# How Important is the D&D Brand?



## MichaelSomething

Paizo already is with the MMO they're "making"


----------



## delericho

> What do you think? Should companies like Paizo try to compete for that brand identity space in the general public?




No. They'd lose.

IMO, Paizo should stick to what they're doing - produce quality products, look to increase their profits, and generally expand. It's worked for them really well so far, so they should carry on as before. Don't fight D&D for name recognition, because they can no more do that than you could fight Coca Cola, McDonalds, or Ford.

But... if at some point they get an opportunity to _buy_ D&D (highly unlikely, but not impossible), then they probably should. If only to make sure nobody else beats them to it.


----------



## Morrus

delericho said:
			
		

> No. They'd lose.




I don't think it's a binary choice. It's not "beat the D&D brand or have no brand at all".  There's nothing to "lose" by promoting your brand.  Of course, every company should compete for brand space, but that makes it sound like there's a limited resource of it.  Every company should establish its own brand as best it can; that doesn't mean every company has to be the #1 recognised brand (though I'm sure they'd like to be).

So yes, Paizo should continue its efforts to establish its brand.  It has a loyal fanbase, it's selling very well at the moment, it has an upcoming MMO (D&D has a couple); it's 40 years behind D&D, so it's a long hill to climb, but it can climb that hill for the next 40 years.

And it's not all brand. As they've shown, you can outsell the top brand without having the same degree of recognition.  Although, admittedly, as I've said before - it would be pretty darn embarrassing for Paizo if they _weren't_ outselling a company which isn't actually selling anything right now!*


*Reprints and weird lego type things I don't understand aside.


----------



## darjr

I would like Paizo to try their hand at a Celebrity game like the PAX ones from WotC. I don't know if that counts as competing on a brand level or not, I just think it would be way fun.


----------



## Argyle King

I believe that -before you can create a brand identity of your own or chip away at someone else's- you need to have a quality product.  More importantly, the people you are trying to sell to need to believe you have a quality product.  On that front, there are many companies which are doing great, and I believe a combination of a lack of D&D product a well as a perceived lack of quality (no matter if that perception is true or not) have given some of those smaller companies an ability to be seen.  Now that they have been seen, the question is whether or not they can be unseen.  Will people who were lured elsewhere come back to D&D once D&D has an active game again?  Many people will probably play D&D and something else, but that is still something which takes away from D&D because the money spent on that something else is money that could have been spent on WoTC products.

I do believe D&D has a strong brand identity.  I also believe it is one of the strongest brands in the rpg hobby.  However, I'm not convinced it is still as strong now as it was ten years ago.  I do remember times when I would say "D&D" when I really meant "tabletop rpg," but -now- I most often find myself and the other gamers I socialize with on a personal level being more specific with game names.  With that in mind, my natural question is whether the D&D brand strength is the most important thing right now or if the financial strength of WoTC (and Hasbro) is the most important thing.  In no way would I ever try to deny that D&D as a brand name is recognizable, but I will argue that -I believe- we're in a time where other rpgs could do just as well (if not better) if they had the same resources and support available.  

Something else I believe is that the next big step for a tabletop game might be to drop the term "roleplaying game."  I do not believe the term carries enough meaning.  I also think the term is somehow both simultaneously empty of meaning and loaded with baggage because of games like D&D and WoW.  For those who don't know what it is, it doesn't say anything; for those who do know what it is, it says too much or not enough depending on who you are talking to.  I think many games would benefit from a marketing standpoint if they used something like "collaborative storytelling system."  Depending on the particular game, different descriptors may work better, but my overall point is that I believe some changes in terminology might benefit a game due to the evolution of the hobby and the wide range of things that "rpg" can entail while simultaneously conveying little or no meaning to people outside of the hobby.


----------



## Derren

You are pretty optimistic about the D&D brand strength even though it is at an all time low. Not only on the primary market where Pathfinder now rivals and even surpasses D&D in sales, but also on secondary markets like Video games where while once D&D was a name indicating quality now doesn't mean anything any more or is even a negative term. How is D&D doing on the book market?

Also, what you write is pretty US centric. Outside the US the D&D name is a lot less stronger.


