathfinder as you seem to be trying to do. There are some common design theories present, since both came from common stock, but the whole point of Pathfinder, the whole reason that it exists and is successful, is that it doesn't do what 4E is, which can be mostly simply stated as "throw the baby out with the bath water".


----------



## Fifth Element (Aug 7, 2010)

Reynard said:


> I do. I also like energy drain that sucks levels. Both of those things add something to the game that cannot be replaced by simple "save or suck" or "you'll get better" mechanics.
> 
> So, what's that mean, other than you're painting with a broad brush?



Giving the Professor a charitable reading, which is generally a good idea on message boards, one assumes he did not mean *literally nobody* likes save-or-dies, just that a very small proportion of gamers does. WotC and Paizo both apparently agree with that assessment.


----------



## czak (Aug 7, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Paizo seems to have sales, yes.  And a goodly sized staff, and some kinds of experience.
> 
> There's one thing Paizo hasn't done yet that many folks might consider required to cement their position:  create their own game from the ground up, and have it sell well.
> 
> WotC, White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games, and some others - all these folks have demonstrated the ability to build their own and refresh, keeping themselves in a market that saturates fairly quickly.  That's Paizo's next real hurdle.




paizo.com - Paizo People: Lisa Stevens

 Given that the founder and CEO was with white wolf for vampire, and with wotc for magic and 3.0 you could almost say that would be nothing new for the company. Just a matter of time eh.


----------



## Votan (Aug 7, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I make no claims on what others can and cannot consider "success".  You make your own determination.  However, I wouldn't fault someone for feeling that until Paizo cuts it chops on something entirely new, their own, then they aren't quite there yet.
> 
> I'd make an analogy to an author who writes only "shared world" stories, or only works with public domain worlds.  They may be good writers, but until they do something uniquely their own, they're still not quite top-notch.




I freely admit to having both a 4E game (online) and a Pathfinder game.  As I continue to see new Pathfinder products I become increasingly impressed with the production values and the quality of writing.  While I agree that "success" is an arbitrary criterion, many successful projects have begun with IP that was developed by another party.

For example, Chris Claremont clearly added a lot to the X-Men in his 17 year run even if he never really did launch a successful book that he developed.  

Apple did a lot to take ideas first looked at by Xerox park and made some pretty amazing software.

In my opinion (admittedly a pure opinion), I think that you can start with another IP and end up putting your own stamp on it.  I admit that it is a higher threshold but I could see Paizo reaching it by adding enough value to the d20 basis.  That being said, D&D 3.5 was a pretty successful system so they are not setting themselves a low bar.


----------



## jaerdaph (Aug 7, 2010)

Well, Paizo can add "Sweeping the 2010 ENnies" now to their list of successes.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 7, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> Well, Paizo can add "Sweeping the 2010 ENnies" now to their list of successes.




I must admit that I was wrong in my predictions of their success.  I thought they would win about half. Wow. Quite a sweep.


----------



## jaerdaph (Aug 7, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I must admit that I was wrong in my predictions of their success.  I thought they would win about half. Wow. Quite a sweep.




[threadjack] It was cool to see the indy _Eclipse Phase_ RPG get some serious love tonight too.[/threadjack]


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Aug 7, 2010)

jaerdaph said:


> [threadjack] It was cool to see the indy _Eclipse Phase_ RPG get some serious love tonight too.[/threadjack]




And Shadowrun too.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 7, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I'm sorry Mistwell, I thought it was obvious I was talking about Role Playing Games, most specifically fantasy role playing games of the Dungeons and Dragons genre. I apologize for confusing you. If we factor in both board and card games, then of course, Paizo is still small potatoes.




So you're not counting Paizo products that are non-D&D specific either?



> I must disagree however about the number of non-4e players that seem enthused about buying essentials. Have you looked at this thread? There is more unanimity about us non-4e players _*not*_ buying essentials than anything I have ever seen in any thread asking preferences from a sub-group.  I think most of us are pleased WotC is trying to make some changes but that is not going to compel us to buy it.




I listed Darksun, Red Box, Gamma World, Star Wars, and Minatures.  You responded with Essentials, which is a line of products.  Red Box has part of Essentials, but is not the whole of Essentials. I have seen a lot of posts from non-4e players saying they will check out the Red Box itself, not to mention those other products I mentioned which are all RPG related.  Now, if you want me to link to a bunch of those people, I can (from a variety of boards).  But if I am going to go to the trouble of digging all the comments up and linking to them, I would need a commitment from you that you would surrender the point.  I'm not going to go find all those quotes only to have you shift the argument to something else.  Do we agree?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 7, 2010)

Reynard said:


> I do. I also like energy drain that sucks levels. Both of those things add something to the game that cannot be replaced by simple "save or suck" or "you'll get better" mechanics.




Congrats on being _exceedingly _rare.  No doubt a few people are like you and enjoy characters dying immidiately because hah hah save or die (and you realistically never had a defense against it).  But I'd put money down that you aren't the majority, not by far.  The fact is, SoDs *were* one of the major complaints about 3.5.  That's why just about _every_ post 3.5 game has tried to kill them off or at least shove them in the basement.

[quoteMore to the point of the thread, you can't equate 4E and Pathfinder as you seem to be trying do.[/quote]

_I just did it._  What can I say - the impossible becomes possible in my hands.



> There are some common design theories present, since both came from common stock, but the whole point of Pathfinder, the whole reason that it exists and is successful, is that it doesn't do what 4E is, which can be mostly simply stated as "throw the baby out with the bath water".




I honestly have no idea what you're getting at.

Premise: 4e is terrible look at this advertisement saying people dislike save or dies.

My statement: And yet you give Pathfinder which in turn tried to kill SoDs as well a free pass.

You: I hate 4e _so much_, guys.


----------



## Wayside (Aug 7, 2010)

Reynard said:


> First off, the only "first" in your list is D&D -- and that's arguable (Glorantha, Tekumel and Blackmoor all predate D&D).



Whence "in one way or another." I take a more pragmatic view of the word "first." More explanation below.



Reynard said:


> Warhammer was not the first tabletop fantasy miniatures game: there were Middle Earth and Hyborian wargames first.



Last I heard, those were pretty valuable franchises in their own right. There are some important differences, though. For example, they weren't developed in tandem with the game so that players got to watch the world evolve as they played. And the fact that they were miniatures games second and stories first probably didn't help. And were either of those commercial products?

There could've been Middle Earth and Hyborian RPGs before D&D, too, and I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't catch on any better there. In the case of Warhammer, location is also a factor. Your examples are all stateside. Which commercial miniatures game with a dedicated fantasy setting and ongoing support beat it (or Reaper, if you want to start there) to market in the UK?



Reynard said:


> Dune and Dune 2 were the first RTS games.



Except they were very different games, and not fantasy. Blizzard's brand of RTS differs quite a bit even from later examples like C&C and Company of Heroes. Of course being first isn't everything. World of Warcraft wasn't first. It just had a high degree of polish and traded on the brand equity that was already there. Part of my point is that this is what Paizo is a long way off from having.



Reynard said:


> The World of Darkness was pre-empted by Palladium by years with Nightbane



I completely disagree. The Palladium System plays nothing like the Storyteller System, and as similar as the settings may be in some vague thematic sense, they're substantively different. The "first" here isn't "an RPG with vampires." It's the whole way White Wolf approached RPGs, and the completely new audience they created in the process.



Reynard said:


> and Shadowrun was neither the first cyberpunk game nor the first science fantasy game.



If you're going to define "first" as "this product came out the day before that one" then we're at an impasse. The cyberpunk games I'm aware of were essentially simultaneous. Shadowrun, Cyberpunk 2020 and Cyberspace were all released within about a year of each other in the late 1980s. Unless some game I've never heard of was released in 1985, those three games were _all _first to market.



Reynard said:


> Second, I don't think you can qualify Pathfinder as a "D&D clone" because it exists very specifically as an alternative to the current edition of D&D.



It's a repackaging of D&D 3.5. I went with "clone" because lately it's a popular term for this kind of thing, but call it whatever you like. "Clone" isn't meant to denigrate. I think 3.5 was a solid game, so by extension I think Pathfinder is a solid game. I myself haven't bought it, but only because I already bought 3.5 and I don't like Golarion any more than I like the Forgotten Realms.



Reynard said:


> It is neither retroclone nor fantasy heartbreaker, but rather "spiritual successor". The biggest obstacle it has is that it does not possess the Brand Name (tm) of D&D, even if it possess the sould of that game.



As a D&D clone I certainly wouldn't call it a fantasy heartbreaker, other than rhetorically. Who knows what will happen when it's time for Pathfinder 2.0, though (I think this is part of Umbran's point). As for name recognition being its biggest obstacle...well yeah. Other companies are now allowed to copy Kleenex's way of packaging tissues, but Kleenex is still Kleenex. The law may let you copy their packaging, but you don't get to take their name, too. As for terms like "soul" and "spiritual successor," all I see there is marketing-speak, and I'd really prefer not to have another ENWorld discussion of the thisness of a whatsit. I die a little inside every time someone mentions the ship of Theseus.



Reynard said:


> For every first you can think of, there's a pretty good chance that a little research will reveal some ideas/products/whatever that beat it to market. It isn't being first, or even being best. it's being the right *whatever* at the right time.



Sure. It's the number one predictor, not the sole predictor. The right time rule is just a reconfiguration of the first rule: being somewhere first is usually the right time to be there. Of course some upstart can always come in and unseat the leader. Sony was on top of the world with the PS2, but they made a few mistakes and then Nintendo beat them up and took their lunch money with the Wii. Android is currently in the process of doing the same thing to the iPhone. It all sounds nice in theory, but RPGs don't move like technology.

And please, don't confuse my objectivity with a dislike for Paizo. They're good people and, from a rules standpoint, I think they have a good game. But it's just the one game, and commercially it isn't much compared to the franchises those other companies I mentioned have built.



Wicht said:


> Except he compared Paizo to White Wolf and Catalyst in making his "league" comparison.



I'm fairly sure I didn't mention Catalyst, since they only license Shadowrun from Topps. I also only mentioned Shadowrun tangentially, since Warhammer and Warcraft are better examples.



Wicht said:


> But how many people does FFG employ? I would be surprised if it was much more than 30.  And Games Workshop does not have as many employees as they used to have iirc. Even game companies like Mayfair and Days of Wonder probably don't employ much more than Paizo fulltime, if that.  WotC is sort of the exception to the rule when it comes to number of employees in a "Hobby" company. But again, a better comparison is between Paizo and WotC's RPG department.



What does the number of employees have to do with the value of the brand? The people behind the current Warhammer RPG work for FFG, not Games Workshop. The people behind the video games have worked for studios like Mythic Entertainment, Relic Entertainment, Black Hole Entertainment, Kuju Entertainment, Mindscape, Vigil Games, Random Games, MicroLeague, Holistic Design, DreamForge, Cyanide, RedLynx, Key Game and EA. That's a lot of people working on Warhammer and making money for Games Workshop without being employed there. ICv2 had FFG listed twice for Warhammer 40K RPGs in Q4 2009, and _FFG is just Games Workshop's licensee_.

That, incidentally, is my basis for comparison. These observations are intended to answer--and to sober--some of the more feverish posts in this thread. They are not an insult to Paizo, since there's nothing insulting about being a successful company.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 7, 2010)

Reynard said:


> I do. I also like energy drain that sucks levels. Both of those things add something to the game that cannot be replaced by simple "save or suck" or "you'll get better" mechanics.




Save or Dies make things a lottery.  Don't want them back.

As for elements that can't be replaced by simple "save or suck" or "you get better" mechanics, 4e has the poison/disease track - which is an elegant and flexible replacement for the clunky mechanics of level drain (for one thing it means that your condition in some cases can get _worse_.)  It's not often used in my experience (for that matter nor was level drain), but works well for things like Lycanthropy, infection by certain parasites, and poisons.



> 4E is, which can be mostly simply stated as "throw the baby out with the bath water".




I'd have said 4e was more like "see which sacred cows taste better barbequed" - and with essentials it's even barbequing its _own_ sacred cows.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 7, 2010)

Mistwell said:


> I listed Darksun, Red Box, Gamma World, Star Wars, and Minatures.  You responded with Essentials, which is a line of products.  Red Box has part of Essentials, but is not the whole of Essentials. I have seen a lot of posts from non-4e players saying they will check out the Red Box itself, not to mention those other products I mentioned which are all RPG related.  Now, if you want me to link to a bunch of those people, I can (from a variety of boards).  But if I am going to go to the trouble of digging all the comments up and linking to them, I would need a commitment from you that you would surrender the point.  I'm not going to go find all those quotes only to have you shift the argument to something else.  Do we agree?




I'm not really wanting to argue about it, to tell the truth. I acknowledge there are those who don't play 4e who might be interested in the Essentials box (and more interested in Gamma World than that), but I just quibble with the word "lots." The one poll asking about essentials placed it at about a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio. But its not worth arguing over.  It will be what it will be. 

edit: also there are plenty of people that really like Star WArs Saga, yes. But it seems curious you would put it in a list of things that might draw Pathfinder players back to WotC considering its a different genre and Wizards dropped the line. If anything, dropping SWS seemed to make a lot of people more irritated than not at the company.


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 7, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Save or Dies make things a lottery.  Don't want them back.
> 
> As for elements that can't be replaced by simple "save or suck" or "you get better" mechanics, 4e has the poison/disease track - which is an elegant and flexible replacement for the clunky mechanics of level drain (for one thing it means that your condition in some cases can get _worse_.)  It's not often used in my experience (for that matter nor was level drain), but works well for things like Lycanthropy, infection by certain parasites, and poisons.
> 
> ...




Hilarious sorry cant give a xp.. gotta spread it around... agree entirely.


----------



## Wicht (Aug 7, 2010)

Wayside said:


> What does the number of employees have to do with the value of the brand?




My bad, I thought you were talking about being in some sort of "league," not the value of the brand. My point was that Paizo most certainly plays in the same league as these others, considering their products sit on the shelf right next to each other and Paizo has size, sales and experience to rival almost any other RPG company.

As far as brand value, of course Dungeons and Dragons (and Warhammer) has better brand value and pedigree. This has little to do with being first to the market and everything to do with the fact they are seasoned commodities that have weathered changes and time. But this goes back to a point I made earlier to you. Pathfinder is only 1 or two years old. When Warhammer was 1 or 2 years old they did not have any of the things you are mentioning they have today. These things take time and some of your posts seem to be suggesting it is unreasonable to assume Paizo will continue to grow their brand in the same way others have grown their brands. As far as I can tell, Paizo is managing their brand very well for all of its youthfulness.


----------



## Reynard (Aug 7, 2010)

Neonchameleon said:


> Save or Dies make things a lottery.  Don't want them back.
> 
> As for elements that can't be replaced by simple "save or suck" or "you get better" mechanics, 4e has the poison/disease track - which is an elegant and flexible replacement for the clunky mechanics of level drain (for one thing it means that your condition in some cases can get _worse_.)  It's not often used in my experience (for that matter nor was level drain), but works well for things like Lycanthropy, infection by certain parasites, and poisons.




FWIW, I really like the 4E disease system, too., and have incorporated it into my PF game -- including using it for magical curses and insanity. But it doesn't *replace* save or die or energy drain.

Here's an important thing, IMO: it is damn near impossible to produce *actual* fear in a player at the game table, and equally difficult to get a player to make his character act as if terrified of some monster. However, give that monster a save or die or level draining touch/gaze/breath/whatever, and suddenly in game you have terrified PCs run by terrified players. Even Conan got "scared" when faced with the truly weird monstrosities of the ages buried beneath the earth. Whether it was the original design intent of save or die and level drain, the effect was just this.

That's why it is worthwhile and why I think you'd find that in general DMs are more positive about it and players are more negative (those there's exceptions both directions, of course). More to the point, they shouldn't be removed. Alternatives should be offered and advice should be given, but not taking them out of the game.


----------



## carmachu (Aug 7, 2010)

Wicht said:


> I'm not really wanting to argue about it, to tell the truth. I acknowledge there are those who don't play 4e who might be interested in the Essentials box (and more interested in Gamma World than that), but I just quibble with the word "lots." The one poll asking about essentials placed it at about a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio. But its not worth arguing over. It will be what it will be.
> 
> edit: also there are plenty of people that really like Star WArs Saga, yes. But it seems curious you would put it in a list of things that might draw Pathfinder players back to WotC considering its a different genre and Wizards dropped the line. If anything, dropping SWS seemed to make a lot of people more irritated than not at the company.





In our group its unaimous that we dont like 4e. However, there were several folks(2-3 in a group of 8) that love SWS. If 4e were more like SWS as they were hoping 4e would, there might have been converts.

Essentials wont change their minds.


----------



## Kralin Thornberry (Aug 7, 2010)

Reynard said:


> FWIW, I really like the 4E disease system, too., and have incorporated it into my PF game -- including using it for magical curses and insanity. But it doesn't *replace* save or die or energy drain.
> 
> Here's an important thing, IMO: it is damn near impossible to produce *actual* fear in a player at the game table, and equally difficult to get a player to make his character act as if terrified of some monster. However, give that monster a save or die or level draining touch/gaze/breath/whatever, and suddenly in game you have terrified PCs run by terrified players. Even Conan got "scared" when faced with the truly weird monstrosities of the ages buried beneath the earth. Whether it was the original design intent of save or die and level drain, the effect was just this.
> 
> That's why it is worthwhile and why I think you'd find that in general DMs are more positive about it and players are more negative (those there's exceptions both directions, of course). More to the point, they shouldn't be removed. Alternatives should be offered and advice should be given, but not taking them out of the game.




The problem is the players are "afraid" because a crappy roll on a "save or die" roll could kill of their character that they (potentially) put a lot of time/energy into, and 1 single roll could ruin all of that.

I have fallen victim to several "save or die" rolls, and it's not a lot of fun sitting around for the rest of the session doing nothing because of 1 bad roll.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 7, 2010)

Kralin Thornberry said:


> I have fallen victim to several "save or die" rolls, and it's not a lot of fun sitting around for the rest of the session doing nothing because of 1 bad roll.




Is it better if you sit around for the rest of the session because it was a series of bad rolls?


----------



## Garthanos (Aug 7, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Is it better if you sit around for the rest of the session because it was a series of bad rolls?




Generally a series implies choices and more circumstances to change your fate with them... at least in the latest version of the game this is true.l


----------



## billd91 (Aug 7, 2010)

Garthanos said:


> Generally a series implies choices and more circumstances to change your fate with them... at least in the latest version of the game this is true.l




There's even a series of choices that occurs before a save or die single roll as well. I suppose with multiple rolls, depending on what's going on, there may be ways to arrest the slide. But how many rolls is that? How many does it take to ameliorate the frustration of a single save or die roll? Or is a player, doomed by a single die or multiple dice, really going to feel different having to sit and make up a new character or wait to be raise?