----------



## Ahnehnois

The downside of the D&D name is that it can serve as an anchor, dragging down the rest of the hobby. There's no reason that an rpg has to be about hodgepodge high fantasy, involve combat, use any physical aids, or have complex rules. There's no reason that the people playing it have to be white guys who don't get enough sunlight. And yet, there's a culture around D&D, and stereotypes beyond that culture, that carry a negative connotation to many and limit its popularity.

Creating or expanding a new brand name I think is beyond the capability of an rpg company. Pathfinder isn't really different from D&D, doesn't really have a different audience, and doesn't have an IP with any mainstream appeal. Maybe, just maybe, their MMO could change that. Given how rough the MMO market is, I wouldn't bet on it. I wouldn't watch a Pathfinder TV show, and I _like_ Pathfinder (the ruleset) (some of it anyway). If I were a TV exec, I doubt I'd ever pay any money for an rpg's IP. D&D blew the only real chance this hobby has had so far to cross into cinema.

I think a more likely direction is to take a recognizable name and make an rpg out of it. And we've seen plenty of those, most of which haven't really been game-changers. The WotC Star Wars game probably had the biggest audience of any of these, I would guess. There's also all those Cthulhu-based games. Licensed rpgs, AFAICT, are usually released well after the main property, usually aren't advertised very well, and the design of the rpgs themselves often doesn't fit the task and sometimes just isn't good.

What I'd really like to see is some big, new film/TV show or computer game with an rpg attached, released at the same time and promoted in the same way. Buy the tie-in novel! Buy the t-shirt! Buy the PnP rpg! Sort of like what Defiance did, game and promoted together, as equals with roughly simultaneous releases. It seems to be that Dragon Age wasted the opportunity to do this; the PnP game was too little too late, though it seems to be doing okay for itself. Huge genre hits like The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones haven't hit this nail on the head either, which is a shame. Of course, given a simultaneous release, the success of a massive new IP would hinge on quality and on how well it was sold.

To me, that's the only way a new brand name could ever sit side by side with or even surpass D&D.


----------



## Morrus

Derren said:


> You are pretty optimistic about the D&D brand strength even though it is at an all time low. Not only on the primary market where Pathfinder now rivals and even surpasses D&D in sales, but also on secondary markets like Video games where while once D&D was a name indicating quality now doesn't mean anything any more or is even a negative term. How is D&D doing on the book market?




Brand and sales figures are not the same thing.  The D&D brand is strong because people have *heard* of D&D, not because people *buy* D&D.  And the reason they've heard of it is partly due to longevity, but also from cartoons, movies, books, video games and the like.  

So the D&D brand strength is not at an all time low.  Sales figures are; that's because WotC isn't currently selling D&D.  



> Not only on the primary market where Pathfinder now rivals and even surpasses D&D in sales




As I said earlier, it would be pretty embarrassing if they weren't surpassing a product not currently being sold.  Even_ I'm_ surpassing new D&D RPG sales.


----------



## greyhaze

For other companies D&D has done it's job in paving the way, in that regard there really is no competition - D&D will always have been first.  Owning the brand will mean that there will always be a following and interest, but that goodwill only goes so far.


----------



## Vyrolakos

It's the name that everyone knows, so it's important to RPG hobbyists, as it's D&D that attracts new people into the hobby. It just has so much of the spotlight. If Paizo keep up their remarkable rise, they may well be in a position to take up some of the duties of attracting new hobbyists that the D&D brand has done for so long.

It's like with MMORPG's. World of Warcraft wasn't the first, there were more popular online games before WoW came along and took the spotlight. Hasbro (WotC) need to bear this in mind.


----------



## Umbran

I think you overstate the danger that "D&D" is/will become the generic term.  If nothing else, in the conversations I have heard, I have more and more heard gamers use the term RPG - both because what they are talking about isn't D&D (and pedantic specifics matter to gamers), and because "D&D" has a negative-nerd connotation that "RPG" does not have with the general public.


----------



## Vyrolakos

In my experience, those in the hobby don't refer to D&D as a generic term for 'role-playing', we all know that it's a specific game. It's only those outside of the hobby who refer to us all as "D&D'ers".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Pretty good primer!



> What do you think? Should companies like Paizo try to compete for that brand identity space in the general public?




Sure!