----------



## Reynard (Aug 7, 2010)

Kralin Thornberry said:


> The problem is the players are "afraid" because a crappy roll on a "save or die" roll could kill of their character that they (potentially) put a lot of time/energy into, and 1 single roll could ruin all of that.
> 
> I have fallen victim to several "save or die" rolls, and it's not a lot of fun sitting around for the rest of the session doing nothing because of 1 bad roll.




And so, when the save or die monster becomes apparent, you (and your character) will behave in such a way as to avoid having to make that saving throw in the first place -- which is exactly what i am talking about. it isn't quite "terror" but it looks enough like it to call it a duck.


----------



## bouncyhead (Aug 7, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Congrats on being _exceedingly _ rare




I think you overstate.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 7, 2010)

bouncyhead said:


> I think you overstate.



*Pokes Reynard*
No, he's exceedingly rare all right. Doesn't look like he's been cooked at _all_. 

Since most SoD effects have been removed from Pathfinder it seems like rather a moot point anyway. A rallying cry, and a bit of a straw man.

Diseases and poisons... I like the way Pathfinder handles them, but don't know enough about how they are handled in 4e to really compare.

The Auld Grump, who needs to whittle a list of 26 potential players down to 12....


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 7, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Probably very few tabletop rpg companies can get away with saturating the market like how WotC did it during the 3.5E D&D era (ie. tons of Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Races of *, Complete *, environments, different monster types, etc ... hardcover books).
> 
> We'll see how long Pathfinder can maintain the treadmill, until even the hardcore Pathinder completionists get exhausted too and start to jump off.




I started playing in the 1e era, but I started DMing/purchasing product during the 2e era.

Neither WOTC or PAIZO have come close IMO to saturating the market BY THEMSELVES. The OGL gives the impression of a busy release schedule IMO. Bullgrit has that excel chart which shows the product release schedule and frankly, even during the heights of 3.x, the only time WOTC released more product than TSR during the 2e era was the month when TSR had "problems at the printer".

(For example, currently, 4e releases one product a month roughly -two sometimes with one being an adventure...I grew up in the era when there was 2-3 new products from TSR EVERY WEEK).


----------



## AllisterH (Aug 7, 2010)

re: WOTC happy with D&D sales.

Someone earlier mentioned that WOTC would need to realize that D&D may never become as successful as M:TG and or Duelmasters. Personally, I think WOTC itself knows this and is ok with it.

While D&D may not be as successful as M:TG, I have a hunch it _IS_ more successful than either Axis & Allies or Heroscape


----------



## Maggan (Aug 7, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Someone earlier mentioned that WOTC would need to realize that D&D may never become as successful as M:TG and or Duelmasters. Personally, I think WOTC itself knows this and is ok with it.




Yeah, given that WotC has the financial information on the performance of D&D at least back 10 years, I'm pretty certain they know exactly what to expect in regards to sales.

Whether they are getting the sales they expect is another question. I believe they do, but that's mostly because I want to believe so, not because I have any numbers to back it up.

/M


----------



## Reynard (Aug 7, 2010)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Since *most* SoD effects have been removed from Pathfinder it seems like rather a moot point anyway. A rallying cry, and a bit of a straw man.




Emphasis mine. Most, but not all, plus the inherent backward compatibility of PF allows me to re-include 3.5 SoD without much trouble.



> Diseases and poisons... I like the way Pathfinder handles them, but don't know enough about how they are handled in 4e to really compare.




4E disease differ from PF ones in that 4E disease have a progression chart -- every time period (usually a day) a save is rolled and if successful the condition gets better and if failed it gets worse. This is as opposed to PF's kind of flat disease system, where every time period a save is made or an effect happens, which is the same from time period to time period. The 4E way is just more flavorful IMO, and represents one of the handful of areas where I think 4E really nailed it.


----------



## El Mahdi (Aug 7, 2010)

Reynard said:


> ...4E disease differ from PF ones in that 4E disease have a progression chart ...




I've heard that some are visually transmitted also...


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 8, 2010)

Reynard said:


> FWIW, I really like the 4E disease system, too., and have incorporated it into my PF game -- including using it for magical curses and insanity. But it doesn't *replace* save or die or energy drain.
> 
> Here's an important thing, IMO: it is damn near impossible to produce *actual* fear in a player at the game table, and equally difficult to get a player to make his character act as if terrified of some monster. However, give that monster a save or die or level draining touch/gaze/breath/whatever, and suddenly in game you have terrified PCs run by terrified players. Even Conan got "scared" when faced with the truly weird monstrosities of the ages buried beneath the earth. Whether it was the original design intent of save or die and level drain, the effect was just this.
> 
> That's why it is worthwhile and why I think you'd find that in general DMs are more positive about it and players are more negative (those there's exceptions both directions, of course). More to the point, they shouldn't be removed. Alternatives should be offered and advice should be given, but not taking them out of the game.




In my experience, what you need to terrorise players isn't necessarily level drain.  It's long term consequences.  Level drain is merely one example of a long term problem and save or die a second.  And both of them are clunky and fundamentally disempowering.

Level drain nerfs characters long term, which is why people fear it.  The condition track is in many ways _worse_ for two reasons: the conditions can get worse and they can get permanent.  Save or Die is just like playing Russian Roulette.


----------



## Kralin Thornberry (Aug 8, 2010)

Reynard said:


> And so, when the save or die monster becomes apparent, you (and your character) will behave in such a way as to avoid having to make that saving throw in the first place -- which is exactly what i am talking about. it isn't quite "terror" but it looks enough like it to call it a duck.




But I would counter with:  does my character know the creature, and if not, why would I be afraid of a save or die effect I do not know about?  Player vs. Character knowledge...

OR

Surprise round, and I get hit with a save or die effect, and die.

OR

I've fought the creature before, and my character wasn't effected by the save or die mechanic, so why would he/she be afraid of it?

If the player decides that a character should be afraid of a creature, that's fine, but don't give me a power that kills my character with no other option.  My characters are not walking encylopedias of monster knowledge.  Even if I has the player know what the monster can do, I will play my character accordingly.

Also, I would rather have a series of chances of failing at something (like the 4E death saves system), which would give my party members a chance to help than have 1 shot, and if I fail, I die.

I also never liked the level draining mechanic either.  I understand the concept of it, that the creatures are draining your life force from you, but when you are losing levels, they take experience points from the character, thereby making it effectively that the creatures are draining experience and not life from a character, unlike losing healing surges in 4E.

Don't think I'm saying "3.x sux, and 4E roolz".  I'm not.  I would rather play 4E, I like the system more than the 3.x system, but I don't think that the 4E system is perfect.  I just like the fact that they did away with the Save vs. Die mechanic.


----------



## Kralin Thornberry (Aug 8, 2010)

billd91 said:


> There's even a series of choices that occurs before a save or die single roll as well. I suppose with multiple rolls, depending on what's going on, there may be ways to arrest the slide. But how many rolls is that? How many does it take to ameliorate the frustration of a single save or die roll? Or is a player, doomed by a single die or multiple dice, really going to feel different having to sit and make up a new character or wait to be raise?




I have had characters surprised by creatures (a beholder is one that comes to mind), that hit the character with an attack that required a save vs. die roll that I failed before I ever got a chance to do anything.


----------



## The Little Raven (Aug 8, 2010)

Perram said:


> I've seen that graph posted quite a few months ago, certainly before July 2010, so I believe that July 2009 might be an accurate date for the sales figures.  I don't thing that that pie chart takes into account Pathfinder Sales this year at all, one way or the other.




...

Pathfinder was released in August 2009. How could a chart which tracks 11 months of sales for the book end a month before the book was released?


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 21, 2011)

Ahnehnois said:


> I didn't know what "Paizo" was before Pathfinder, so perhaps I'm guilty of underestimating them too. However, I think what WotC really underestimated was the game and the fans. 3.5 is a really good game, and people really liked it, and by releasing a wildly different game that doesn't share many of its strengths with a marketing effort that really trashed 3.5 and prior editions, they alienated a significant part of their own fanbase. All of this occurred before PF; so as I see it, Paizo simply jumped on an opportunity. If they hadn't someone else would have. It's just smart business.




Well, hindsight is 20/20.  Paizo's gamble looks like sheer brilliance now.  But at the time that they made their decision to create Pathfinder, it was a huge risk.  There was no guarantee that sufficient numbers of customers would stay away from 4E to support Pathfinder.

There was no guarantee that, out of the number of customers who didn't move to 4E, enough would be interested in the Pathfinder changes to the rules.

And there was what....a year long delay from the release of 4E to the release of Pathfinder?  It was a risk that those customer who stayed away from 4E *wouldn't* end up giving in, and starting to play in the new edition.

I'm glad they made those decisions.....but I agree with those who state that Paizo's success  may have surprised even Paizo.  I'm sure they hoped for it......but that's a far cry from expecting it.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 21, 2011)

Dykstrav said:


> But a bit more on topic... Given the nature of the OGL, I think that someone would have come along to sell new material to 3.5 fans if Paizo wasn't around. It's basic supply and demand. The market demanded more OGL 3.5 material and the company that decided to supply the products was Paizo--it could have been someone else if Paizo wasn't around, but for my part, I'm glad that it's Paizo. My flavor of D&D is in good hands.




Did the market demand more 3E?  Wasn't that the point of the d20 glut?  There was more product than demand?  Hence the need to get 4E out the door?

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 21, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> First, I don't think Paizo would have been able to develop or host DDI.  So that's probably a non-issue.  As far as allowing Paizo to keep Dungeon and Dragon: I don't think it would have been economically feasible or beneficial for either WotC or Paizo to do so, considering the plan of making it an integral part of DDI.




I'm not sure I agree here.  With the right programmer, it doesn't have to cost a lot to build an application like that.  I've known programmers who've created much larger and more complicated systems than DDI.  That having been said, I guess it depends on how many resources you define as "a lot"......development budget of $30,000?  $300,000?  $3,000,000?  What could Paizo handle?



El Mahdi said:


> As far as Pathfinder, maybe Paizo wouldn't have developed it or maybe they still would have, but I don't think it's a factor.  Pathfinder has not _stolen_ players from 4E and _is not a_ _competitor_ of WotC.  Pathfinder came out well after 4E...and well after the fan base was already polarized.  I think people that picked up Pathfinder (for the most part), were those who had already decided they didn't want to go the 4E route, but still wanted 3E support.  WotC has lost nothing because of Pathfinder.  3E fans have gained significantly because of Pathfinder.  Not necessarily a Win-Win, probably more of a _Win-Didn't Lose_ scenario...which is probably all that really matters as far as WotC is concerned.




I can only speak from personal experience here.  I know I waited before buying into 3E.  And I waited with 4E.  I wasn't enamoured of the changes I was reading about....but in my area, everyone seemed to be moving over.  Then Paizo announced their plans, and released that first beta, and I decided instead of biting the bullet and buying into 4E, I'd wait and see if Pathfinder was any good.  When the successive betas came out, and I had a chance to see the changes, I was hooked.  If it hadn't been for Pathfinder, I'd have bought into 4E at some point.  Now I don't have to.....and that's pretty cool!

Banshee


----------



## BryonD (Jan 21, 2011)

Banshee16 said:


> but I agree with those who state that Paizo's success  may have surprised even Paizo.  I'm sure they hoped for it......but that's a far cry from expecting it.



I'd refine that.

They knew well out that there was a lot of discontent with 4E.
(They knew well out that there was some discontent with 4E inside their own walls, not to mention the whole GSL issue.)

They had plenty of attention and fanbase.

They had plenty of reason to hope and even expect to be a great success.

The success was no surprise.

The MASSIVENESS of the success was the surprise.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 21, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> For all the blunders 4e made with marketing, the Saving Throw comment there is not one of them.  Nobody likes save or dies.  WotC doesn't need to comment that humans need oxygen anymore then they need to claim "Well our customers claimed people don't like saving throw kills."  It's a fact of life.




In other news, baseball players don't like strikeouts, but I don't foresee MLB taking those out of the game.  Save or dies bring a tension to the game nothing else does (well, besides level drain).  Used sparingly, they invigorate a game.

Edit:  Oops.  Didn't realize I was replying to a 6 month old thread.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 22, 2011)

JRRNeiklot said:


> In other news, baseball players don't like strikeouts, but I don't foresee MLB taking those out of the game.  Save or dies bring a tension to the game nothing else does (well, besides level drain).  Used sparingly, they invigorate a game.
> 
> Edit:  Oops.  Didn't realize I was replying to a 6 month old thread.




SSSoDs will bring three times as much tension as a single SoD does, and it's a better game mechanic to boot.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 22, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> SSSoDs will bring three times as much tension as a single SoD does, and it's a better game mechanic to boot.




Subjective.  I would rather have a tool and the option to use it or not useit... than to have someone decide for me what is or isn't appropriate to my game... I feel like alot of this went down in 4e, where the category and tools for in-game "fun" were decided, in a much more narrow manner, than 3.5.  YMMV of course.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 22, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> SSSoDs will bring three times as much tension as a single SoD does, and it's a better game mechanic to boot.




I'd agree with Imaro that this is a wildly subjective assessment.

But even with that it is hard to figure how getting three chances to avoid something is more tension than having one chance.



I VASTLY prefer SOD as being an element present in the game.  The game is about AVOIDING certain hazards at least as much as plowing through them.

And it MIGHT be a better "game" mechanic depending on what you prefer.  But I don't see how there is any *reasonable* assessment of how it is a better method for simulating certain elements of classic foes.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 22, 2011)

BryonD said:


> But even with that it is hard to figure how getting three chances to avoid something is more tension than having one chance.




Because it isn't static.  It's not just "roll three tims woops you're better," it's a condition that gets worse every round.

Hey, real quick, grab a d20.  Roll it.  Go on, do it.  Did you roll above a fifteen?  Ok, your character is dead.  Did that feel tense?  Probably not.

Now, roll it once.  Did you get above a fifteen?  Your movement is being affected and you're slowing down.  Roll it again.  Still no?  You find yourself immobilized, your limbs achingly freezing into place, your weapon hanging limply from your hands.  Try again.  You got it this time?  Whew!  You just barely made it.

Or, to quote Hitchcock, true tension is seeing the bomb under the table.



> I VASTLY prefer SOD as being an element present in the game.  The game is about AVOIDING certain hazards at least as much as plowing through them.




There's nothing "avoidant" about an SoD though.  You can't learn a lesson from it.  Did you roll over a fifteen?  Ok, you died.  Now, what did we all learn?  Nothing!  You're dead!  You didn't learn a single thing, especially considering how hilariously arbitrary it is.



> And it MIGHT be a better "game" mechanic depending on what you prefer.  But I don't see how there is any *reasonable* assessment of how it is a better method for simulating certain elements of classic foes.




No classic hero ever lost to an SoD.  Old stories aren't simulations.  They're _stories_.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 22, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Because it isn't static.  It's not just "roll three tims woops you're better," it's a condition that gets worse every round.



I know.  That is part of what makes it "wrong" by my standards.  There are situations where it applies just fine.   But looking at medusa does not progessively get worse.



> Hey, real quick, grab a d20.  Roll it.  Go on, do it.  Did you roll above a fifteen?  Ok, your character is dead.  Did that feel tense?  Probably not.



Wow, that sucks.  Do you really DM that way?



> Now, roll it once.  Did you get above a fifteen?  Your movement is being affected and you're slowing down.  Roll it again.  Still no?  You find yourself immobilized, your limbs achingly freezing into place, your weapon hanging limply from your hands.  Try again.  You got it this time?  Whew!  You just barely made it.
> 
> Or, to quote Hitchcock, true tension is seeing the bomb under the table.



I'm boggled that you need three rolls to get the tension in seeing the bomb under the table.  Right now I'm truly convinced that you don't even get the difference being discussed here.

You see the bomb under the table and you KNOW that you only have one shot to disarm it.  That is a lot more scary than knowing that if you screw up it will only shock you and if you screw up again it will still only shock you, you have to screw up three times running for it to do lasting damage.

Your descriptions fly in the face of the point that there is a difference between seeing a bomb and disarming the bomb.




> There's nothing "avoidant" about an SoD though.  You can't learn a lesson from it.  Did you roll over a fifteen?  Ok, you died.  Now, what did we all learn?  Nothing!  You're dead!



Wow, that sucks.  Do you really DM that way?

You are adding strong evidence to the whole argument about 4E just being a mini battle game.

In *MY* games there is a whole universe of events that lead up to the encounters.  Once you get to the point of NOW you roll to see if you looked at Medusa or not, it is down to the roll.  But things happen before that.  



> You didn't learn a single thing, especially considering how hilariously arbitrary it is.



 Well, if getting into a situation is hilariously arbitrary in your gaming experience then Wow, that sucks.





> No classic hero ever lost to an SoD.  Old stories aren't simulations.  They're _stories_.



Oh, of course, the stories are always about the hero that won in the end.  But from the story-tellers point of view the event is over and is history.  From the hero's point of view it was a danger that was faced and overcome.  You can't overcome a threat you don't face.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 22, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I know.  That is part of what makes it "wrong" by my standards.  There are situations where it applies just fine.   But looking at medusa does not progessively get worse.




When D&D literally has one medusa and not an entire race of them, you will be closer to the truth.




> Wow, that sucks.  Do you really DM that way?



No, people who use SoDs do, because that's literally what a save or die does.  You roll your save.  And then if you fail, you die.



> I'm boggled that you need three rolls to get the tension in seeing the bomb under the table.  Right now I'm truly convinced that you don't even get the difference being discussed here.
> 
> You see the bomb under the table and you KNOW that you only have one shot to disarm it.  That is a lot more scary than knowing that if you screw up it will only shock you and if you screw up again it will still only shock you, you have to screw up three times running for it to do lasting damage.
> 
> Your descriptions fly in the face of the point that there is a difference between seeing a bomb and disarming the bomb.



That's...not what the bomb example is.  It has nothing to do with disarming the bomb

SSSoD and SoD is the difference between suspense and surprise.  SoD - you look through the window, woops, gaze attack, roll a save.  BOOM!  You're dead.  SSSoD - each round is a progression on getting worse, with the situation growing more tense, until finally either the sigh of relief at the condition ending, or the dramatic ending of the last failed save.

It's the difference between a big surprise then boom, and the suspense of knowing the danger and seeing it creeping up.



> Wow, that sucks.  Do you really DM that way?
> 
> You are adding strong evidence to the whole argument about 4E just being a mini battle game.



Complete non sequitur.



> In *MY* games there is a whole universe of events that lead up to the encounters.  Once you get to the point of NOW you roll to see if you looked at Medusa or not, it is down to the roll.  But things happen before that.




Nonetheless, the Save or Die goes as follows: You roll a save, and then you die.  The end.