The factor with the highest correlation with success in the market is being first to market- D&D has that.  But you can't rest on those laurels.  There are lots of "Firsts" that have created markets and then lost their dominance or failed altogether.

At one time, there was pretty much only Coke as a big soda brand.  Now Pepsi is nearly its equal in size.  Between them, they have thousands of brands, covering most beverage markets.  And that only happened because Pepsi kept trying to be #1.

So, if you're in position to do so, pushing #1 can work out for you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Umbran said:


> I think you overstate the danger that "D&D" is/will become the generic term.  If nothing else, in the conversations I have heard, I have more and more heard gamers use the term RPG - both because what they are talking about isn't D&D (and pedantic specifics matter to gamers), and because "D&D" has a negative-nerd connotation that "RPG" does not have with the general public.






Vyrolakos said:


> In my experience, those in the hobby don't refer to D&D as a generic term for 'role-playing', we all know that it's a specific game. It's only those outside of the hobby who refer to us all as "D&D'ers".




I'm with Vyrolakos on this one: outside the hobby, "RPG" is almost unheard of as a term for the hobby.  I hear all kinds of genre games referred to as D&D- even board games like Arkham. I'd be willing to bet the man on the street is more familiar with "RPG" as a term for rocket propelled grenades than role-playing games.


----------



## Radiating Gnome

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm with Vyrolakos on this one: outside the hobby, "RPG" is almost unheard of as a term for the hobby.  I hear all kinds of genre games referred to as D&D- even board games like Arkham. I'd be willing to bet the man on the street is more familiar with "RPG" as a term for rocket propelled grenades than role-playing games.




That's exactly what I was trying to get at with the Kleenex/Tissue comparison -- to outsiders, D&D is to RPGs as KLeenex is to Facial Tissue. 

-rg


----------



## Morrus

Radiating Gnome said:


> That's exactly what I was trying to get at with the Kleenex/Tissue comparison -- to outsiders, D&D is to RPGs as KLeenex is to Facial Tissue.




That's a local thing; I've never heard anyone use the words Kleenex (except on TV, I expect, but don't recall) or whatever the other thing was that I can no longer see because I'm typing a reply!  Hoover, on the other hand - that's pretty ubiquitous.  And Xerox was 20 years ago; not any more though.


----------



## DMBear67

I've been playing D & D for 37 years. I was a kid when I started. For me, it will always be D & D! Do I play other RPGs? Yes! Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, GURPS, Star  Wars, Star Trek (out of print), MERP (again out of print), Shadowrun, Game of Thrones, Warhammer, and a half dozen more ! However, when DDN comes out full throttle  - I have been using the playtest version since it started for my group - I will invest into that system. For those of us who are older and have been playing forever, we will probably always be D&Ders. We will be those who play and invest in the game that we started with!  

Do I think that there is another RPG that will cause the "brand" name of D & D to falter? NO! Because the older players with the disposable income (because we have good paying jobs, kids are graduated, house is paid off, etc) will always spend our money on D & D.  It comes to the point of who has the money to support the industry and the brands within the industry. 

In fact, some of the brands within the RPG industry have really great concepts but have been poorly executed - Serenity, Buffy, Slaine, Robotech, Champion/Hero, LOTR, Castles and Crusades is my short list. I own and have played a number of these over the years. Yet, I always come back to D & D. 

I have created my own world, races, feats, items, and spells. I have written 175 to 200 adventures for my groups over the years based on the D & D system but for different versions. I am too invested in the system to completely give it up! Yet WOTC also needs to realize that although I am invested in it, I can use what's out here and create what I need rather than buy any crappy stuff (like 2nd ed was). So WOTC needs to be careful with what they put out! 

As for expanding RPGs into other markets like cinema or MMOs, well ... we have the Gamers & D & D movies, Game of Thrones on HBO, and enough MMOs to choke a horse already! Yes, I wish there was an RPG based series on TV/Cable/Satellite like Pathfinder serializing the current comic book into a weekly show (maybe HBO can take another chance?) or that the Dead Gentlemen would take the financial risk and produce a series of Gamers movies that are more serialized and not so disjointed as the first two were. Both of those would be great. Maybe the folks who created Ultramarines could do an entire series of movies of all of the Space Marine chapters (Space Wolves would be a great 2nd movie).  In all reality though, we don't need anymore MMOs that have RPG specific worlds and storylines! An MMO in a generic fantasy world that has all of the various basics (races, classes, spells, equipment, etc) allows the player to play an RPG at anytime! That is enough !