> Oh, of course, the stories are always about the hero that won in the end.  But from the story-tellers point of view the event is over and is history.  From the hero's point of view it was a danger that was faced and overcome.  You can't overcome a threat you don't face.



You're only proving that stories - and your signature - don't equate to gaming.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 23, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> There's nothing "avoidant" about an SoD though.  You can't learn a lesson from it.  Did you roll over a fifteen?  Ok, you died.  Now, what did we all learn?  Nothing!  You're dead!  You didn't learn a single thing, especially considering how hilariously arbitrary it is.



I'd have to disagree with this point, as much as I generally agree with you and dislike SoD: you can learn something. You can learn to play D&D in a sort of "max protect" defensive mode where you have counters available for everything, and you go through the game 10' at a time tapping with your 10' poles.

That's a rather extreme statement, but the gist of it stands: if you want to be successful at a game that has a large number of save or die elements to it, especially arbitrary ones, you have to learn to be prepared with scrolls, wands and defensive buffs operating all the time.

I've played in more than a few games like this, and I absolutely detest them. There's nothing that makes a game less like the source material of books or movies than a group who over-prepares for everything. One group I played in, for instance had spells like Death Ward operating on the entire group all the time. One of the players maintained an excel spreadsheet of the group's buffing equipment. Wow that was fun.

As an example, in the oft-used Medusa example, you can prep for it, and turn an exciting encounter into an absolute snooze fest. So yes, I think you can learn something from a SoD situation, I just think it might not be the lesson the GM might prefer you learn.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 23, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> No, people who use SoDs do, because that's literally what a save or die does.  You roll your save.  And then if you fail, you die.



You obviously don't grasp the point I am making.



> That's...not what the bomb example is.  It has nothing to do with disarming the bomb



Disarming, escaping, whatever...  Saves, be it one or three are not about *knowing* there is a bomb, they are about avoiding the RESULT of  the bomb.  And I have no idea what YOU meant by the example, but I DO know that Hitchcock was talking about the impending doom and the need to avoid it, not simple awareness.



> SSSoD and SoD is the difference between suspense and surprise.  SoD - you look through the window, woops, gaze attack, roll a save.  BOOM!  You're dead.  SSSoD - each round is a progression on getting worse, with the situation growing more tense, until finally either the sigh of relief at the condition ending, or the dramatic ending of the last failed save.



Wrong.  Again, obviously you have completely failed to grasp the point I am making.  



> It's the difference between a big surprise then boom, and the suspense of knowing the danger and seeing it creeping up.



And repeating the same misunderstanding does not improve it.



> Complete non sequitur.



Not if you get the point.  It perfectly "follows" if you do.



> Nonetheless, the Save or Die goes as follows: You roll a save, and then you die.  The end.



Yep, you don't get it.



> You're only proving that stories - and your signature - don't equate to gaming.



chuckle.  I honestly feel sorry for you.  You have NO IDEA what you are missing out on.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 23, 2011)

SteveC said:


> I've played in more than a few games like this, and I absolutely detest them. There's nothing that makes a game less like the source material of books or movies than a group who over-prepares for everything. One group I played in, for instance had spells like Death Ward operating on the entire group all the time. One of the players maintained an excel spreadsheet of the group's buffing equipment. Wow that was fun.



That does sound like crap.  Sorry about that.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 23, 2011)

Hey Prof, just for the record, I'm cool that you play a radically different game experience than me.  Just understand that my game style does exist.  

I accept that in YOUR games SOD means X.
You seem unable to accept that in other people's games there is a wildly different dynamic.

If you continue to reply by demanding that my game experience must be analyzed through your limited window of interpretation, then it doesn't add anything and there is not point in discussing it further.

If you want to go back and actually address the points I expressed earlier today, I'll be happy to follow up.  But I won't hold my breath.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 23, 2011)

BryonD said:


> That does sound like crap.  Sorry about that.



Well it's no big thing... that's why I moved on to other games. For me, there are many games that bring more of what I'm looking for to the table, including 4E. Obviously a lot of people disagree, and more power to them.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 23, 2011)

This week in my Tuesday night Pathfinder game, the party ran into a 13th level cleric with the destruction domain.  I run my game with several house rules to help foster an old school feel.  For example, disintegrate, um, disintegrates.  Destruction is save or die and harm has no save.  In one encounter, the cleric hit one player with all 3 of those.  He was the biggest threat at the time.  He made both saves and survived the encounter with 4 hit points.  It was a great battle and the tension was thick in the air when he rolled both saves.  With SSS or die, you get *failed save - yawn* - *failed save - yawn* And then you get tension on the last roll.  No one cares about the first two.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 23, 2011)

@banshee



Banshee16 said:


> Well, hindsight is 20/20. Paizo's gamble looks like sheer brilliance now. But at the time that they made their decision to create Pathfinder, it was a huge risk. There was no guarantee that sufficient numbers of customers would stay away from 4E to support Pathfinder...




I believe you are working on an assumption that may or may not be correct...though I think it's probably not. The assumption is that players had to stay away from 4E in order to have a sufficient number of people to support Pathfinder.

Why is it that we assume that if someone plays one of those games (4E or Pathfinder), that same person can't, or won't, also play the other?

Why is it that we also assume, that had 4E been more popular and garnered more 3E fans to it, that Pathfinder (or any continuation of 3.x) would not have been possible?

I think we are without sufficient data (outside of WotC and Paizo market research and polls), to allow for such assumptions.  I also believe there's an "Us versus Them" and "Either/Or" presumption present in such assumptions.



Banshee16 said:


> ...I can only speak from personal experience here. I know I waited before buying into 3E. And I waited with 4E. I wasn't enamoured of the changes I was reading about....but in my area, everyone seemed to be moving over. Then Paizo announced their plans, and released that first beta, and I decided instead of biting the bullet and buying into 4E, I'd wait and see if Pathfinder was any good. When the successive betas came out, and I had a chance to see the changes, I was hooked. If it hadn't been for Pathfinder, I'd have bought into 4E at some point. Now I don't have to.....and that's pretty cool!




This seems a bit contradictory to me, so I'm attempting to gain some clarification so as to avoid making any assumptions...

If most people in your area seemed to be heading towards 4E, and you felt you were probably going to need to also (even though you weren't attracted to 4E), was it because you felt you wouldn't have enough people left to continue playing 3.x...?

If the above is the case, then what difference did having Pathfinder make? If there weren't enough players available for 3.x due to the majority switching to 4E, then how were there enough people to play Pathfinder? And if there were enough people that didn't switch to 4E, why didn't you and they just continue with 3.x...?

Was it "cool" that you didn't have to buy into 4E (due to the development of Pathfinder), because it meant you didn't have to buy into a system you weren't enamored of...or did you mean something else?

Also, since you seem to have a good read on your area, can you tell me how many people in your area play both Pathfinder and 4E...?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 23, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Hey Prof, just for the record, I'm cool that you play a radically different game experience than me.  Just understand that my game style does exist.
> 
> I accept that in YOUR games SOD means X.
> You seem unable to accept that in other people's games there is a wildly different dynamic.
> ...




All you did was reply to all of my statements with one liners followed by insults, so I'll respond to points when I begin to see them.

Incidentally, you seem to be unaware of the bomb under the table, as it has nothing to do with avoiding or disarming or getting rid of the bomb at all.  Here:

"_There is a distinct difference between "suspense" and "surprise," and  yet many pictures continually confuse the two. I'll explain what I  mean. _
_
We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let's suppose that  there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and  then all of a sudden, "Boom!" There is an explosion. The public is  surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely  ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense  situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it,  probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public  is aware the bomb is going to explode at one o'clock and there is a  clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In  these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating  because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is  longing to warn the characters on the screen: "You shouldn't be talking  about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it is about  to explode!"

_In an SoD, there is no suspense.  There is "You are attacked *roll your save* welp that's it."  It is *surprise*.  It's a sudden "Oh no!" followed by "Welp that's it!"  You have yet to comment on this.

In SSSoD you have a moving transition from healthy to non-healthy.  You have the tension of *knowing* what is coming, and watching it get worse with each failed save.  The bomb is ticking every round, and when it goes off, it's not a surprise, but a culmination of the applied tension.

Let's talk tension.  There was actually a game called Tension, or The Void as it became here in the States.  I won't go deep into the game, but the primary focus of the mechanics is based around color.  Everything you do costs color - even doing nothing - and you have to constantly collect more to avoid dying.  It's an incredibly, incredibly tense atmosphere of constantly dying and needing to reaffirm your life.

That's tension.  Watching things slowly get worse.  A big surprise isn't tension.  A half orc suddenly critting you for all your HP with an x4 greataxe isn't tension.  It's a big surprise.  Wow, that sure was a 20 the horc rolled!  But that's it.  Tension is in a disease that slowly saps at you, eventually immobilizing you.  Tension is a _slow_ death, not a quick one.  It's something tied into a lot of 4e - it's why you have healing surges instead of just "lots of HP," because they _don't come back_, and they show your physical peak descending, right until that last fight where there's no healing left and it's do or die.



JRRNeiklot said:


> This week in my Tuesday night Pathfinder game,  the party ran into a 13th level cleric with the destruction domain.  I  run my game with several house rules to help foster an old school feel.   For example, disintegrate, um, disintegrates.  Destruction is save or  die and harm has no save.  In one encounter, the cleric hit one player  with all 3 of those.  He was the biggest threat at the time.  He made  both saves and survived the encounter with 4 hit points.  It was a great  battle and the tension was thick in the air when he rolled both saves.   With SSS or die, you get *failed save - yawn* - *failed save - yawn*  And then you get tension on the last roll.  No one cares about the first  two.






You realize that failing the first two saves actually DOES do something  to your character, right?  It's not just giving you two extra saves - each time you fail those there's a penalty.  So in a paralysis example, first you are Slowed, then Immobilized, and then turned to stone.

Again, it amuses me that when I talk about 3e it comes from literally  years of experience, and when so many talk about 4e it comes from the  experience of hearing about something you think was in the book you  haven't read.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 23, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> @
> I believe you are working on an assumption that may or may not be correct...though I think it's probably not. The assumption is that players had to stay away from 4E in order to have a sufficient number of people to support Pathfinder.
> 
> Why is it that we assume that if someone plays one of those games (4E or Pathfinder), that same person can't, or won't, also play the other?





I think that using these boards as well as Paizo's and WOTC's as an example I think that his assumption, no matter how much you may want to call him on it, is a fairly obvious one to come to. 

The edition warring that went on here, the Paizo bashing that went on on WOTC's forums (and to an extent here as well) and the disdain for Paizo on forums like RPG.net would definitely make it seem as if people have chosen sides. After 4E came out and even before it was actually there were MANY, MANY people here proclaiming that they would NEVER touch 3x again. That the game was broken, that save or die sucks (In fact, I think this discussion is STILL being had in one of the other threads on Enworld TODAY.) that confirming crits suck (they kinda do...), the 15 min workday, Casters in 3x being too powerful, OMG the PREP!!! and so on and so on. And the same kind of complaining from people who wanted to stick with 3x. 4E is a video game, don't like being forced to use miniatures, everyone is the same and it's variant everyone is special so no one is, 4E is table top world of warcraft and other dumbness.

It's toned down a little bit since 2 (Has it really been that long?) years, but the animosity is still there. Even my players in my Pathfinder game some of whom had played 4E, take opportunities to talk about what they really didn't like about 4E. So yes there are people who play both but I think that they are
a small group and everybody else is playing one or the other and it's not an improper assumption to assume that.

As far as personal experience goes, my group meets at least once a month in the Complete Strategist here in NYC. Every now and then our game is scheduled on the same day of the D&D Meetup group. When 4E came out people were playing 4E like it was gangbusters. I was pretty much the only person trying to run a 3.5 game there for a while and a couple of the organizers were real douches about it, so I stopped going and tried to avoid scheduling my games on the Meetup days. Like I said, every now and then I do meet on those days and I've noticed that not only are there fewer people showing up to play 4E on the Meetup Days (to be fair they meet in other locations around the city to play on the weekdays) but at least two of the groups that started out playing 4E are playing either Pathfinder or 3.5. I think maybe the guy who runs the other Pathfinder group might ALSO still be running 4E on occasion but the last time he was definitely running Pathfinder.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 23, 2011)

Banshee16 said:


> ...And there was what....a year long delay from the release of 4E to the release of Pathfinder?




I believe there's an error in the timeline that you remember.

Pathfinder, in alpha form, was released in March 2008...before 4E was even released.  Although not the final form, it was available for play even before 4E was.  Players did not have to wait a year in order to play the game.  And even better than not having to wait, they were all invited to playtest the game (for free) and actually encouraged to provide feedback, input, and suggestions directly to Paizo...so I don't understand how there was a "risk" due to a year delay, or even understand how this defines a "delay"...


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 23, 2011)

El Mahdi said:


> @banshee
> I believe you are working on an assumption that may or may not be correct...though I think it's probably not. The assumption is that players had to stay away from 4E in order to have a sufficient number of people to support Pathfinder.
> 
> Why is it that we assume that if someone plays one of those games (4E or Pathfinder), that same person can't, or won't, also play the other?




I'm not making that assumption at all.  I *know* that some groups are doing both....my old group is doing that...they play 4E Fridays, I believe, and Pathfinder Sundays.  Now, that having been said, the ones I've talked with have mentioned they may be quitting the 4E game since they just don't really like it.

Of course, whether that dislike is because of the game, the campaign, or the ruleset, I don't know.



El Mahdi said:


> Why is it that we also assume, that had 4E been more popular and garnered more 3E fans to it, that Pathfinder (or any continuation of 3.x) would not have been possible?
> 
> I think we are without sufficient data (outside of WotC and Paizo market research and polls), to allow for such assumptions.  I also believe there's an "Us versus Them" and "Either/Or" presumption present in such assumptions.




I don't have an answer to this one.

What I would say as an assumption is that I *feel* it is reasonable that, given the multitude of edition wars, flame wars, articles, and general navel gazing regarding the popularity of 4E and the split in the fanbase, that a relatively large number of D&D consumers chose not to change to the new edition.

If these consumers didn't change edition, then they became potential consumers of Pathfinder products.

So, I'll admit this is an assumption.  The paragraphs above outline the line of thought I pursued to make that assumption.





El Mahdi said:


> If most people in your area seemed to be heading towards 4E, and you felt you were probably going to need to also (even though you weren't attracted to 4E), was it because you felt you wouldn't have enough people left to continue playing 3.x...?
> 
> If the above is the case, then what difference did having Pathfinder make? If there weren't enough players available for 3.x due to the majority switching to 4E, then how were there enough people to play Pathfinder? And if there were enough people that didn't switch to 4E, why didn't you and they just continue with 3.x...?
> 
> Was it "cool" that you didn't have to buy into 4E (due to the development of Pathfinder), because it meant you didn't have to buy into a system you weren't enamored of...or did you mean something else?




By no means do I believe that I know even a decent percentage of the players in my area.  There are hundreds or possibly thousands.  I've probably gamed with maybe 20-30 of them in my city over the years.

So when I say that everyone seemed to be changing, I developed that perception based on talking to people at the local FLGS, including the owners, and seeing the number of people buying into the new edition, seeing that all the games being run in the public game rooms were 4E, the owners of those shops were talking about how cool the new edition was, etc.

On top of that, in my own group, opinion split.  Generally it seemed like the more casual players seemed reluctant to change, whereas the die hards, rules mechanics etc. wanted to change.  As a group, we discussed it, and I wasn't really interested in changing editions.  Since it was my campaign at the time, we kept playing 3E.  Yet, there was still interest in trying 4E.

I had to end the campaign when I was laid off, to focus on a job search, and in my absence, they started a new 4E game.  So, yes, I had some concern about being able to find a group playing 3E games, when I was ready to get started again.

At that point, it seemed like I might not be able to find groups playing 3E since all the postings I found seemed to have to do with starting 4E games.  But as more info about Pathfinder started to come out, even members of my old group started talking about it.  The new game came out, my old players started playing it, and I started to see postings about Pathfinder games.  And at the local FLGS', the number of Pathfinder products started growing....talking with the owners, a few of them mentioned that sales seemed to be 50/50.  It didn't start that way.....at first Pathfinder seemed to just be for hold outs.......but it seems to have grown.

This is all just my observations.  I don't claim that they're correct, or correct beyond my area.  They're just what I can see.  It helps that I know personally the owners of 4 of the 6 game shops in my city.  So they're always willing to talk.  But it's not like they lay out their sales figures.   They're just making anecdotal statements.

Banshee


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 23, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> You realize that failing the first two saves actually DOES do something  to your character, right?  It's not just giving you two extra saves - each time you fail those there's a penalty.  So in a paralysis example, first you are Slowed, then Immobilized, and then turned to stone.
> 
> Again, it amuses me that when I talk about 3e it comes from literally  years of experience, and when so many talk about 4e it comes from the  experience of hearing about something you think was in the book you  haven't read.




I am well aware that failing the first save slows you.  No one cares.  It's a minor annoyance.  The second save actually matters a bit, but it requires failing two saves.  Not very likely to happen and on the rare occassions it does, it still doesn't matter.  There's no penalty, other than a bathroom break.  Only on the third save does the player actually care, other than being mildly annoyed.  There's no excitement until the 3rd save.

I have read the book several times.  I don't know it verbatim, but I know enough that I judge it by it's content rather than it's logo.


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 23, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> In an SoD, there is no suspense.  There is "You are attacked *roll your save* welp that's it."  It is *surprise*.  It's a sudden "Oh no!" followed by "Welp that's it!"  You have yet to comment on this.



What you do not seem to be getting is that many people who like save-or-die do not look at the game rule on its own, but consider the circumstances where it is used, and how it is used, in the game world, as part and parcel of the SoD process. 

In other words, the rules are not the game, the game is not the rules.

What matters in a SoD is the way it comes into play. What matters is not that you roll, what matters in the game is IF you roll, how you come to the point where you deal with the potential of a SoD. For this, the players must be aware of the presence of lethal elements in the game setting. As a DM, you basically present the players with clues of what's awaiting them down the middle corridor where the SoD trap is. They might have found the scribbling of a monk talking about the horror down the corridor. They might see some people with their faces half melted against the wall of the corridor. 

All these elements being designed as clues to allow the players to make meaningful choices as to the manner in which they want to proceed through their exploration of the dungeon. SoD is effective when it comes into play with the players being aware of its existence. For example, they might know that the shortest path to stop Lord Thormul to escape the dungeon is the middle corridor with it's SoD melting trap, while the corridors to the left and right lead to other types of obstacles, if any. They have a choice before them to choose different paths to the same goal, and they can manage the risks they are taking, including taking the middle path and risking instant death.