----------



## DMBear67

*Kleenex = tissue*



Morrus said:


> That's a local thing; I've never heard anyone use the words Kleenex (except on TV, I expect, but don't recall) or whatever the other thing was that I can no longer see because I'm typing a reply!  Hoover, on the other hand - that's pretty ubiquitous.  And Xerox was 20 years ago; not any more though.




Morrus ... Kleenex = tissue generically is a Midwest thing I think! We in the middle of the country seem to use it but I've never heard folks from other sections of the country use it ! Just like some sections of the South use Coke to refer to all soda/pop!


----------



## DMBear67

Morrus said:


> I'm in the south of the country, but I've never heard anyone do that.



Seems to be all of the Alabama and Mississippi folks that come north and their families do it !


----------



## bjmorga

In South Carolina, we use the term "Coke" for sodas and "Kleenex" for tissues. 

Oh, and the article was good!


----------



## Umbran

Radiating Gnome said:


> That's exactly what I was trying to get at with the Kleenex/Tissue comparison -- to outsiders, D&D is to RPGs as KLeenex is to Facial Tissue.




Ah, but you see, there's one major difference.

With Kleenex/tissues, there are no "outsiders".  Everyone needs to blow their nose on occasion.  

With D&D/RPGs, only outsiders use the term D&D to mean RPGs in general (and, honestly, the ones that do that don't actually know what it is, beyond a thing nerds do, and maybe dice and elves are involved).  But, those outsiders have zero market power - they aren't customers!  

Given that, even today, I'm pretty sure the driver of the D&D market is an apprentice system, where someone who knows the game brings you into the game, I don't see as how having the D&D brand be the common terms is really an issue.


----------



## Morrus

Man, do I apologise for any part I might have had in the whole "this is what we call X where I live" thing!  I guess maybe I helped start it, and I know it was the third most tediously repeated conversation on the web back in 1992.  If I made it happen again today, I apologise most profusely!


----------



## Radiating Gnome

Morrus said:


> Man, do I apologise for any part I might have had in the whole "this is what we call X where I live" thing!  I guess maybe I helped start it, and I know it was the third most tediously repeated conversation on the web back in 1992.  If I made it happen again today, I apologise most profusely!




Pretty sure I started it. 

But I'm not sorry! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!!

-RG


----------



## Umbran

Morrus said:


> After 20+ years of the internet, that can't possible be of interest to anybody any more, can it?  Surely not!




Well, in this case, there is a question of whether there's some market power associated with who uses the term how.  

Yes, it is a fiddly bit.  We are gamers.   Most of us live for fiddly bits of one kind or another


----------



## Nikosandros

It must also be a country thing. Here in Italy, I've never heard someone use D&D as a "generic" name. Either someone knows what an RPG is or they have never heard of D&D either.


----------



## Tonguez

Umbran said:


> Ah, but you see, there's one major difference.
> 
> With Kleenex/tissues, there are no "outsiders".  Everyone needs to blow their nose on occasion.
> 
> With D&D/RPGs, only outsiders use the term D&D to mean RPGs in general (and, honestly, the ones that do that don't actually know what it is, beyond a thing nerds do, and maybe dice and elves are involved).  But, those outsiders have zero market power - they aren't customers!
> 
> Given that, even today, I'm pretty sure the driver of the D&D market is an apprentice system, where someone who knows the game brings you into the game, I don't see as how having the D&D brand be the common terms is really an issue.



`

yeah I think this is the major thing DnD is the big fish but it is in a very small niche pond. Anybody in the RPG market is relatively informed enough to know both DnD and PF and GURPS and even FATE. Generally brand is of less importance to informed buyers.

Outside gamers RPG books compete with boardgames, consoles, online rpgs and even comics. Fantasy as a genre is big but that doesn't mean more players even if the golden goose for Hasbro et al lies with direct tie ins to Lord of the Rings, Conan and Star Wars. Personally my first exposure was two plastic bullywugs and a carrion crawler but went from the red box to GURPS due to quality of the product and access rather than branding.

oh and nice article but personally I use tissues and tell my mother about the online game me and my son are playing (Pirates101 btw, not WoW).