Same thing about creatures with SoD effects. In the best scenarios, players become aware of the presence of such threatening creatures ahead, and have choices to confront, avoid, parley, etc etc with such creatures to avoid the direct confrontation with SoD effects. Of course, they can still choose to fight the creatures in question, but this means they are making a choice to confront potential SoD effects.

What matters is the circumstances that surround the rule, not the rule itself.

I personally call this "good DMing."


----------



## BryonD (Jan 23, 2011)

Odhanan said:


> I personally call this "good DMing."




 

You are correct.  But I think the issue is even more fundamental.
If someone doesn't get the point, they can never be good, or bad, at DMing that idea.  A bad DM can improve.


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 23, 2011)

BryonD said:


> You are correct.  But I think the issue is even more fundamental.
> If someone doesn't get the point, they can never be good, or bad, at DMing that idea.  A bad DM can improve.



I don't think anybody's doomed to play role-playing games just one way, with no chance to ever grasp how someone else might run a different game using different assumptions. 

I'm sure there are people out there who are running, say, both First Edition AD&D, and 4th edition D&D, and adapt their DMing style according to the game's basic assumptions and, most importantly, the expectations of the people they play with. I think adaptation is actually a sign of good DMing skills in action. Just like you would adapt to different in-game situations at the drop of a hat, I guess an adaptable DM can and will gear his particular DMing towards the most appropriate fit for the game and people he's playing with. 

I see different editions of the game as just as many tools in my DM toolbox. I run a game based on what the players and I want out of the game we play. Sometimes people will want a ginormous rules kit with which to model anything in the game world based on the same basic premises, in which case I might use, say, 3rd edition D&D, other times people will want structure and tactical actions contained within the rules themselves, in which case I might run Essentials D&D, or they will want the simplest possible rules with us making up our version of the game as we go, in which case I'd probably use OD&D (1974).

What I do not accept in Cirno's premise is that his take on save-or-die is the be-all, end-all of the concept, and therefore, from his point of view, it's bad, the end, period. Well, no. His take is not the only take on the topic of SoD one might have, as exemplified by you and I and everyone who says here "yes, I actually do like SoD in my games."


----------



## BryonD (Jan 23, 2011)

Odhanan said:


> I don't think anybody's doomed to play role-playing games just one way, with no chance to ever grasp how someone else might run a different game using different assumptions.



Oh, I agree.  But there also comes a point when you have to realize that not everyone is going to pursue that chance.

I have no argument whatsoever with different preferences or tastes.  But when you are told that your own taste doesn't exist and then explain it twice, only to get the same misrepresentation thrown back at you each time, that is when you realize that you already went around the block one time too many and it is time to move on.


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 23, 2011)

I have to agree. *nod*


----------



## Kafen (Jan 23, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Or, to quote Hitchcock, true tension is seeing the bomb under the table.




You are talking about the guy that suggests giving the audience pleasure of the sort they get from waking up to a nightmare. Somehow, the idea of three saving throws to avoid death does not fit anything to do with Hitchcock's style if you ask me.  Not being mean, I just do not see 4e death standards being related to the style you see in his movies. You get too many chances to live for it to be Hitchcock.

"Give them pleasure, the same pleasure they have when they wake up from a nightmare." - Alfred Hitchcock

EDIT: I suppose that a really good GM could convince a player that three saves is a tense moment, but I suspect it is a tough sell for most of us as GMs. "You are almost dead" three times in a row does not seem to have much bite to it however you phrase it...speaking for myself.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 24, 2011)

For those who think that SSSoD has no dramatic tension, I would point back to the baseball example used above.

Baseball uses 3 strikes and you're out.  Would baseball be more or less tense if it used one strike and you're out?

I'd say it would be a lot less tense very quickly.  And a whole lot shorter game (which might not be a bad thing).  But, the increasing tension that occurs as a batter racks up strikes is exactly the same thing as the increasing tension that occurs in SSSoD.  Sure, strike one isn't exactly nail biting, and neither is the first failed save, but, it is an increase.  The second strike is a big deal, because you know that that next pitch might be your last.  Of course, the third strike or third failed save is the release.

In SoD, you have only the release.  There's no ramping up of the tension.

The thing is, people keep talking about how it's playing the game up to the point of saving throws that increases the tension.  You wander into the lair, see the statues in odd poses with horror on their faces, you don't know where the medusa is, but, you're pretty sure she's around here somewhere...

Why does that change in 4e?  That scene is precisely the same in any edition.

But, my issue with SoD is purely mathematical.  SoD is an area of effect ability.  That means everyone has to make a saving throw.  The odds state that if everyone has a chance of failing, someone is almost automatically going to fail.  It stops being SoD and starts being just die.  You might as roll a random check, point at one player and say, "You die."  Because that's how the math works.

You can ameliorate this somewhat.  Snake poison, for example, in 1e was SoD, but the snake had to hit you and it could (usually) only hit one PC at a time.  This breaks down if you have ten snakes though  (completely arbitrary number with no specific significance).  Now, suddenly, again, SoD becomes, just die.

In my mind, that's the problem with SoD.  It's not about the tension, it's about the fact that it's entirely binary and WAY too swingy for my taste.


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Baseball uses 3 strikes and you're out.  Would baseball be more or less tense if it used one strike and you're out?



For me the example is not appropriate, because the sum of the activities played out and the tension experienced by the players as they play a role playing game is not contained within the rules. It's what's going on around them. 

See my example with the corridors before. My point was to show how SoD matters in terms of choices before you, when you are aware you are about to be confronted to a save-or-die situation if you negociate it in a certain way (i.e. taking the middle corridor with a SoD effect instead of left or right, which are less troublesome paths but longer to go through, or the example of the creature which you know will trigger a SoD if you confront it by fighting it, like the beholder in the next room, or the rust monster as far as your equipment's concerned). 

The tension isn't in the action of making a roll when you are confronted to a SoD. It is in knowing that there is a SoD situation ahead, and thereby thinking of strategies and tactics that will allow you to avoid the threat or deal with it in ways that will not trigger a SoD (by negociating with the beholder for instance and pointing out how the dragon from the prior level stole some magic item he cared about, thus agreeing to retrieve the item for it in exchange for passage through his lair, or in the case of rust monsters either go down the chasm and fight the monsters, with the risk of losing your equipment, or fighting with sticks and stones instead, at your disadvantage, or instead taking the rope bridges above the monsters, or improvising another solution altogether). 

The tension and dramatic choices are not contained within the rules. It goes on in the actual game, aside of the rule, while the presence of the rule itself is a tool that help provide significant obstacles and threats that are mitigated by a number of choices in the game.

The game is not the rules. The rules are not the game.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 24, 2011)

So, we're back to the argument that every encounter will be sign posted?  After all, the only way you know that there's a SoD encounter coming up is if the DM tells you.  Either it's brain damaged medusa's who refuse to do any housekeeping or whatever.

The point is, that's still true whether it's SoD or SSSoD.  Obviously, a medusa, for example, is a dangerous encounter.  Granted, in 4e, it's not one that's rendered utterly pointless with a low level cleric spell, but, that's a different issue.  But, people will still react much the same way to a beholder in the next room regardless of edition - beholders are pretty bloody dangerous.

All of your examples Odhanan are edition neutral.  There's no reason you wouldn't do any of that in any edition.  Yet, when the midden hits the windmill, in one edition, you have gradually increasing tension, and in the other, you have Boom you're dead!


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> So, we're back to the argument that every encounter will be sign posted?



Nope. We're back to the argument that each and every rule in a game is meaningless without a given context, that what truly matters is what the rules mean when they are used at an actual game table, and how, rather than consider numbers in a theoretical vacuum.



Hussar said:


> All of your examples Odhanan are edition neutral.



Nope. My examples are not edition neutral. 

Whether the beholder will in effect use SoD or SSSoD effects will greatly affect the players' choices when they decide on a course of action, whether they go straight for the fight, or choose other possibilities. Same thing with a rust monster in front of you. Whether the rust monster destroys your equipment permanently or it is just temporarily incapacitated will affect player decision-making tremendously. And the fact that some threats are indeed, serious threats to the players' characters may prompt more variety on the players' parts in the way they handle such threats, rather than just say "aaah what the hell, at least I have that first save, even if I'm diseased, I could place a good one while you guys hit it too."


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 24, 2011)

Odhanan said:


> Nope. We're back to the argument that each and every rule in a game is meaningless without a given context, that what truly matters is what the rules mean when they are used at an actual game table, and how, rather than consider numbers in a theoretical vacuum.




Meaningless statement.

SoDs happen in two situtations.

1) You know they're coming!  Which means you cast your protection spells or drink your save increasing potions.  SoD has no meaning.

2) You don't know they're coming!  Woops, roll a dice to see who spontaniously dies.




> Nope. My examples are not edition neutral.
> 
> Whether the beholder will in effect use SoD or SSSoD effects will greatly affect the players' choices when they decide on a course of action, whether they go straight for the fight, or choose other possibilities. Same thing with a rust monster in front of you. Whether the rust monster destroys your equipment permanently or it is just temporarily incapacitated will affect player decision-making tremendously. And the fact that some threats are indeed, serious threats to the players' characters may prompt more variety on the players' parts in the way they handle such threats, rather than just say "aaah what the hell, at least I have that first save, even if I'm diseased, I could place a good one while you guys hit it too."




Really?

In my experience the only thing it lead to was Benny Hill music playing as fighters ran away from rust monsters as casters (who else?) eliminated the threat from afar.

That's not tense.  It's _silly_.

It leads to the same style of gameplay mentioned earlier, where players spend *so *much time preparing and doing everything in painstaking detail to avoid the "lose" scenario that the entire game flops and becomes brutally unfun.  It's like if LotR started and ended with "Frodo decided adventuring was p. dangerous and just stayed at home *the end*."


----------



## Reigan (Jan 24, 2011)

You can use dangerous terrain if you want SoD, a 200 foot cliff and a monster with push powers can be pretty nasty (and players can take advantage too).

I prefer my players to kill themselves because they screwed up, not because of a bad dice roll.


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 24, 2011)

I think there is a place for all sorts of processes at a game table. I also think that player expectations vary greatly. In other words, it's okay if someone enjoys SSSoD and wants things like tactical maneuvering with terrain and stuff being all meaningful part of the game's system. 

Believing that save-or-die sucks because of some warped sense of what happens at game tables that employ them, especially when people who do employ them come out of the woods and actually spell out for you why they enjoy them is... _silly_.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 24, 2011)

Odhanan said:


> I think there is a place for all sorts of processes at a game table. I also think that player expectations vary greatly. In other words, it's okay if someone enjoys SSSoD and wants things like tactical maneuvering with terrain and stuff being all meaningful part of the game's system.
> 
> Believing that save-or-die sucks because of some warped sense of what happens at game tables that employ them, especially when people who do employ them come out of the woods and actually spell out for you why they enjoy them is... _silly_.




Your own examples don't say that you accept the risk of SoD. They talk about using clever tactics to negate the risk. This doesn't suggest you like hanging the fate of your character on a single die roll.


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 24, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> Your own examples don't say that you accept the risk of SoD.



It would depend on the situation. In the corridors example for instance, if I was in a situation where one straight path with the potential for an SoD trap would lead me to a fleeing BBEG, with two other paths leading me around the dungeon with much less of a chance to catch up with him, I might choose the straight path and risk the SoD if from a roleplaying standpoint my character really wants to get to the bastard, wants to kill him, is angry at something the BBEG did, or the fate of another character, or nation, or whanot hangs in the balance. It's a question of choice. The existence of tremendous, deadly risks and other circumstancial elements and possibilities providing the background for such meaningful choices on my character's part.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Baseball uses 3 strikes and you're out.  Would baseball be more or less tense if it used one strike and you're out?




More.  Much, much, more.

I played baseball up to and through college.  I never gave a rat's ass if I swung and missed once, or even twice.  But with 2 strikes, it's down to business, and there's a LOT of tension.  You have one chance.  One.  You had better get it right.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 25, 2011)

Odhanan said:


> Nope. We're back to the argument that each and every rule in a game is meaningless without a given context, that what truly matters is what the rules mean when they are used at an actual game table, and how, rather than consider numbers in a theoretical vacuum.
> 
> 
> Nope. My examples are not edition neutral.
> ...




Your presumption here is that SSSoD means there's almost no chance of death though.

The math in 4e is pretty simple.  1 in 8 chance of death from SSSoD as a base.  Presume a 50% chance of the attack hitting you in the first place and you're about a 5% chance (give or take) of dying.  Multiply that by 5 PC's and you're looking at around a 20% (ish) chance of character death.  

That's hardly insignificant.  If there's a beholder in the next room, SSSoD isn't the reason I'm running away.  I'm running away cos it's a freaking beholder and it's going to kick my ass eight ways from Sunday.  

But, take it into 3e (or earlier editions, it doesn't matter that much).  Assume, for the moment, a 25% chance of PC failure on a SoD attack.  Multiply that by 4 PC's and you've got about a 90% chance of PC death.  

That's not increasing tension, that's just suicide by monster.

It's not that I'm opposed to SoD, it's that SoD in many cases, particularly in cases where SoD is linked to an area attack, like gazes, aren't SoD, they're just die.  It's not that I don't like the idea of instant death events, it's that the math works very badly.

So, I disagree with you Odhanan that this is edition specific.  I suppose you're right that I might be more likely to choose to fight in 4e, since the chance of death is reduced, but, that's because I should never fight in earlier editions since any area of effect SoD effect is a pretty much guaranteed PC fatality.


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 25, 2011)

All I'm doing is explaining how people might use SoD, think they do not suck, and enjoy their use in play. I'm answering specifically to the notion that "SoD are bad design, BADWRONGFUN, period." Well, NO. They aren't. It depends how they are used. Whether the DM knows what he is doing or not. 

That's all I'm saying.

After, you are welcome to like what you like. SHEESH!


----------



## Odhanan (Jan 25, 2011)

Hussar said:


> That's not increasing tension, that's just suicide by monster.



Oh my God. I can't believe this. It's like I'm speaking French or something.

Fine. Believe what you want.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 25, 2011)

Odhanan, you can get huffy all you like, but, it doesn't change the fact that this is bad design.  The reason that SoD got reduced in power is exactly the same as the reason permanent level drain got stripped down in 3e.  It's too powerful as it was originally conceived.

A single hit from a level draining monster could drop you 1-3 levels.  That was huge.  And the reward for facing this monster was pretty insignificant in relation to the risk.  So, level draining got reduced in power, not removed entirely, just dropped down, in keeping with the power of other abilities.

SSSoD retains the threat without making it an instant kill.

You've explained how to use a SoD monster in an encounter.  Fine.  But, the exact same thing applies to SSSoD without the inherent overpowered mechanics.

Whenever this topic comes up I always ask the same question and never get an answer, so, I'll try again.

If I designed a monster that, on a hit, did the target's hit points plus 11, would that be a well designed monster?  Is that a good power to give to a creature?  Now, if it's not a good power to give to a monster, how is it different than a creature with a SoD effect?


----------



## billd91 (Jan 25, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Odhanan, you can get huffy all you like, but, it doesn't change the fact that this is bad design.  The reason that SoD got reduced in power is exactly the same as the reason permanent level drain got stripped down in 3e.  It's too powerful as it was originally conceived.




Bad design? I don't think so nor do I think that's any objectively provable fact. Expectations have changed some over time for a lot of players and that means Save or Die may not be as good a fit for those expectations as it did for expectations in the earlier days of D&D. That doesn't, however, make it bad design for expectations that fit it better, such as expectations that the game intends to model very dangerous creatures that have powers capable of killing you without battering you like a regular fight.




Hussar said:


> If I designed a monster that, on a hit, did the target's hit points plus 11, would that be a well designed monster?  Is that a good power to give to a creature?  Now, if it's not a good power to give to a monster, how is it different than a creature with a SoD effect?




I would not call that a well designed monster because it's doing damage to an abstract pool that varies from character to character based on the size of the pool and not based on the nature of the attack. It's a sloppy mechanic because it doesn't fit that mechanic's reason for existence - to provide a way to ablate down a character's resistance. Think of it this way: in a game with SSSOD being the normative design, suppose I came up with a creature that short-circuited 2 of those saves and went right to SOD. Would that be a well-designed monster? No. Because it's abusing a particular mechanic that is designed to work in a different way and under different assumptions. It would be even worse if every character got a different number of saves before hitting the SOD and my creature short circuited all of them no matter how many there were.... like doing character's current hit points+11.
Now, if that monster were designed to do an average of 21 points of damage on a hit because of the nature of its attack and its strength and characters with 10 hit points on average encountered it and didn't run like hell, then the monster would be appropriately designed even if it did cause a TPK.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 25, 2011)

See, Bill91, I don't think your 21 Damage monster is well designed at all.  Let's say it's a CR 1 creature, so, it's supposed to be a reasonable encounter for a 1st level party.  But, if it hits, it's almost always automatically killing the PC.

It's like giving an Orc a 55 strength in 3e.  Would that be a good design decision?  Or, just an arbitrary Orc Racial Abiliity - +25 damage.  There, now we have a SoD combat orc.  Would that make Orcs a better creature?  More interesting?

There are other ways of modeling lethality without making the creature an arbitrary crap shoot.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 25, 2011)

Hussar said:


> See, Bill91, I don't think your 21 Damage monster is well designed at all.  Let's say it's a CR 1 creature, so, it's supposed to be a reasonable encounter for a 1st level party.  But, if it hits, it's almost always automatically killing the PC.
> 
> It's like giving an Orc a 55 strength in 3e.  Would that be a good design decision?  Or, just an arbitrary Orc Racial Abiliity - +25 damage.  There, now we have a SoD combat orc.  Would that make Orcs a better creature?  More interesting?
> 
> There are other ways of modeling lethality without making the creature an arbitrary crap shoot.




Why would you expect it to be a CR 1 creature or that it was "level appropriate"? Maybe it was location appropriate and the PCs were in over their heads. You're assuming things that haven't been revealed. And no, giving an orc +25 damage isn't making him a SOD creature.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 25, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Bad design? I don't think so nor do I think that's any objectively provable fact. Expectations have changed some over time for a lot of players and that means Save or Die may not be as good a fit for those expectations as it did for expectations in the earlier days of D&D. That doesn't, however, make it bad design for expectations that fit it better, such as expectations that the game intends to model very dangerous creatures that have powers capable of killing you without battering you like a regular fight.




Do you ever cast protective spells before a fight where you'll face a save-or-die? Do you object to hit points increasing so your character isn't in danger of dying from a single sword blow? Do you dislike easy access to resurrection magic? Because it's one thing to like having SoD in the game; but if you persistently act in a way to make sure that you don't have to actually make the Save, then it suggests what you actually like is showing off your cleverness rather than risking the death of your character due to a single die roll.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 25, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> Do you ever cast protective spells before a fight where you'll face a save-or-die? Do you object to hit points increasing so your character isn't in danger of dying from a single sword blow? Do you dislike easy access to resurrection magic? Because it's one thing to like having SoD in the game; but if you persistently act in a way to make sure that you don't have to actually make the Save, then it suggests what you actually like is showing off your cleverness rather than risking the death of your character due to a single die roll.




That moves the focus from the tactical mini-game of "How can I remedy this onging effect during a combat encounter before it completes" to the strategic/investigative mini-game of "How can I discover and prevent exposure to detrimental effects in the environment?"

I like the second mini-game more both as a player and as a DM.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 25, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> Do you ever cast protective spells before a fight where you'll face a save-or-die? Do you object to hit points increasing so your character isn't in danger of dying from a single sword blow? Do you dislike easy access to resurrection magic? Because it's one thing to like having SoD in the game; but if you persistently act in a way to make sure that you don't have to actually make the Save, then it suggests what you actually like is showing off your cleverness rather than risking the death of your character due to a single die roll.




Wait? what!?!  

If Perseus is going off to face a fricking Medusa and is told that her gaze is going to turn him to stone, you're implying that he shouldn't use the reflective shield to avoid this? 

Just because, ESPECIALLY because, you know you're going into a dangerous save or die situation you SHOULDN'T prepare for it because if you do you really dont respect/like Save or Die? 

I'm sorry but that seems petty. 

We get it you guys dont like save or die. You think it's stupid. You think people who like it are stupid (even though people in this thread havent come right out and said that it's kinda implied). 

I have a solution!! You go play your non-SoD game and well go play our SoD game and never the twain shall meet! Sounds Awesome? Great. 
1-2-3- BREAK!


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 25, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Wait? what!?!
> 
> If Perseus is going off to face a fricking Medusa and is told that her gaze is going to turn him to stone, you're implying that he shouldn't use the reflective shield to avoid this?
> 
> Just because, ESPECIALLY because, you know you're going into a dangerous save or die situation you SHOULDN'T prepare for it because if you do you really dont respect/like Save or Die?




There´s a difference between being clever and thinking ahead and starting a virtual arms race.

Knowing that you´re gonna face a medusa and planing ahead is fine.

Getting up in the morning, having a hero´s feast, donning your cap of perma mind-blanc, slipping on your boots of anti-slipping and your cloak of anti-polymorphing, then going through the routine of buffs for the day simply boring.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jan 25, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> There´s a difference between being clever and thinking ahead and starting a virtual arms race.
> 
> Knowing that you´re gonna face a medusa and planing ahead is fine.
> 
> Getting up in the morning, having a hero´s feast, donning your cap of perma mind-blanc, slipping on your boots of anti-slipping and your cloak of anti-polymorphing, then going through the routine of buffs for the day simply boring.




That's not what he was saying though. 



			
				Bluenose said:
			
		

> Do you ever cast protective spells before a fight where you'll face a save-or-die?




He opens with that sentence which implies that you KNOW that you're going to be facing save or die. 

So yeah, I agree with the second part of what YOURE saying, but that's not what Bluenose was saying.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 25, 2011)

I think his question leads to a valid and important point, though.

If you know SoD is used in the game, you will ultimatelly adapt.I really don´t think the game will stay the same past the first SoD encounter the players have faced.
Which form that takes doesn´t really matter, that could range from the classic, with a rogue scouting ahead to gain intel, to the toolbox approach, by selecting the right mechanical solution (i.e. spells, items, feats) to the reviled 15 minutes working day.

This leads me to the simple conclusion that the tension is pretty much gone when the only remaining question is "Did I chose the right countermeasures", especially in 3E game where you can pretty much immunize yourself to anything.
In the end, it´s either system mastery or the wanton cruelty of tomb of horrors all over again.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 25, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Why would you expect it to be a CR 1 creature or that it was "level appropriate"? Maybe it was location appropriate and the PCs were in over their heads. You're assuming things that haven't been revealed. And no, giving an orc +25 damage isn't making him a SOD creature.




Why not?  Why is giving an orc +25 damage not a SOD creature?  He hits you, you die.  That's pretty close to any SOD creature that isn't required to hit you.  A saving throw is not all that far off the chances of a creature hitting you in combat.  I would argue that giving our orc +25 to damage is pretty much the exact same thing as having a 1 HD snake with a SOD poison attack.  Actually, to be entirely fair, you'd probably have to give the orc a few penaties on his attack, since the snake has to hit.  But, it's easily doable.

See, the problem is, how do you determine what is level appropriate for that creature or any SOD creature.  In order to determine that the PC's were in over their heads, you have to know how tall they are.

I look at the evolution of SOD as just a continuation of what 3e did.  1e and 2e had a boatload of small creatures that would be a speed bump encounter, except they had SoD poison attacks - snakes, spiders, vermin of many forms.  

3e did away with almost all of them.  Instead, you have a debilitating poison attack that is nasty, just not immedietely fatal, usually.  In other words, they reduced the lethality while at the same time retaining the threatening nature of the creature.

If there were no problems with SoD, if SoD was such good game design, why was it ejected from such a large swath of the game in 3e?

Looking beyond D&D, I'm struggling to think of many games that include SoD mechanics (not counting retro clones of course).  I'm really having a hard time thinking of any game that has this.  Lots of games are lethal as all get out, but, very few have this arbitrary death mechanic built in.

You'd think a well designed mechanic would feature more prominently in other games.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 25, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I look at the evolution of SOD as just a continuation of what 3e did.  1e and 2e had a boatload of small creatures that would be a speed bump encounter, except they had SoD poison attacks - snakes, spiders, vermin of many forms.
> 
> 3e did away with almost all of them.  Instead, you have a debilitating poison attack that is nasty, just not immedietely fatal, usually.  In other words, they reduced the lethality while at the same time retaining the threatening nature of the creature.
> 
> If there were no problems with SoD, if SoD was such good game design, why was it ejected from such a large swath of the game in 3e?




Yet it was also retained for a substantial number of cases in 3e as well. So clearly the designers did not think it was absolutely badly designed. If you're using it's decreased frequency as evidence of it being a poor mechanic, you have to account for it being kept in so many cases as well.

I'd say that many of the changes of poison do a better job in 3e of projecting a plausible effect since so many of them are more debilitating rather than instantly lethal. I would also say that over-used is a far different issue than being poor design and I would be open to an argument that early editions of AD&D over used save or die effects. That doesn't mean that in the case of meeting a medusa's gaze I don't think a save or die mechanic is inappropriate. It would just mean I don't think it's appropriate for, say, a rattlesnake's or giant spider's bite.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 25, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Why not?  Why is giving an orc +25 damage not a SOD creature?  He hits you, you die.  That's pretty close to any SOD creature that isn't required to hit you.  A saving throw is not all that far off the chances of a creature hitting you in combat.  I would argue that giving our orc +25 to damage is pretty much the exact same thing as having a 1 HD snake with a SOD poison attack.  Actually, to be entirely fair, you'd probably have to give the orc a few penaties on his attack, since the snake has to hit.  But, it's easily doable.




In PFRPG, an Orc that does 25 damage on a hit is, assuming it is built right, going to be a CR 6 creature. If a level 1 party goes up against a CR 6 creature they are going to get creamed. (A CR 3 is pretty tough and a CR 4 is an epic struggle at level 1).  

Likewise, raising the ability of a snake (or any venemous creature) to do you in with a single bite is going to raise the CR. The amount by which the CR is raised is going to be subject to some amount of a judgment call but a truly powerful poison shoul probably raise it by at least 2 or 3 CR, depending. 

With that said, the question then becomes, should the PCs have to live in a world in which there are things that can kill them instantly. Or should all encounters always be level appropriate. It really comes down to a matter of gaming styles and personal preferences. 

Personally, I have no problems with some snakes being more venemous than others. PCs should have a chance (via Knowledge [nature]) to identify that a certain snake is a red-banded crested throat-snuffler, and its bite can drop an elephant. Seeing as the real world contains rather nasty toxins which kill you quickly, I think my fantasy world can survive having these as well. 

In the case of medusas, I want a gaze that can turn you to stone instantly, not slowly and over time (because this models the way I think it should happen). At the same time, I want diseases which kill you slowly and poisons which make you sick (instead of just dropping you dead.) Basically, I want a variety of lethality levels I can mix and match as appropriate.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 25, 2011)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Wait? what!?!
> 
> If Perseus is going off to face a fricking Medusa and is told that her gaze is going to turn him to stone, you're implying that he shouldn't use the reflective shield to avoid this?




Perseus and Medusa are actually a very good example. There's no save. You die, or you know the trick which means you don't die and can walk up and cut her head off while she's asleep. Make yourself immune to your enemy, or the risk is too great to fight. That's epic heroism [/sarcasm]



Coldwyn said:


> This leads me to the simple conclusion that the tension is pretty much gone when the only remaining question is "Did I chose the right countermeasures", especially in 3E game where you can pretty much immunize yourself to anything.
> In the end, it´s either system mastery or the wanton cruelty of tomb of horrors all over again.




Of course, if you mess up it's easy enough to be raised afterwards. Which is another great way to remove tension from the game.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 25, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Basically, I want a variety of lethality levels I can mix and match as appropriate.





This.  I never understand why, just because SoD is in the game, a DM feels he has to use it.  If you don'tlike that level of lethality, let your players know you won't use monsters (or you'll be modifying monsters) that have SoD abilities.  What I don't like is it being removed from the game and not an option for those who do want to use it.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 25, 2011)

Hussar said:


> See, the problem is, how do you determine what is level appropriate for that creature or any SOD creature.  In order to determine that the PC's were in over their heads, you have to know how tall they are.




You don't.  The pcs determine when they're in over their heads.  Otherwise, their choices are not really choices and everything is a reskinned orc.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 25, 2011)

Imaro said:


> This.  I never understand why, just because SoD is in the game, a DM feels he has to use it.  If you don'tlike that level of lethality, let your players know you won't use monsters (or you'll be modifying monsters) that have SoD abilities.  What I don't like is it being removed from the game and not an option for those who do want to use it.




Yes and no. For adding and removing something from the game, you should have the experience to see what the complete implications are. For example, removing resurresction spells and leaving SoD makes the game too deadly, doing it the other way round make it too simple and so on.
As 4E is geared for people new to the game and/or hobby, you can´t expect them to develop the needed system mastery fast enough to do these changes when the time comes up for them.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 25, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> As 4E is geared for people new to the game and/or hobby, you can´t expect them to develop the needed system mastery fast enough to do these changes when the time comes up for them.




Why can't you? We did.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 25, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Why can't you? We did.




We sure did, back when we started and again with each new edition or system we went into.

The simple question is whether it was worth the time spent on fixing stuff and house-ruling other stuff when we simply could go RAW and spent an equal amount of time actually gaming and not tinkering with the rules.
Sure, tinkering can be a huge appeal for some people, but I still think that should be optional and not the norm.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 25, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> Yes and no. For adding and removing something from the game, you should have the experience to see what the complete implications are. For example, removing resurresction spells and leaving SoD makes the game too deadly, doing it the other way round make it too simple and so on.
> As 4E is geared for people new to the game and/or hobby, you can´t expect them to develop the needed system mastery fast enough to do these changes when the time comes up for them.




The best teacher is actual experience, somehow for years DM's have had access to SoD and gained the experience and knowledge to decide whether (as well as how) they wanted to use them or not.  Yeah, I don't think many if any other games have SoD, it's a D&Dism... and strangely enough some people who enjoy D&D, do actually enjoy SoD.

  Quick question...How does removing SoD totally from the game ever give someone the experience and knowledge to use the tools properly for the type of game they want?


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 25, 2011)

Imaro said:


> The best teacher is actual experience, somehow for years DM's have had access to SoD and gained the experience and knowledge to decide whether (as well as how) they wanted to use them or not.  Yeah, I don't think many if any other games have SoD, it's a D&Dism... and strangely enough some people who enjoy D&D, do actually enjoy SoD.
> 
> Quick question...How does removing SoD totally from the game ever give someone the experience and knowledge to use the tools properly for the type of game they want?




In the same way as sticking to one RPG and mastering it does teach you anything - not at all. So having SoD in or out doesn´t really give you the experience until you have tryed both and that´s still worth nothing (imho) until you´ve checked out how and if other systems handle it.


----------



## Kafen (Jan 25, 2011)

JRRNeiklot said:


> More.  Much, much, more.
> 
> I played baseball up to and through college.  I never gave a rat's ass if I swung and missed once, or even twice.  But with 2 strikes, it's down to business, and there's a LOT of tension.  You have one chance.  One.  You had better get it right.




Ayup, classic baseball lore... Most pros have some wisdom along those lines. The only important strike is the last one. And, it's not like it is a surprise. You do not just wake up and find yourself in front of  a man throwing a baseball at you. The example supports the one SoD rule more than anything. 

Past that, Imaro is spot on in my opinion. The SoD should be an option. I would use it in any 4e game of mine if lethal force would be best.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 25, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> In the same way as sticking to one RPG and mastering it does teach you anything - not at all. So having SoD in or out doesn´t really give you the experience until you have tryed both and that´s still worth nothing (imho) until you´ve checked out how and if other systems handle it.




Waitaminute... what? 

No one said having SoD in the game or out of the game magically bestows experience in using it to get the game experience you want... 

A new DM is learning the game, he has to learn how to run the game he wants in the same way a player has to learn how best to play his particular character and that means that some things can only be learned in actual play. IMO, the experience of seeing SoD's actual effects in gameplay (as well as on ones players) is worth much more than you give it credit for.

Also, I'm a little confused as to what "how and if other systems handle" SoD's has to do with a DM shaping his *D&D* game to be enjoyable for him and his players... it's kind of irrelevant since you aren't playing those games...


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 25, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Waitaminute... what?
> 
> No one said having SoD in the game or out of the game magically bestows experience in using it to get the game experience you want...
> 
> ...




Ok, I´ll try it again:

Back when I started with D&D, our game was ehavily influenced by the literature we´ve read and just a bit by tv, simply because comics, cinema and most tv was quite rare and our parents where against it anyways.

SoD fit quite well into the game we used to play then because it resonated well with our preconception on how fantasy should look like (aka Leiber, Howard, Smith).

Also, when you died, you were back in the game quite quick thanks to easy and simple character generation rules.

Looking at the last Editions (meaning 3E, PF and 4E), I don´t really see the old influences again except maybe as cameo appearances and with the added komplexity of the rules, character death and the chore of charaktercreation is akin to punishment.

Add to this that newer edition charakters are generelly tougher than ever before, SoD fails even more to portrait what it is intended to.

There is a disconnect going on what make SoD so terribly deadly and what SoD should be able to portrait.

When 25 tons of evil-tempered dragon repeatedly crushed you, you´ve survived said dragons breathweapon, had your lifeforce attacked by various spells, been dipped in hell for some rounds, all that in one days work, than a death attack DC represents danger? Being brain-slurped by a mindflayer is deadly? really?

So, no, I don´t think that 3E/PF/4E SoD or SSSoD portrait anything, they come along more arbitrary than anything.
Then again, look at older edition, when getting fireballed twice could be as lethal as doing a SoD save and so on.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 26, 2011)

Imaro said:


> This.  I never understand why, just because SoD is in the game, a DM feels he has to use it.  If you don'tlike that level of lethality, let your players know you won't use monsters (or you'll be modifying monsters) that have SoD abilities.  What I don't like is it being removed from the game and not an option for those who do want to use it.




But, what about those of us who want to use iconic monsters but don't want to turn encounters into autokills?  What about those of us who want to use iconic monsters but don't want to always have to set them up in EXACTLY the same way every time?  ((going back to the statuary fetish that medusa's apparently ALL have))

SSSoD does not mean that the creatures are no longer lethal.  It means that the math of the game lines up the encounter with expectations of the level of lethality of the creature.  

Wicht above mentions that our 1 HD orc with +25 damage is now a CR 6 monster.  But, it's not.  It can't hit anything at EL 6 - it only has a +3 (or 4?) attack bonus.  By 6th level, most PC's are running in the low 20's for AC's.  Now, it's an insignificant speedbump and not even a threat.

That's why I call SoD bad design.  Because it doesn't work.  It's entirely unpredictable.  How much xp should that orc be worth?  How much xp should a creature that can kill you instantly be worth compared to a monster that can beat you to death?

These mechanics don't exist in a vacuum.  They have effect all the way along.

And, one the 3 strikes example, I obviously disagree.  Maybe football should go to one down?  After all, that would be more exciting.  Soccer should go to sudden death rules?  One strike baseball would be incredibly boring.  Much, much faster, but, snore.  The whole point of tension is you need periods of build up.  A little foreplay goes a long way towards a better climax.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Wicht above mentions that our 1 HD orc with +25 damage is now a CR 6 monster.  But, it's not.  It can't hit anything at EL 6 - it only has a +3 (or 4?) attack bonus.  By 6th level, most PC's are running in the low 20's for AC's.  Now, it's an insignificant speedbump and not even a threat.




Why does your orc have a +25 damage bonus but only a +3 to hit?  Something in your build is, by the rules, pretty broken. If you are building a PFRPG monster correctly, the bonus to damage has to come from somewhere. So what is your bonus to damage coming from? 

I think I know the point you are trying to make, but building a monster that doesn't follow the proper rules and guidelines is a poor way to show how broken the monsters who do follow the rules and guidelines are.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, what about those of us who want to use iconic monsters but don't want to turn encounters into autokills?




The iconic medusa does not slowly petrify her victim. She zaps them and they are stone. My read on this is that you want the iconic monster but you don't actually want it to have its iconic power.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 26, 2011)

Wicht said:


> The iconic medusa does not slowly petrify her victim. She zaps them and they are stone. My read on this is that you want the iconic monster but you don't actually want it to have its iconic power.




Ah yes the iconic power of being defeated instantly as soon as the hero shows up, never actually being seen petrifying anyone.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 26, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Why does your orc have a +25 damage bonus but only a +3 to hit?  Something in your build is, by the rules, pretty broken. If you are building a PFRPG monster correctly, the bonus to damage has to come from somewhere. So what is your bonus to damage coming from?
> 
> I think I know the point you are trying to make, but building a monster that doesn't follow the proper rules and guidelines is a poor way to show how broken the monsters who do follow the rules and guidelines are.




But, that's exactly how a 1 hit die creature with a save or die effect is built.  Of course the +25 damage is broken.  That's the point.  But, why is a 1 HD creature that can instantly kill you, regardless of your level or hit points not broken, but adding +25 to damage is?

So, what guidelines are there for adding SoD to a monster?  How does adding SoD affect its CR?  What is a reasonable baseline for determining the save DC?  

That's been my point all along.  SoD monsters don't follow the system for creating monsters.  They are broken.  SoD monsters with area of effect abilities are doubly so.



			
				Wicht said:
			
		

> The iconic medusa does not slowly petrify her victim. She zaps them and they are stone. My read on this is that you want the iconic monster but you don't actually want it to have its iconic power.