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

bjmorga said:


> In South Carolina, we use the term "Coke" for sodas and "Kleenex" for tissues.




I'm from California and do the same thing.

I've yet to start calling D&D "Pathfinder", but I would do the opposite as shorthand, admittedly giving short shrift to Paizo.  Paizo's definitely benefited from the brand boost of D&D (and Dungeon & Dragon magazines) but I don't expect they'll ever match D&D's name recognition if D&D remains reasonably well managed.  It may yet be possible to pull a "New Coke" with D&D; and [diaglo] _some might say they already have_ [/diaglo].


----------



## amerigoV

Tonguez said:


> `
> 
> yeah I think this is the major thing DnD is the big fish but it is in a very small niche pond. Anybody in the RPG market is relatively informed enough to know both DnD and PF and GURPS and even FATE. *Generally brand is of less importance to informed buyer*s.




Perhaps its the definition of "informed", but there is a significant amount of brand loyalty with gamers. There are a large number of threads on other game's boards (well, I can attest to Savage Worlds anyway) asking about how to get their group to even consider something other than D&D or Pathfinder. And until D&D "broke" for me at the end of the 3.x beginning of the 4e era, I was one of those people that had little use for other "brands" of games (except 3rd party support for 3.x).

Branding is always important, but the brand has to be supported with quality stuff. During most of the 3e era I would buy stuff sight unseen because the quality was constantly good (it of course dipped in the end to a degree). Anything in the 4e era is viewed with suspect, and not because I am 4-hater. I kinda liked the system, but the layout of the material is rarely evocative and the adventures were below even traditional D&D fair. Dark Sun in particular pissed me off (over 40% was just character crunch - I wanted a setting, not a rewrite of the system). I have started/seen threads here on ENWorld asking for the best adventures from 4e or stuff to get even if you are not a 4e lover and they come up very sparse on recommendations. 

Now D&D is just a confused brand that I generally avoid as it tries to rediscover itself. That is bad because I am unlikely to even purchase the core 5e books whenever they actually make them. Their track record on modules has become very poor (I would gladly pick up good adventures as they are easy to covert to Savage Worlds, my goto system). I suspect they will not do any new game worlds, just refreshing FR yet again (one thing that kept me in 3e longer was the release of Eberron). In short, D&D used to be a brand I would pick up with just a glance at the topic. Now D&D means "tread carefully" until such time it proves itself of value again. 

That "buy sight unseen brand loyalty" is now with a couple of Savage Worlds related companies. Pinnacle (Savage Worlds rules and settings like Deadlands, 50 Fathoms, Solomon Kane, and others), Triple Ace Games (Hellfrost, Hellfrost Land of Fire, Necropolis, Pulp, and others), and Reality Blurs (Realms of Cthulu, Iron Dynasty) are  automatics with some others in the running.  Now I also realize that because I am off the D&D/Pathfinder (the game system) road that I might never get back on. That may be more of a target market drift - my family situation is such that buying tons of crunch books is not the best use of my gaming dollar and Savage Worlds is targeted for people just like me. But the damaged D&D brand is what started it - my family is what is finishing it


----------



## Desh-Rae-Halra

As far as Brand recognition, D&D is a generic sort of way to give an example of a tabletop Role Playing Game ( so people who dont know right off the bat dont confuse it with Warcraft, Magic: The Gathering, etc.

In terms of D&D, 4th Edition was their "St. Anger". I think the ball has been passed to franchises like  Pathfinder, as well as 13th Age. For me, D&D really fell from Iconic Role-Playing Game to just another High Fantasy system and setting. The name persists, but only as a generic point of reference. 

I find myself not even caring what D&D Next is going to look like.