The iconic medusa isn't a species and could fly.  The iconic medusa wasn't an archer and didn't shoot arrows.  Why are these things ignored?  How come you get to pick and choose what is iconic and I can't.

The SSSoD medusa CAN turn things to stone, so, she still has her most iconic attack.  The only difference is, it's now in keeping with the mechanics of the game.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The SSSoD medusa CAN turn things to stone, so, she still has her most iconic attack.  The only difference is, it's now in keeping with the mechanics of the game.




The mechanics of the *4e game*, a game quite distinct from the 1e, 2e, and 3e games which all have the medusa petrifying with a single failed save.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> And, one the 3 strikes example, I obviously disagree.  Maybe football should go to one down?  After all, that would be more exciting.  Soccer should go to sudden death rules?  One strike baseball would be incredibly boring.  Much, much faster, but, snore.  The whole point of tension is you need periods of build up.  A little foreplay goes a long way towards a better climax.




One strike baseball may be boring but it's hardly because the tension mounts all that much in the course of one at-bat. It spikes when the batter is facing that third strike and it does so precisely because he failed to capitalize on previous opportunities (at least 2 other pitches in his strike zone).
Similarly, the save or die mechanic causes tension in a game to spike, usually because you failed to take opportunities to avoid the encounter or hedge against it.

You've made it abundantly clear that you don't *like* save or die effects. But why on earth should we assume that things against your preferences are bad design? They're not to your taste, but I think you'll have to acknowledge that your tastes do not define what is and is not good design.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, that's exactly how a 1 hit die creature with a save or die effect is built.  Of course the +25 damage is broken.  That's the point.  But, why is a 1 HD creature that can instantly kill you, regardless of your level or hit points not broken, but adding +25 to damage is?




Do you have an example of a 1HD monster in 3e/PFRPG with a save or die effect? If not, the argument is something of a strawman. Even if we are talking about increasing the poison lethality of a creature, doing so should increase the CR by anywhere from 1-3 depending on how lethal you make the poison.  And I've really yet to see a 3e/PFRPG poison that is truly save or die. Most of them just make you weaker.

Technically, even a medusa isn't save or die. She is save or petrify. A stone to flesh will undo this (level 6 spell). Regardless a medusa is CR 7.  She's hardly something you would throw at a 1st level party. 

One other thought, a 1HD orc with a +25 to damage is really just silly. Nevertheless, a 1 HD orc does typically have what might be considered a save or die mechanic. They are armed with a greatax, which on a confirmed critical (assuming a +3 strength bonus, 14 str) will do between 12 and 45 points of damage. Enough to kill any first level character. My players have never complained about this. They in fact enjoy the lethality of the greatax. This despite the fact that the orc, with a +3 attack bonus vs an AC of 15 has something like a 1 in 40 chance of killing them dead with a single blow.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, what about those of us who want to use iconic monsters but don't want to turn encounters into autokills? What about those of us who want to use iconic monsters but don't want to always have to set them up in EXACTLY the same way every time? ((going back to the statuary fetish that medusa's apparently ALL have))
> 
> SSSoD does not mean that the creatures are no longer lethal. It means that the math of the game lines up the encounter with expectations of the level of lethality of the creature.
> 
> ...





Ok, I'm going to answer your post in a frank manner... if you want to use an iconic creature (whose iconic abilities are SoD) but not use SoD in your game... you can easily choose not to use the SoD ability... you can reskin another creature to be the "iconic" one you wanted... give the PC's more chances to avoid it... or various other ways in which you basically remove SoD from the game. 

One of the things I've never really understood about complaints as far as SoD goes is that in almost any case there is a way to bring the character back... even from death... so what is the real issue? SoD isn't really all that lethal in the context of the entire game. If anything it's a major as opposed to a minor setback for most heroes of a certain level and IMO, that's a good thing... it is a reminder that even the demi-god like heroes of D&D can be taken down if they are not clever, cautious and careful.

Side Note: I see arguments of math and proper CR but honestly I would rather have to engage some DM judgement in order to use a more diverse and interesting set of tools than to just have the tools removed totally because it has been deemed that they don't coincide with some peoples idea of fun. I'm also curious how, in 4e, this is in anyway different.  There are no guidelines for how much adding a SSSoD ability raises a monsters level or experience point value?

 The main thing, IMO, that differentiates TTRPG from CRPG's and MMORPG's is the ability of the DM to make judgement calls for his particular game... and I for one look at more tools as a good thing that create a more inclusive game.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 26, 2011)

billd91 said:


> One strike baseball may be boring but it's hardly because the tension mounts all that much in the course of one at-bat. It spikes when the batter is facing that third strike and it does so precisely because he failed to capitalize on previous opportunities (at least 2 other pitches in his strike zone).
> Similarly, the save or die mechanic causes tension in a game to spike, usually because you failed to take opportunities to avoid the encounter or hedge against it.
> 
> You've made it abundantly clear that you don't *like* save or die effects. But why on earth should we assume that things against your preferences are bad design? They're not to your taste, but I think you'll have to acknowledge that your tastes do not define what is and is not good design.




Umm, for all the reasons I stated above?  Because the SoD mechanics are exactly like an Orc with a +25 damage bonus?  If the orc with +25 damage is broken, then why isn't a SoD 1 HD monster?  (1e and 2e are chock full of them)



Wicht said:


> Do you have an example of a 1HD monster in 3e/PFRPG with a save or die effect? If not, the argument is something of a strawman. Even if we are talking about increasing the poison lethality of a creature, doing so should increase the CR by anywhere from 1-3 depending on how lethal you make the poison.  And I've really yet to see a 3e/PFRPG poison that is truly save or die. Most of them just make you weaker.
> 
> Technically, even a medusa isn't save or die. She is save or petrify. A stone to flesh will undo this (level 6 spell). Regardless a medusa is CR 7.  She's hardly something you would throw at a 1st level party.
> 
> One other thought, a 1HD orc with a +25 to damage is really just silly. Nevertheless, a 1 HD orc does typically have what might be considered a save or die mechanic. They are armed with a greatax, which on a confirmed critical (assuming a +3 strength bonus, 14 str) will do between 12 and 45 points of damage. Enough to kill any first level character. My players have never complained about this. They in fact enjoy the lethality of the greatax. This despite the fact that the orc, with a +3 attack bonus vs an AC of 15 has something like a 1 in 40 chance of killing them dead with a single blow.




Considering that Raise Dead is a 5th level spell, I would point out that Petrify is actually MORE lethal than something that kills you.

Unless Pathfinder changed it back, there's a reason that 3.5 changed greataxe to falchion from 3.0.

Don't get too wrapped up in the specific example.  You want something better?  Ok, how's this.

Medusa is a CR 7 creature.  Let's take a slightly smaller monster, a Troll, CR 5 (in 3.5 edition).  Now, we add a +100 damage bonus to each of the troll's attack.  Now he operates EXACTLY like a medusa.  Just about the exact same chances of killing a PC.  

Is he a CR 7 creature?  

I totally agree that the orc or the troll are ridiculous creatures.  Totally agree.  But, why are they ridiculous when the medusa isn't?  If granting super damage bonuses makes a monster ridiculous, why is it suddenly good design that a creature has an ability that deals instant death regardless of the strength of the target?

See, your bit about the 1 in 40 chance for the orc is exactly my point.  It's exciting to know that the possibility is there that you're going to get smoked by that really lucky roll.  Even if that chance will almost never come up.  The possibility is what makes it exciting.

Now, change the chance from one in 40 to one in four or one in two and see how excited your players are.

-----

Let's be clear here.  It's not that I don't like SoD therefore its bad design.  It's bad design because IT'S BAD DESIGN.  If it's good design to have monsters bypass hit points, then it should always be good design.  It's not though.  The idea of a +100 damage troll is ludicrous.  No one would put that in a game because it's badly, badly broken.

But, for some reason, a medusa has effectively a +infinity damage bonus and that's good design?


----------



## Aldern Foxglove (Jan 26, 2011)

Medusas are fun and cool, them turning a PC to stone does not kill the PC and offers an interesting scenario where with options and many possible memorable scenarios for returning the PC.  +25 damage does nothing save make something more lethal.

Your arguments are invalid because you are ignoring the rules and making up scenarios - 1hd monsters with save or dies - that simply don't exist.  If you deliberately ignore the rules and use silly examples things tend not to work - shocking!


----------



## Wicht (Jan 26, 2011)

In game terms, being petrified is not the same as being dead. There are different consequences. I'm afraid your constant harping on the medusa is starting to wear a little thin. She's a CR 7 with a powerful gaze attack and by the time the PCs encounter her they are going to have some tricks of their own. The troll is a CR 5 and if you suddenly gave him new powers then yes, his CR would likely need to go up. So what exactly is the point of bringing in a troll?  

But the point is moot. You acknowledge a slight chance of getting killed is fun. Therefore we are just left arguing percentages. It becomes a simple matter of opinion. You think 1 in 40 is fine, I might be comfortable with 1 in 10 and someone else with 1 in 2. For you to attack some one else's opinion as bad is unecessarily antagonistic. 

And, Hussar, you avoided the question: Is there a 1 HD monster out there with a save or die effect you would like us to actually discuss? If not, please quit bringing it up as I don't think they exist.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> And, one the 3 strikes example, I obviously disagree.  Maybe football should go to one down?  After all, that would be more exciting.



I think you actually frame the real problem here.  One size does not fit all.  There are most certainly cases where One Strike (SoD) is best and cases in which step by step changes (SSSSoD) are best.  

3E has both.  4E says, no SoD.  

Three strikes works great in baseball and modeling that in a dice game with a SoD type mechanic would be weak.  

But being an advocate of SoD in no way remotely means all things should be SoD.  

But the 4E defenders are stuck trying to frame the debate as A vs. B.  
It really is a question of should we have A AND B, or should A be banned.

I vote for A and B.  Apply each where fitting.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, for some reason, a medusa has effectively a +infinity damage bonus and that's good design?



Can you define "good design"?
I don't think you and I have the same definitions here.

Its the old "gamist vs. simulationist" divide.

If you want a mathematically pure tactics game then +infinity is TERRIBLE design.  But if you want a mathematically pure tactics game then you CAN'T HAVE Medusa.  You just can't.  You can have a snake haired woman.  And you can give her your SSSoD mechanic.  And you can hang a sign around her neck that says "medusa".  

But go ask a random person on the street what happens when you look at medusa.  When you look at medusa you are done.  There is no tactical or balance issues once you get to that point.  And I understand and respect that from a mini battle tactics point of view, that sucks.  If you prime goal is great tactical balance, you are going to hate medusa.  You might really want to SAY you have medusa in your game, but you are going to HATE the classical idea of medusa.

There are different views here.

And for me the quote that got me going again on this (admittedly quoted by someone else and several months old at that point) was:


ProfessorCirno said:


> Nobody likes save or dies.  WotC doesn't need to comment that humans need oxygen anymore then they need to claim "Well our customers claimed people don't like saving throw kills."  It's a fact of life.



"nobody"  like "oxygen"  "fact of life"

A football fan who hates baseball may as well make the same stupid comments about hitting a ball with a stick.  It may be true to him, but declaring it universal is beyond absurd.

To me the mechanics of the game are to be as far in the background as possible.   Yes, there are going to be a lot of compromises along the way.  But that should always be the goal.  FOR ME.  I don't have any problem with a lot of people disagreeing.  But a lot of people also agree.

Medusa should work the way it happens in the stories.  Balance be damned.  I don't care about the math or the tactical matters.  I want the story.  I want the PCs to overcome (or fail trying) the threat of a one look and you are gone foe.

It does put some demand on the DM.  There isn't a safety net and some thoughfulness and skill is presumed.  And it is ok if a new DM screws up, learns and moves on.  

But that is a different game style.  
It exists whether those who don't like it admit it or not.

Good design gets the story right.  And, when needed, +infinite damage is awesome design.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 26, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Medusa should work the way it happens in the stories.  Balance be damned.




Ok, so they die immidiately when the hero shows up, never being seen petrifying anyone.

See, that's the thing about stories.  There is no balance or math.  *It's a story*.  There's no game mechanics behind it.  If you want things to be "like the stories" then you never roll a single die.

The medusa was described as someone who could petrify, but shown as someone who dies like a chump as soon as the protagonist shows up.

There is no gamist vs simulationist divide.  The terms are utterly meaningless.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 26, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Ok, so they die immidiately when the hero shows up, never being seen petrifying anyone.
> 
> See, that's the thing about stories. There is no balance or math. *It's a story*. There's no game mechanics behind it. If you want things to be "like the stories" then you never roll a single die.
> 
> ...




See I think your biggest probblem, and probably a divide between players of D&D is the old... "destined to be a hero" vs. "the chance to be a hero."  You see the only person who killed medusa in the story was Perseus... the hero.  

Now if you assume that the PC's are all Perseus then yes they shouldn't be killed by medusa, and if this is taken to the extreme...anything else for that matter (which is kind of absurd IMO).  

However if you're of the mindset that all being a PC does is guarantee you the chance to become a hero (by overcoming and defeating challenges) then medusa and everything else should have a chance to defeat you in ways appropriate to their mythology... and if you do kill her then and only then are you a hero... otherwise you're one of the numerous warriors that went into medusa's layer in Clash of the Titans and never came out.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 26, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Ok, so they die immidiately when the hero shows up, never being seen petrifying anyone.
> 
> See, that's the thing about stories.  There is no balance or math.  *It's a story*.  There's no game mechanics behind it.  If you want things to be "like the stories" then you never roll a single die.
> 
> ...




The head of Medusa was shown to petrify Cetus the sea serpent, Phineas (betrothed to Andromeda), and Polydectes (who was pursuing Perseus' mother).

That said, I tihnk you have it backward.  The stories came first.  The game engines were built to emulate the stories in game form.  How well and what part of the stories get emulated vary from game engine to game engine.

From the story of Medusa, those confronted with her head don't get 3+ rounds of action before petrification and they don't manage to shake the effect off.  

So which game engine better emulates that story?


----------



## BryonD (Jan 26, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Ok, so they die immidiately when the hero shows up, never being seen petrifying anyone.



Heh. The fairly recent History Channel Clash of the Gods series included a segment on Medusa.  According to it, when the story was first being told everyone understood that SOMETHING was so awful that it turned everyone to stone and that something had once been Medusa.  But, since everyone who had every seen it had turned to stone, no one had any idea what it actually looked like.  So it was that much more scary.

Now, the modern archetype is clearly different and, being a modern kinda guy, go with that.  But I do find this alternate very appealing as well.



> See, that's the thing about stories.  There is no balance or math.  *It's a story*.  There's no game mechanics behind it.



With you so far.



> If you want things to be "like the stories" then you never roll a single die.



Nope, that is where you are wrong.  I'll get back to this.



> The medusa was described as someone who could petrify, but shown as someone who dies like a chump as soon as the protagonist shows up.



Not really.  There were lots of protagonists who got turned to stone.  Medusa was very potent.  Perseus is the one who finally came along and beat her.  But the establishment that she was so vastly far from being a chump is a critical piece of the story and why the Perseus myth became a lasting legend.



> There is no gamist vs simulationist divide.  The terms are utterly meaningless.



You seem to fail to grasp that there are stories, tactical mini games, and a third group activities which, for lack of a better term, my friends and I refer to as role playing games.  Now, I realize that you also use that term, so you'll need to be careful there.  I'll substitute Story Acting Events (SAEs) for when I'm talking about what I do.  You can have ownership of RPGs for this conversation.

Now in the SAEs, these are games like a story.  And they do involve rolling dice.  And part of the reason is that, like Perseus, the players (and their characters) HOPE to be the guy who finally beats the very potent monster and make it, for once, look like a chump.  But, they just might be one of the many that fell to Medusa along the way.  There is a huge difference between the story teller and listener knowing how it ended, and being in Perseus shoes before the story is over.

You seem convinced that this concept is not only not what you do (which is fine), but that it doesn't even exist.

When you say that being like a story involves never rolling a die, the only thing you clearly communicate is that you have never experienced what I'm talking about.

And when you challenge me on it, but also insist that the terms gamist and simulationist are "utterly meaningless", you make it clear that it is hopeless.  You can ask me to explain calculus to you as well.  But, if you ground conditions are that you have never done any algebra and FURTHER you insist that the idea of ever using a letter in a math equation is implausible.  Yeah, within the bizarre boundary conditions you demand, calculus does not exist.  Go enjoy that.

In the mean time, there is some fun for the rest of us to derive.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 26, 2011)

Imaro said:


> See I think your biggest probblem, and probably a divide between players of D&D is the old... "destined to be a hero" vs. "the chance to be a hero."  You see the only person who killed medusa in the story was Perseus... the hero.



Exactly right.  

Being the hero is a ton of fun.  But there are some GREAT memories of losing as well.  

And failing in the effort is far more fun than an expected victory.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 26, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Its the old "gamist vs. simulationist" divide.




What's D&D simulating, in this 'simulationist' version of yours? It's not medusa, or there'd be no saving throw involved. You either know the secret or you die.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Ok, so they die immidiately when the hero shows up, never being seen petrifying anyone.




Well, technically all the other 'heroes' died. The one who turned up with his immunity on won. Those are the two possibilities, if you want a strictly 'simulationist' approach. And since a lot of gamers know the secret of  immunity, medusa just isn't scary any more. Everyone can turn up with god-mode on.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 26, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> What's D&D simulating, in this 'simulationist' version of yours? It's not medusa, or there'd be no saving throw involved. You either know the secret or you die.




I always skinned the save as representing whether you looked medusa in the eyes or not. I mean if you keep your eyes closed, at least in 3.x, her gaze attack is partially or fully negated...



Bluenose said:


> Well, technically all the other 'heroes' died. The one who turned up with his immunity on won. Those are the two possibilities, if you want a strictly 'simulationist' approach. And since a lot of gamers know the secret of immunity, medusa just isn't scary any more. Everyone can turn up with god-mode on.




There is no immunity... you can try to avert your eyes whenever you would look at her, but that only reduces your chances of looking into her eyes by 50%... in fact even if you keep your eyes closed you still have to fight her and with hefty penalties... so how are there only two possibilities? Fighting a medusa with total concealment against you is still pretty damn scary in my book...


----------



## Nikosandros (Jan 26, 2011)

BryonD said:


> You can ask me to explain calculus to you as well.  But, if you ground conditions are that you have never done any algebra and FURTHER you insist that the idea of ever using a letter in a math equation is implausible.  Yeah, within the bizarre boundary conditions you demand, calculus does not exist.  Go enjoy that.
> 
> In the mean time, there is some fun for the rest of us to derive.



Well, deriving fun in an integral part of calculus...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 26, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> What's D&D simulating, in this 'simulationist' version of yours? It's not medusa, or there'd be no saving throw involved. You either know the secret or you die.