----------



## Argyle King

amerigoV said:


> Perhaps its the definition of "informed", but there is a significant amount of brand loyalty with gamers. There are a large number of threads on other game's boards (well, I can attest to Savage Worlds anyway) asking about how to get their group to even consider something other than D&D or Pathfinder. And until D&D "broke" for me at the end of the 3.x beginning of the 4e era, I was one of those people that had little use for other "brands" of games (except 3rd party support for 3.x).
> 
> Branding is always important, but the brand has to be supported with quality stuff. During most of the 3e era I would buy stuff sight unseen because the quality was constantly good (it of course dipped in the end to a degree). Anything in the 4e era is viewed with suspect, and not because I am 4-hater. I kinda liked the system, but the layout of the material is rarely evocative and the adventures were below even traditional D&D fair. Dark Sun in particular pissed me off (over 40% was just character crunch - I wanted a setting, not a rewrite of the system). I have started/seen threads here on ENWorld asking for the best adventures from 4e or stuff to get even if you are not a 4e lover and they come up very sparse on recommendations.
> 
> Now D&D is just a confused brand that I generally avoid as it tries to rediscover itself. That is bad because I am unlikely to even purchase the core 5e books whenever they actually make them. Their track record on modules has become very poor (I would gladly pick up good adventures as they are easy to covert to Savage Worlds, my goto system). I suspect they will not do any new game worlds, just refreshing FR yet again (one thing that kept me in 3e longer was the release of Eberron). In short, D&D used to be a brand I would pick up with just a glance at the topic. Now D&D means "tread carefully" until such time it proves itself of value again.
> 
> That "buy sight unseen brand loyalty" is now with a couple of Savage Worlds related companies. Pinnacle (Savage Worlds rules and settings like Deadlands, 50 Fathoms, Solomon Kane, and others), Triple Ace Games (Hellfrost, Hellfrost Land of Fire, Necropolis, Pulp, and others), and Reality Blurs (Realms of Cthulu, Iron Dynasty) are  automatics with some others in the running.  Now I also realize that because I am off the D&D/Pathfinder (the game system) road that I might never get back on. That may be more of a target market drift - my family situation is such that buying tons of crunch books is not the best use of my gaming dollar and Savage Worlds is targeted for people just like me. But the damaged D&D brand is what started it - my family is what is finishing it





I think your experience mirrors a lot of mine -with the exception that I started playing and buying GURPS material.  It boggles my mind when I think about how much money I spent on D&D during 3rd; many times, I bought things while scarcely knowing what the products were.  My loyalty to the D&D brand was such that I didn't question the decision to buy things very often.  I bought the 4th Edition core books without even questioning what their quality might be because I still felt that brand loyalty.  Now days?  Things are a lot different, and I am suspicious of WoTC products.

To be fair, I cannot blame this on 4th Edition.  I've spent a lot of time thinking about my experience with rpgs due to threads like this one, and I've come to realize that maybe I just didn't know any better during 3rd Edition.  At the time, I had little or no experience with other systems other than a brief run with Rifts.  There were things which bothered me about 3rd, but I overlooked them because I was -at the time- unaware how different other options could be.  I was aware other games existed, but I figured that D&D being the industry leader must mean it had better quality.  "How much different can rolling dice with a different game be," I would often think.  So, while I knew there were other games, I didn't really think about them.  With the birth of 4th Edition, I learned that mechanics could actually matter a lot; I learned that I had likes and dislikes.  Eventually, I became frustrated with 4th* and D&D, and I decided to try something different.  This lead me to standing in the local game store and trying to decide on either Champions or GURPS; I ended up buying GURPS.  I had no idea there could be such a world of different in both the style of a rpg and the way I felt treated as a customer.  (Note: In my opinion, SJ Games has excellent customer service.)  

*I now can enjoy 4th, and I do believe it's a good game in spite of some of the issues I have with it.  However, at the time, I was extremely negative toward both the product and WoTC as a company.  Part of that was because I was trying to still play and run the game the same way I was running D&D previously.  I didn't understand -at that time- that the game was different.  That negativity boiled over after having some severe smudging problems with my DMG.

As for what I call things...

Honestly, I call a tissue a tissue.  While I'm aware some people do use brand names as generic terms, I haven't done so in the case of tissues.  I do have plenty of friends from the South who do use "Coke" to refer to pretty much any kind of soda.  Years ago, I would have used "D&D" was a generic term for a roleplaying game, but it's been quite a while since I have, and I don't believe I personally know anyone who uses "D&D" as a generic term.  I do occasionally call Pathfinder "D&D," but that's more due to Pathfinder being a clone of 3rd Edition and having had conversations in which I was trying to explain to someone what Pathfinder was.  I would never refer to either GURPS or Dragon Age (both games that I currently play) as D&D.  