Bingo.

Perseus never had a saving throw.  There was no math.  There was no gaming system.  He knew the trick and killed the medusa with ease.

That's how SoD works.  You know the trick and the monster isn't scary, or you don't know the trick and _the monster still isn't scary_, the dice are.

Sorry, I don't see the huge and amazing story behind "Sorry you rolled a 5, you die.

Incidentally, calculus can be mathematically proven.  Go on and prove the "simulationist vs gamist" divide.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 26, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> That's how SoD works.  You know the trick and the monster isn't scary, or you don't know the trick and _the monster still isn't scary_, the dice are.




  Its pretend.

We are pretending that the PCs are meeting a medusa and in that context it is the medusa, not the dice, that are scary.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 26, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Bingo.
> 
> Perseus never had a saving throw. There was no math. There was no gaming system. He knew the trick and killed the medusa with ease.
> 
> ...




Or if one wanted to look at it in a different light... Perseus was the only one who did make his Saving Throw... and on top of that his attack was a critical with maximum damage...  ...nothing in the movie or story contradicts this interpretation. 

His men on the other hand (again using Clash of the Titans since it's the most modern incarnation of medusa) do not get slowly turned to stone and none of them that succumb fight it off later.  So what exactly is the 4e version even based on?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 26, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Its pretend.
> 
> We are pretending that the PCs are meeting a medusa and in that context it is the medusa, not the dice, that are scary.




And SoDs utterly fail at assisting or providing for this.


----------



## Dark Mistress (Jan 26, 2011)

I want to just make one comment on the whole medusa issue. To me Perseus went to face her with his party, you know those other guys. Yet he was the only one to live. To me that means she was nearly a TPK for perseus who was given magic items by the gods, as he was the only one to live. Plus I never got the feeling he killed her with ease, but that it was a hard fight and partially he used a trick the reflection of his shield and got lucky to kill her.

Of course that's just my opinion on the subject.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 26, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Or if one wanted to look at it in a different light... Perseus was the only one who did make his Saving Throw... and on top of that his attack was a critical with maximum damage...  ...nothing in the movie or story contradicts this interpretation.
> 
> His men on the other hand (again using Clash of the Titans since it's the most modern incarnation of medusa) do not get slowly turned to stone and none of them that succumb fight it off later.  So what exactly is the 4e version even based on?




Or if you want to look at it in the light _that the story is actually presented in_, there is no saving throw, you either have a trick and use a magic item or you die on the spot! 

4e version is based on the same thing the 3e version is based on the same thing the 2e etc etc etc is: setting up an abstract game function to cover a narrative event.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 26, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> And SoDs utterly fail at assisting or providing for this.




For you maybe, but for many others and their groups it assists and provides for this better than 3 strikes and you're out does... tastes are subjective, even when continuously stated as facts.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 26, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Or if you want to look at it in the light _that the story is actually presented in_, there is no saving throw, you either have a trick and use a magic item or you die on the spot!
> 
> 4e version is based on the same thing the 3e version is based on the same thing the 2e etc etc etc is: setting up an abstract game function to cover a narrative event.




Uhm, saving throws are not an actual action... at least in 3e so how in a narrative would you kow if the protagonist did or didn't make one except in whether he did or didn't succumb to the result? 

However, even without the saving throw... 3.x can cover the medusa fight in various ways, as I demonstrated in a previous post, including averting one's eyes, fighting blind... even fighting through looking in a reflective object. The point though is that 3.x's SoD represents how her powers as described in myths work much better than 4e's SS...oh yeah, Save again...D. No story or movie in anyway has the victims of her gaze slowing down, but still fighting...moving and everything else, or as I said before...recovering from looking at her.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 26, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> And SoDs utterly fail at assisting or providing for this.




Of course, just one person denying that your assertion is false in _their _game utterly undoes your argument, seeing as how you insist on dealing in absolutes. 

I can say with all honesty that I've seen the tension such die rolls create in my games, complete with sighs of relief when they succeed (and screams of agony when they fail). Therefore, since the games I have had experience with provide evidence of the fact that the mechanic works as intended, I can safely say that your absolute statement of fact, is, on the face of it, false. 

To repeat an earlier arguement: If one concedes that a 1 in 40 chance of your character dying as the result of a dice roll going against them is acceptable then one must also concede that what we are left with is an arguement about acceptable odds. Which is entirely subjective.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 26, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Uhm, saving throws are not an actual action... at least in 3e so how in a narrative would you kow if the protagonist did or didn't make one except in whether he did or didn't succumb to the result?




Yes exactly.  Saving throws are an abstract.



> No story or movie in anyway has the victims of her gaze slowing down, but still fighting...moving and everything else, or as I said before...recovering from looking at her.




No story of movie in anyway has the victims of her gaze _shrugging it off_, either.

Likewise, in most stories and movies, people die when they are killed.  Not so with D&D.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 26, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Likewise, in most stories and movies, people die when they are killed.




Except in soap operas, where they can sometimes come back the next season anyway as part of the plot. 

and comic books, where the same thing happens.

and Lord of the Rings. where Gandalf gets another chance.

and The Frighteners, where not only does the antagonist come back from the dead, but so does the protoganist (twice).

and the Godzilla franchise where Godzilla gets a ton of do-overs.

But other than that, yeah, when someone dies, they are normally dead. 

Of course, in most of my games, when people die they are normally considered dead as well.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 26, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Or if one wanted to look at it in a different light... Perseus was the only one who did make his Saving Throw... and on top of that his attack was a critical with maximum damage...  ...nothing in the movie or story contradicts this interpretation.
> 
> His men on the other hand (again using Clash of the Titans since it's the most modern incarnation of medusa) do not get slowly turned to stone and none of them that succumb fight it off later.  So what exactly is the 4e version even based on?




If you're basing your version of Medusa on Clash of the Titans rather than the original Greek myths, I'm not surprised I, doing the opposite, don't agree with you. The original story is just a bit different to the film.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 26, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> If you're basing your version of Medusa on Clash of the Titans rather than the original Greek myths, I'm not surprised I, doing the opposite, don't agree with you. The original story is just a bit different to the film.




Well since 4e is a game based on more modernized influences... I thought the Clash of the Titans medusa was more appropriate as an example, of course 4e doesn't model the most recent incarnation very well anyway so I guess it's a moot point. 

But okay, since the difference must be relevant to the conversation... in which version again does medusa not change her victims to stone instantly with just a glance but instead slows them down and allows them to continue battling, fighting and moving as they wait to shrug the effect off? or is it, for all practical purposes not particularly relevant to the point of whether SoD models her power more accurately than SSSoD?


----------



## Imaro (Jan 26, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Yes exactly. Saving throws are an abstract.
> 
> 
> 
> No story of movie in anyway has the victims of her gaze _shrugging it off_, either.




Wait so are you arguing about the SoD mechanic or just how the designers chose to implement it in 3.5 for the medusa? 

I'll agree I don't think it should have been a Fort save, I think it should have been a Ref save myself to represent the involuntary flinching away, blinking, etc. that might allow one to survive contact with Medusa. But I still think SoD models it more towards the stories and movies featuring medusa than SSSoD does in the game.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 26, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> What's D&D simulating, in this 'simulationist' version of yours? It's not medusa, or there'd be no saving throw involved. You either know the secret or you die.



First, in D&D worlds the secret is generally known.  Perseus knew.

Second, I always interpret making the save as having not seen.  If you DO see, you turn to stone.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 26, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Bingo.
> 
> Perseus never had a saving throw.  There was no math.  There was no gaming system.  He knew the trick and killed the medusa with ease.



Already forgot the lesson, eh?

Three things.  Three.

1) Tactical Games
2) Stories
3) "SAEs"

You are still demanding that everything fall under item #1 or item #2




> That's how SoD works.  You know the trick and the monster isn't scary, or you don't know the trick and _the monster still isn't scary_, the dice are.



 To you, perhaps.  But, since by your own words you don't get the way others do it, that really says nothing to our experience.




> Sorry, I don't see the huge and amazing story behind "Sorry you rolled a 5, you die.



Because you are looking behind the "rolled a 5" and it isn't there.  Your bad.



> Incidentally, calculus can be mathematically proven.  Go on and prove the "simulationist vs gamist" divide.



Heh, man, you don't even understand that point I made there either.  Whether or not they can be proven the same is in no remote way related to the point.


Seriously, are you going to just keep repeating the same irrelevant disconnections?  Or are you going to try to say something that shows you understand the conversation?


----------



## BryonD (Jan 26, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> If you're basing your version of Medusa on Clash of the Titans rather than the original Greek myths, I'm not surprised I, doing the opposite, don't agree with you. The original story is just a bit different to the film.



Do you use SSSoD?  Can you quote a basis from the original story?


----------



## BryonD (Jan 26, 2011)

Imaro said:


> I'll agree I don't think it should have been a Fort save, I think it should have been a Ref save myself to represent the involuntary flinching away, blinking, etc. that might allow one to survive contact with Medusa. But I still think SoD models it more towards the stories and movies featuring medusa than SSSoD does in the game.



To me it is a will save, even reflexes are too slow.

But it is funny that with 4E being loaded with make up the narrative to fit the result by definition, that modeling a made save as meaning you didn't look is suddenly some wild stretch.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 26, 2011)

BryonD said:


> To me it is a will save, even reflexes are too slow.
> 
> But it is funny that with 4E being loaded with make up the narrative to fit the result by definition, that modeling a made save as meaning you didn't look is suddenly some wild stretch.




Yeah. For some reason, for some people the ability to reskin seems limited to 4e... go figure...


----------



## Hussar (Jan 26, 2011)

Wicht said:


> /snip
> And, Hussar, you avoided the question: Is there a 1 HD monster out there with a save or die effect you would like us to actually discuss? If not, please quit bringing it up as I don't think they exist.




In 1e and 2e there are several - snakes and spiders come to mind.  

The point isn't the hit dice.  The point is, the SoD mechanic is just as broken as adding +100 to a monster's damage.  That's my point with the troll.  Medusa is also not the specific point really.  Basilisk and Bodak work exactly the same way.  

You're right, it's all about the math.  Being okay with 1 in 2 doesn't make the mechanics well designed.  If a creature has a 1 in 2 chance of instantly killing a PC in D&D, that's a poorly designed monster.  It's binary.  There's no middle ground.  No tactics.  Nothing.  You're either alive or dead.  No build up of tension.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 26, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I think you actually frame the real problem here.  One size does not fit all.  There are most certainly cases where One Strike (SoD) is best and cases in which step by step changes (SSSSoD) are best.
> 
> 3E has both.  4E says, no SoD.
> 
> ...




Actually, 3e doesn't have both.  3e has SoD, but it doesn't have SSSoD.  What's the difference?  Why should you win and I lose?  Why is it better for the game to only have SoD instead of SSSoD when SSSoD is in better keeping with the mechanics of the game?

After all, in all other aspects of combat, you don't have instant kills.  As was agreed on, adding +100 to the damage of a monster is bad design.  But, it's suddenly good design that a creature can completely bypass all standard combat mechanics - AC, hit points - and instantly kill a PC?

/edit - oops my bad for responding before reading the rest of the thread.  BryonD already admitted that the 3e mechanics fail to simulate his version of Medusa, so, I guess my work here is done.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 26, 2011)

Hussar said:


> In 1e and 2e there are several - snakes and spiders come to mind.
> 
> The point isn't the hit dice. The point is, the SoD mechanic is just as broken as adding +100 to a monster's damage. That's my point with the troll. Medusa is also not the specific point really. Basilisk and Bodak work exactly the same way.
> 
> You're right, it's all about the math. Being okay with 1 in 2 doesn't make the mechanics well designed. If a creature has a 1 in 2 chance of instantly killing a PC in D&D, that's a poorly designed monster. It's binary. There's no middle ground. No tactics. Nothing. You're either alive or dead. No build up of tension.




Sometimes an all or nothing tension is better since it actually...you, know...guarantees some type of tension.

See the thing is... if you make the first saving throw in SSSoD... there is no tension whatsoever. So now medusa really is a joke. In fact I would argue if the first or second save is made it kinda becomes a let down as far as tension goes as you never reach that point where it is do or die...seat of your pants...all or nothing tension. In fact I would say this mechanic promotes the probability of a let down in tension, far more than it does tension, IMO.


----------



## Tuft (Jan 27, 2011)

Wicht said:


> Except in soap operas, where they can sometimes come back the next season anyway as part of the plot.
> 
> and comic books, where the same thing happens.
> 
> ...




Recurring, familiar villains are often really cool: The Joker, professor Moriarty, The Dragon Lady, Shego, Callisto... 

Unfortunately, the common RPG meme that all defeats must be _kills_ precludes both recurring villains (unless they are just shadowy figures pulling strings and only confronted in the final fight - _yawn_...), and the opposite, equally cool situation: the heroes get defeated, captured, and then have to break out or earn your freedom...  Hard to pull off convincingly if the default is that those defeated always get killed.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Actually, 3e doesn't have both.  3e has SoD, but it doesn't have SSSoD.  What's the difference?  Why should you win and I lose?  Why is it better for the game to only have SoD instead of SSSoD when SSSoD is in better keeping with the mechanics of the game?



What version of 3e do you play?



> After all, in all other aspects of combat, you don't have instant kills.  As was agreed on, adding +100 to the damage of a monster is bad design.  But, it's suddenly good design that a creature can completely bypass all standard combat mechanics - AC, hit points - and instantly kill a PC?



Huh?  When it fits, it fits, and when it doesn't, it doesn't.    

Yes, when an effect should be instant kill it is a good thing that it is instant kill.



> /edit - oops my bad for responding before reading the rest of the thread.  BryonD already admitted that the 3e mechanics fail to simulate his version of Medusa, so, I guess my work here is done.



Not quite clear which version you are talking about here.

Just to be clear, 3E does an adequate job of modeling medusa.  SSSoD is, to me, a disaster for this specific.  I don't claim perfection anywhere, but the medusa which have appeared in my game are far from failure.  Perhaps I was referencing something I didn't want, or maybe you misunderstood something.  Either way, no big deal.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Nothing.  You're either alive or dead.  No build up of tension.



And we return to start, do not collect $200.

If the "build up of tension" starts being measured at the point of rolling a save then just go play your game and have a blast.  

I have no interest in your game.  You have no interest in mine. 
But your statement is radically far from even contributing to a discussion of what happens at my table so worry about your own game.  If you are not going to show any progress in grasping the point, there is nothing to be gained by continuing to reach wrong conclusions built on completely wrong assumptions.

It was stated that my point of view doesn't exist.
That is just stupid.  
And I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> You're right, it's all about the math.  Being okay with 1 in 2 doesn't make the mechanics well designed.  If a creature has a 1 in 2 chance of instantly killing a PC in D&D, that's a poorly designed monster.  It's binary.  There's no middle ground.  No tactics.  Nothing.  You're either alive or dead.  No build up of tension.




*In rebuttal, I simply offer the following:*



			
				Frank Stockton said:
			
		

> _Now, the point of the story is this: Did the tiger come out of that door, or did the lady ?
> 
> The more we reflect upon this question, the harder it is to answer. It involves a study of the human heart which leads us through devious mazes of passion, out of which it is difficult to find our way. Think of it, fair reader, not as if the decision of the question depended upon yourself, but upon that hot-blooded, semi-barbaric princess, her soul at a white heat beneath the combined fires of despair and jealousy. She had lost him, but who should have him?
> 
> ...




*When appropriate, a 50/50 chance can be full of tension.*


----------



## Hussar (Jan 27, 2011)

BryonD said:
			
		

> What version of 3e do you play?




Well, I played 3e until 3.5 came out and played 3.5 until about 09, so I do have a bit of experience with the system.  Can you point me to where I missed SSSoD in 3e?  I don't recall ever seeing it, but, there are lots of rules in those books, so, it's possible I missed it.  

Otherwise, what's your point?

--------

Y'know, all this discussion about saving throws got me curious.  So, I went back to my 3.0 Monster manual and actually reread the medusa, instead of going by the SRD.  Funnily enough, it includes in the combat section a line that reads that a medusa will switch to its other attacks if a target "survives" (exact quote) her gaze attack.  

Finding that 3e says that medusa gaze attacks can be survived, I went back to my Basic book and reread the medusa and it says that if you look at a medusa, you turn to stone UNLESS you make your turn to stone save.

Now, I realize I didn't look in every book, but, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that every single D&D monster manual includes something similar.  In other words, in no edition of D&D does a medusa actually work the way BryonD says that it does.  In EVERY single case, you can resist the gaze attack.

The only difference is that in 4e, the onset time is changed from one round to three and instead of about a 50/50 chance of failure, you have about an 85% chance of success.  

But, narratively?  Within the game world?  They operate in IDENTICAL ways.  You can have staring contests with a medusa in every single edition, so long as you make your saves.


---------------

Wicht - we've been over this.  There is nothing precluding SSSoD from EXACTLY the same set up.  Building tension in game is just good DMing.  That has nothing to do with SoD or SSSoD.

Then again, I play a game, I don't write fiction, so maybe that's the issue here.  I have no interests in playing in someone's novel.  

To me, this is pretty cut and dried.  Mechanically SoD is broken.  It bypasses all the mechanics in order to deliver a cheap death to the PC's.  Flipping coins to determine if you live or die isn't exciting.  There's a reason you don't play Russion Roulette with 3 bullets.  

------

In the end, I am just going to have to drop this, because I know that I cannot convince anyone if I haven't already done so.  I can't explain it any better than I have.  The math of SoD doesn't work IMO.  I have no problem with the die part, I have a problem with the fact that SoD area of effect abilities, in particular, aren't 50/50, they're about 90% likely to end in a PC death.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Actually, 3e doesn't have both.  3e has SoD, but it doesn't have SSSoD.




Phantasmal killer. That's a SSoD.
Poisons that do Constitution damage have 2 saves as well. Fail that first save and your condition deteriorates, making that second save harder. Those are pretty deadly.
And then I suppose we can get into encounter-ending spells that are often referred to as save or die spells (because most people assume that succumbing to them leads to character death by coup de grace) but are more appropriately save or sit spells like hold person. You get a save every round for that one until you break free of it, the duration ends, or you die. Dominate Person offers a second save under certain circumstances.

So there are situations in 3e in which there are multiple chances for a saving throw to save your bacon.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 27, 2011)

How about this to answer things.

You feel that the game should translate directly the monster from the story (nevermind that it, well, doesn't).  If the medusa sees you, you turn to stone, end of that.  The importance is in directly simulating the monster as close as you can to the story itself.

I feel that the game should _localize_ the monster.  What I'm more interested is in simulating the narrative focus of the story.  The hero doesn't succeed because he makes his saving throw or because the dice are "against him," he succeeds because he trusts the gods, he has bravery, and because he's the protagonist.