I do feel that brand name can matter a lot, and likewise feel the D&D brand name has a lot of strength.  However, I also feel it's important to note that brand name (usually) requires the product to live up to a certain standard.  Flubs do happen, and an easy example is XBox.  I'm sure the XBox One will still be an awesome machine, and I'm sure it will still sell like crazy, but a lot of poor PR, bad marketing, and a somewhat lacking presentation at E3 lead a lot of people to purchase a Playstation 4.


----------



## billd91

Branding can be a tricky thing and means different things at different levels. To the outsider in markets like the US, D&D is probably about all they know about RPGs but it has been widely heard of. If anyone gets a hankering to try an RPG or get one for their kids, they're probably going to look for D&D. That's pretty huge because it makes D&D still the most attractive entrance to the RPG world.

On the other hand, to insiders, D&D usually means some specific things - or it does to certain groups of its fans. This is where 4e got into trouble with a segment of the D&D fan community - by applying that brand to a game that was substantially different from the other games that bore the same branding. You might argue that the D&D brand was perhaps too specific in the minds of the critics for WotC's intentions. Yet even among insiders, D&D's brand often retains a generic character akin to the outsider's view. There have been plenty of people on these boards posting that D&D is pretty much just getting together with friends to play fantasy RPGs that might not even be D&D, or even playing RPGs that aren't fantasy-based. 

Ultimately, brand can be both powerful and weak and it's not always easy to forecast how things will turn out whenever the brand owner tries to exercise it.


----------



## Dire Bare

Umbran said:


> Ah, but you see, there's one major difference.
> 
> With Kleenex/tissues, there are no "outsiders".  Everyone needs to blow their nose on occasion.
> 
> With D&D/RPGs, only outsiders use the term D&D to mean RPGs in general (and, honestly, the ones that do that don't actually know what it is, beyond a thing nerds do, and maybe dice and elves are involved).  But, those outsiders have zero market power - they aren't customers!
> 
> Given that, even today, I'm pretty sure the driver of the D&D market is an apprentice system, where someone who knows the game brings you into the game, I don't see as how having the D&D brand be the common terms is really an issue.




I've been playing RPGs since late elementary school, which was unfortunately over 25 years ago . . . and I've always referred to my hobby as "D&D", even when I was playing other RPGs.  And I am not alone.  People on ENWorld and other RPG boards tend to be the "elite" RPGers, so to speak, and tend to forget they don't even remotely represent the hobby as a whole.

Both "insiders" and "outsiders" use "D&D" as a generic term.  My suspicion, based on my own anecdotal experience, is that the majority of insiders do this.  Most folks who play RPGs continue to play either D&D or Pathfinder, and Pathfinder IS D&D to them (even if published by another company with a different name).

I do think that we are enjoying a period with a good healthy mix of different games in different genres and with different rule sets, and some of us have moved "beyond" D&D to enjoy the many good games published by other companies . . . . .

But I'm convinced that the majority of us dabble at best in non-D&D games, and that most of us think of our hobby as a whole as "D&D", even when playing Shadowrun or Star Wars or what-have-you.

But, it's not like I've done any market research or anything!


----------



## Jhaelen

*shrug* I think outside of the US the brand isn't worth much. Here in Germany D&D is just one among many RPGs. Drizz't novels are probably one of the first things that come to anyone's mind. Pathfinder easily took over the few resident D&D players since it is available in German (while D&D isn't).

The groundbreaking RPG here in Germany has been 'Das Schwarze Auge', and it was often the only RPG people know. I'm not particularly up-to-date, though. It's quite possible that other RPGs are more en-vogue now, e.g. Warhammer (40k or otherwise) or Shadowrun or even a 'new' rpg that I don't really know anything about (is there a Yugi-Oh rpg?).


----------



## Alphastream

There is no question that Paizo wants its brand to be recognized. Right now, it isn't. While they have done a great job of drawing fans to Gen Con, they haven't been a dominant brand... even there. And if we go to cons like PAX, they barely have a presence there (they are the size of any indie/small/med RPG). They don't own a big culturally recognizable brand (yet?). The MMO is certainly an attempt to establish that, but also points to the industry's issues - this is a very revenue-poor (and profit-poor) industry. Brand matters, as does diversification into other more lucrative markets. 