For your style of gameplay, SoDs are, as in your own words, adequete.  They don't quite add up to the whole "If she sees you, you are stone, period."  But, they roughly get the job done.  SSSoD for this style is bad, because it creates another layer between a direct translation of the monster and the game.

For my style of gameplay, SSSoDs work fantastically,  The narrative of the story flows and tension heightens as the failed saves comes up - and I'm sorry, but if you think the first two saves are utterly unimportant and ignorable, you're speaking from ignorance.  Being slowed for many classes is terrible, and being immobilized for just about every class is horrifying.  For me, SoDs ruin this - too much importance is placed on a single dice roll, too much power is out of the players' hands, when the _narrative_ should be about them bravely facing an evil and scary monster, not praying to be lucky.

To use a non-D&D example, if you're playing a Star Trek game and the klingons damage the ship and a bridge member is there with a few others, you roll the dice and damn, he dies.  Important character, lost.  In my case, the nameless red shirt _always_ dies first, because that's how the narrative of that type of story works.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> To me, this is pretty cut and dried.  Mechanically SoD is broken.  It bypasses all the mechanics in order to deliver a cheap death to the PC's.




There you'd be wrong. It's not a means to bypass all the mechanics. Save or die effects have always *been* a mechanic to deliver quick death to the PCs who encounter them. How can a mechanic by pass all mechanics?




Hussar said:


> Flipping coins to determine if you live or die isn't exciting.  There's a reason you don't play Russion Roulette with 3 bullets.




You know, even with your SSSoD mechanic that you seem to favor, you're still just flipping coins to determine if you live or die. You're just flipping them in a different way.




Hussar said:


> The math of SoD doesn't work IMO.  I have no problem with the die part, I have a problem with the fact that SoD area of effect abilities, in particular, aren't 50/50, they're about 90% likely to end in a PC death.




It all depends on what you want the math (from a modeling perspective) or the creature's attack (from a narrative perspective) to do. Do you want your medusa to be lethal or not particularly lethal?


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 27, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Well since 4e is a game based on more modernized influences... I thought the Clash of the Titans medusa was more appropriate as an example, of course 4e doesn't model the most recent incarnation very well anyway so I guess it's a moot point.
> 
> But okay, since the difference must be relevant to the conversation... in which version again does medusa not change her victims to stone instantly with just a glance but instead slows them down and allows them to continue battling, fighting and moving as they wait to shrug the effect off? or is it, for all practical purposes not particularly relevant to the point of whether SoD models her power more accurately than SSSoD?




You still seem to be working on the basis that Medusa had to look at people to turn them to stone. She didn't. Otherwise, Perseus wouldn't have needed his mirrored shield. She was asleep when he cut her head off, after all. And then kept her head to use as his 'I Win' button in a few other conflicts. Instant death is certainly part of the story, but saving throws aren't. Not SSSoD or SoD. Just D.


----------



## Nagol (Jan 27, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> You still seem to be working on the basis that Medusa had to look at people to turn them to stone. She didn't. Otherwise, Perseus wouldn't have needed his mirrored shield. She was asleep when he cut her head off, after all. And then kept her head to use as his 'I Win' button in a few other conflicts. Instant death is certainly part of the story, but saving throws aren't. Not SSSoD or SoD. Just D.




Medusa didn't have to look at you; you had to look at her.  The S is accidentally/reflexively not doing that.  You can circumvent the need to save by deliberately setting up a situation where you didn't/couldn't look at her.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 27, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> You still seem to be working on the basis that Medusa had to look at people to turn them to stone. She didn't. Otherwise, Perseus wouldn't have needed his mirrored shield. She was asleep when he cut her head off, after all. And then kept her head to use as his 'I Win' button in a few other conflicts. Instant death is certainly part of the story, but saving throws aren't. Not SSSoD or SoD. Just D.




Uhm... Nagol pretty much summed up the point I have been trying to make about SoD since the beginning... yet...you've not come up with a way that 4e's mechanics in any way model the medusa of classical mythology or modern culture.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Wicht - we've been over this.  There is nothing precluding SSSoD from EXACTLY the same set up.  Building tension in game is just good DMing.  That has nothing to do with SoD or SSSoD.




Actually you have claimed that there is no tension with sudden-death effects. Some of us disagree. If you will acknowledge that there can be tension in games which use the mechanic (even though you don't like it), the whole thing could be easily dropped.


----------



## Wicht (Jan 27, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> How about this to answer things.
> 
> You feel that the game should translate directly the monster from the story (nevermind that it, well, doesn't).  If the medusa sees you, you turn to stone, end of that.  The importance is in directly simulating the monster as close as you can to the story itself.
> 
> ...




Which all boils down to mean: its a subjective judgment call and some people may play in a different style of game in which the sudden death mechanic mirrors the effect they want better than the lingering effect. Correct?


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 27, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> You still seem to be working on the basis that Medusa had to look at people to turn them to stone. She didn't. Otherwise, Perseus wouldn't have needed his mirrored shield. She was asleep when he cut her head off, after all. And then kept her head to use as his 'I Win' button in a few other conflicts. Instant death is certainly part of the story, but saving throws aren't. Not SSSoD or SoD. Just D.




I think it´ll be worth a try to change her gaze attack to an aura and see what happens.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 27, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> You still seem to be working on the basis that Medusa had to look at people to turn them to stone. She didn't. Otherwise, Perseus wouldn't have needed his mirrored shield. She was asleep when he cut her head off, after all. And then kept her head to use as his 'I Win' button in a few other conflicts. Instant death is certainly part of the story, but saving throws aren't. Not SSSoD or SoD. Just D.





I think you're working under a misconception here. The saving throw mechanic was designed to save the PC from situations *just like that*, a situation that would otherwise be certain death. It was a measure of the heroism of the character that they had a chance, even a small one, to avoid that doom. That's why it's a *saving* throw.


----------



## Bluenose (Jan 27, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Uhm... Nagol pretty much summed up the point I have been trying to make about SoD since the beginning... yet...you've not come up with a way that 4e's mechanics in any way model the medusa of classical mythology or modern culture.




If Medusa affects you with her gaze you turn to stone. That seems both to reflect how the 4e mechanics work and the way it works in classical mythology. If you're going to have a saving throw at all, you're already deviating from the sources. Nagol somewhat implies this, pointing out you can circumvent the need to save. 



billd91 said:


> I think you're working under a misconception here. The saving throw mechanic was designed to save the PC from situations *just like that*, a situation that would otherwise be certain death. It was a measure of the heroism of the character that they had a chance, even a small one, to avoid that doom. That's why it's a *saving* throw.




If your heroes are greater than the sources, why only allow one saving throw? Why is that the magic number?


----------



## billd91 (Jan 27, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> If your heroes are greater than the sources, why only allow one saving throw? Why is that the magic number?




How much greater than the sources do you think your character needs to be?


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 27, 2011)

billd91 said:


> How much greater than the sources do you think your character needs to be?




I think you´re really missunderstanding him. If you stik with the source, there is no way to survive the encounter with the medusa without using the mirror shield.
If we´re already deviating from the source by using that one save, as the MM entry suggests, then the D&D heroes are already greater than the source by being immune just by virtue of being heroes. Where´s the need for the shield then?
If you take the 4E medusa, as suggested, you´re more or less close-blasting with petrifying gaze every round, all your enemies.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 27, 2011)

Serious question.

How did we get this many pages deep into SoD mechanics discussion in the RPG Industry Forum?

"A forum for communicating with publishers and for posting press releases and announcements. Now includes the old e-Publishing and RPG Legalities forums. If you want to *discuss the business of RPGs rather than the game itself*, this is your forum."

I'm used to see an old-fashioned tangent & the occasional thread-jack, and while I love a good "classic medusa fight" debate, but -- really?  Is anyone even pretending the discussion is still relevant to the original topic anymore?

Note: I'm all for the discussion and find it interesting, just in a different thread/forum.  I just keep coming back to this thread thinking it'll get back on topic...  YMMV.


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 27, 2011)

Maybe because this thread used to be in general rpg discussions and was moved here?


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 27, 2011)

The OP may have pre-dated the Industry forum, but the original topic and original pages sure fit this forum.  A battle for the hearts-and-minds of Save-or-Die game mechanic fence-sitters doesn't.  At least I'm not seeing it.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 27, 2011)

Azgulor said:


> Serious question.
> 
> How did we get this many pages deep into SoD mechanics discussion in the RPG Industry Forum?
> 
> ...




I think it is just time for the biannual save or die discussion 

I though with the split I had seen the end of it but no.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 27, 2011)

Bluenose said:


> If Medusa affects you with her gaze you turn to stone. That seems both to reflect how the 4e mechanics work and the way it works in classical mythology.



4E allows you to be affected, but avoid petrification.



> If you're going to have a saving throw at all, you're already deviating from the sources.



I dislike that it is a fort save because that clearly suggests that the effect has been shrugged off.  On that particular I'll readily agree with criticism.

But if a save represents that last gasp hope that maybe you controlled yourself, or just got really lucky, or whatever, and managed to still not see her, then that save is completely consistent with the source.

If you see her, you are stone.
If you don't, nothing happens. 
There are no shades of grey.  4E is all about shades of grey, so it is out.
3E RAW is about shrugging it off and that is also wrong.

But the root SoD mechanic is completely fitting.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 28, 2011)

Hussar said:


> You're right, it's all about the math.  Being okay with 1 in 2 doesn't make the mechanics well designed.  If a creature has a 1 in 2 chance of instantly killing a PC in D&D, that's a poorly designed monster.  It's binary.  There's no middle ground.  No tactics.  Nothing.  You're either alive or dead.  No build up of tension.




I disagree with this point.  Even if it's a 50% chance that a monster can kill a PC instantly, that doesn't make it poorly designed.  Nor does it eliminate tension.

It's a party game.  It's intended for groups of 4-5 characters, and maybe even some hirelings or followers.  If there is a 50% chance per PC, what are the chances that in that instant all 4 PC's will be instantly killed?  Pretty much about 6.25%.  The other party members will have several rounds to fight the creature, and could very well vanquish it.

There's a heck of a lot of tension to an encounter where the PCs enter the lair of Medusa, and "Oh crap, Frank just got stoned!  We have to stop her or we're all gonna die!  Don't look her in the eye!" etc. etc..  That's drama.  That's risk.  That can make an encounter that stresses the players, and they try their darndest to take down this monster, before it kills them all.

I mean really.....there are creatures in the game that do immense damage.....ancient or older red dragons, for instance.  If they get a breath in, there's a good chance the dragon can take out a character, if the character isn't protected sufficiently.  What's the difference between Medusa being able to turn a character to stone with a glance, and a dragon breathing a cone of fire that can cause more damage in one attack than any character in the party who does not have 1d10's for hit dice even has for hp, when fully healed?  Either way, the character is still dead.

I'm really not sure what the whole deal is with this argument.  Some monsters have rather lethal attacks that characters have to prepare themselves to face.  Only fools rush in unprepared.  And if they do, they deserve to die.

YMMV.

It's D&D....The characters are taking the place of Perseus or Lancelot or St. George or whoever.  Hunting down creatures that terrify and destroy innocents.  That in many cases  have maimed dozens of other adventurers who have tried to end the scourge.  And now YOUR character is going to try their hand, and see if they can vanquish the beast.  Of course there's going to be danger, and sometimes, characters will come back in body bags.  Back in the 2E DMG (or PHB??) there was even a fantastic picture showing a pair of fighters bringing their buddy back in a "stretcher".....he was dead, obviously killed violently, arm dangling out of the stretcher, and they were walking up the steps of a temple to get him raised.

Without that kind of risk, what's the point?  It's just my opinion....but I prefer epics over pulp, I guess.  Where the heroes don't always have happy endings, and in many cases, they don't all make it home.  

Banshee


----------



## Solvarn (Jan 28, 2011)

Banshee16 said:


> I disagree with this point. Even if it's a 50% chance that a monster can kill a PC instantly, that doesn't make it poorly designed. Nor does it eliminate tension.
> 
> It's a party game. It's intended for groups of 4-5 characters, and maybe even some hirelings or followers. If there is a 50% chance per PC, what are the chances that in that instant all 4 PC's will be instantly killed? Pretty much about 6.25%. The other party members will have several rounds to fight the creature, and could very well vanquish it.
> 
> ...




I think there are a lot of things you can do to ratchet up tension without controlling a PC out of the fight.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 28, 2011)

Solvarn said:


> I think there are a lot of things you can do to ratchet up tension without controlling a PC out of the fight.




 Wait... so now the possibility of SoD affecting a PC... is the DM "controlling a PC out of the fight."?  Does that apply to SSSoD if the PC doesn't make 3 saves... how about if the DM rolls a critical and kills a PC  outright... or a PC who has a bad run of luck with save ends?  Aren't these all situations where a PC is out of the fight?


----------



## Coldwyn (Jan 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Wait... so now the possibility of SoD affecting a PC... is the DM "controlling a PC out of the fight."?  Does that apply to SSSoD if the PC doesn't make 3 saves... how about if the DM rolls a critical and kills a PC  outright... or a PC who has a bad run of luck with save ends?  Aren't these all situations where a PC is out of the fight?




That sentence only makes sense when you replace "controlling" with "directly taking", I guess.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 28, 2011)

Coldwyn said:


> That sentence only makes sense when you replace "controlling" with "directly taking", I guess.




But SoD doesn't directly do anything... it is a chance something will or will not happen.


----------



## Banshee16 (Jan 29, 2011)

Imaro said:


> But SoD doesn't directly do anything... it is a chance something will or will not happen.




This is partly what I was getting at.  It's just another me habit for how ssomething can happen.

At the end of the day, if your medusa stones a character with one saving throw or the red dragon breathes fire on the character, who passes his save but then fails his save vs massive damage, he's still dead.  And in both cases it was still one attack that caused the death.

And then there are the legion of monsters or NPCs who can supposedly do sickening amounts of damage in a round.   Like the optimized fighter who can do 200 hp of damage in a round.  Most characters can't survive 200 hp of damage in one round.  It's still one round and it's still beyond the capability of most characters to absorb.  Yes, there are more rolls involved, so statistically it's a little hard to do but it's still possible.

It just seems some people focus on the SoD mechanic so much that they overlook the myriad of forms of lethal damage that are not save or die.

Banshee


----------



## Hussar (Jan 30, 2011)

Imaro said:


> But SoD doesn't directly do anything... it is a chance something will or will not happen.




A 90% chance that something will happen based on a 4 PC party.  Note, that's 90% PER ROUND, although the chances actually do drop every time a PC is killed.  Funnily enough, mathematically speaking the best tactic for dealing with a medusa is to fight her one at a time.  

The way I see this, there are basically three issues, so, I'll take a stab at each in turn.

1.  Ramping up tension.

AFAIK, this is stating that the DM should increase tension with a SoD creature before the encounter.  It apparently doesn't really matter about the tension within the encounter, tension should be driven before you even meet the SoD creature.

I 100% agree with this.  This is excellent DM advice.  You should raise tension before an encounter with a SoD creature.  But, in the end, isn't this true of every encounter?  Do DM's actually only do this with SoD creatures?  I don't think so.  I think a Dm should be ramping up tension before each and every encounter (save perhaps ambush encounters, but, quite possibly even then).  This isn't limited to SoD and really, IMO, has little to do with SoD or SSSoD.  

2.  Deviation from the source.

The argument here, that BryonD has been tapping quite heavily, is that if you see the medusa you turn to stone.  This is how it works in the myth, and that's the way it should work in D&D.

However, the problem here is that it has NEVER actually worked this way in D&D.  You have always been able to resist a medusa's gaze attack.  Every single edition of the game actually agrees with this.  The flavour hasn't changed at all.  The only thing that has changed is the number of chances you get to make your save.  

But, as far as in game narrative goes, it plays out EXACTLY the same in any edition.  Character sees the medusa and is forced to save.  In pre-4e, that's the end of the story, at least for that round.  In 4e, it's the end of the story if he makes his save, or, he gets a couple of more shots at it as he gradually succumbs to the power of the gaze.

Which brings me to the last point.

Math

I've been hitting this one pretty hard and I'm not sure if anyone's actually directly addressed it to be honest.  In my mind, there's no difference between adding a +infinite damage bonus to a monster or SoD.  Both mechanics do an end run around all the other mechanics.  

But, +inifinite damage is broken, but, SoD is not?  That it has been in the game for a long time does not make it not broken.  The math is pretty clear on this.  For a SoD area of effect creature, you're looking at about a 90% chance of PC fatality.  It's fairly random which PC will die, but, it's still around 90%.

How is that in keeping with encounter design?  A given creature generally shouldn't have a 90% chance of whacking a PC in a fairly standard encounter.  Elder dragons have been brought up.  Let's not forget that we're talking about creatures that PC's shouldn't be facing until the high teen levels in 3e.  By that time, the breath weapon isn't as scary as it looks because characters can be assumed to either have the hit points to straight up take the damage, or enough resistances to make up the difference.

To me, changing to SSSoD is in keeping with the mechanics and the base assumptions of the game.  A 7th level party isn't going to be walking around with a bag full of defenses up and the party is nowhere near high enough level to reverse the effects of the SoD.  Poison?  Sure, slow poison is a second level spell as is Lesser Restoration.  Both are easily within reach of a party regularly facing poison attacks.

Anyway, I think I've derailed this poor thread enough, and, as the side comments are showing, this is just not going to go anywhere.  I've presented my case and it's not going to get any better than that.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 30, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Which brings me to the last point.
> 
> Math
> 
> ...




You keep harping on the mechanics making an end run around... mechanics. But they're two different mechanics, designed to do two different things and with a different spirit toward doing so. That's why adding a big old load of numbers to an ablation mechanic isn't the same as a save or die effect. Save or die doesn't make an end run around hit point ablation any more or less than SSSoD does. They're simply different mechanics that can yield similar results - a character being effectively dead.

As far as the math goes, a creature with an area-effect save or die stands an excellent chance of killing someone if mobbed. So what? It doesn't really matter to me if you think some creatures have a danger threshold too high. You're welcome to not use them in your games. There's nothing wrong with that. Your squeamishness doesn't make it a bad mechanic.


----------



## Tallifer (Jan 30, 2011)

*****Partly concerning the original topic of the thread:

Paizo did indeed end up with thousands of D&D customers. Which makes me think about the current decline of 4e (And I speak as a fanatic of 4e: books and miniatures cancelled, unfinished character builder, gutted magazines, fortune cards, production reduced to mostly hack novels and boardgames...). I think that the implosion of 4e in 2012 will mean a new company will make a retro-clone of 4e soon. Then D&D customers will be divided between Paizo and "neo-Paizo," and Hasbro will lose interest in 4e after the complete failure of 5e.

Just a thought. (A wishful one, looking forward to a time when 4e will be designed for its fanatics.)


----------