While Wizards/D&D have been quiet in terms of for-sale RPG-product recently, they have shown just how well-handled and important their brand can be. We need only compare the buzz around Pathfinder's MMO to the actually really very well received already out D&D-branded MMO, Neverwinter. Neverwinter shows the payoff, already, of all that effort to standardize D&D Next monster art/information. It showcases how the Forgotten Realms can create a really deep experience in a branded product. (We can all gripe about whatever MMO gameplay we like or don't like, but Neverwinter is an insanely good reproduction of the Neverwinter 4E RPG book and prior FR material. The lore, the NPCs, the factions, the geography... beautifully captured). That's the power of brand. We can also see how, despite some really bad D&D movies, there has recently been interest by two studios to produce D&D movies (and to sue each other about them). And, the recent ComicCon buzz with LEGO-like D&D toys. (Perhaps paving the way to more kid toys, a return of the cartoon...?)

For the RPG industry, a healthy D&D has always been unanimously said to be critical. When D&D does badly, so they say, the rest of the industry also fares poorly. That's probably true even today. We can marvel at Kickstarters that raise $400k, but that really isn't big compared to what D&D has sold historically. That's why we don't see D&D using Kickstarter - it commands a far bigger presence and sells at far higher volumes. That's also why the retail store remains vital. What Kickstarter does is increase the ability of individuals to find and support what they like. Gamers naturally will play a variety of games, and now they can fund the ones they like at the level they want (including some truly obscenely high-priced support levels). That's healthy for everyone. In the end, the vast majority of the people supporting to Kickstarters will come back to D&D. Ask most people playing FATE, 13th Age, Numenera, etc. what game they have played the most and think of most fondly... the answer probably is and will be D&D.


----------



## Maul

I think D&D has waited too long to release D&D next.  

They have lost way too much of the market to just barge back into the hobby gaming market and just assume their place as if nothing ever happened.

When they do release their D&D Next brand, they'll have to compete with the company for which all games are compared to in Paizo and their Pathfinder brand.

I do have to say, I miss the old Forgotten Realms world.  It had a variety of personalities that filled a great world.  But then, what I like to call, "THE GREAT RIFT" happened, referring of course to the 4th edition division of players where a line was drawn in the sand and players chose sides, it was suddenly 200 years in the future and all my endearing characters were gone. But thats the past and this is now.

Pathfinder is supported right now and D&D has been demoted to board games and releasing books from previous editions.

I might check out D&D next if a friend buys the books but I personally will not purchase them.


----------



## Stormonu

I think Paizo is doing a wonderful job keeping D&D on its toes, but it's not in any danger of overtaking the D&D brand.  I really think that prior to 5E, there was a lot of arrogance at WotC that they could do no wrong; anything they did would be unquestionable gold.  However, I think the OSR and Paizo combined helped to shatter that image and made WotC blink - and realize that a lot of fans that had been holding it up were now engaged in a fist fight with each other.

I see the D&D/Pathfinder/OSR relation a lot like other businesses - the dynamic between McDonald's/Burger King/Wendy's, Microsoft/Apple/Linux, Coke/Pepsi/Kool-Aid and others.  The secondaries in the market won't take over unless the behemoth of the group takes a willful header - and the secondary's successes spur the primary onward to re-evaluate their practices and improve them - absorb them where they can.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Coke/Pepsi




Minor quibble- Coke has about 42% of the global cola market to Pepsi's 31%, but while each is diversified into thousands of beverage brands worldwide, Pepsi is also in some food markets as well, topping Coke's $36B with their own $53B...

Essentially, they're very evenly matched.


----------



## Stormonu

Wow, I didn't realize Coke/Pepsi were that close - I thought coke pretty much had the market bottled up (pun intended).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Each has had their share of missteps- Pepsi even had a couple of early bankruptcies.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom

I don't believe the D&D brand has the cachet it once had.

Yes, it's practically synonymous with tabletop RPGs in many places but the market now seems so fragmented - even among those who play one of the many versions of D&D - that I don't think the brand means as much as it once did. I mean, tabletop RPGs are not exactly a boom industry, are they? Even D&D itself couldn't turn over USD50 million in a year: that's a medium-sized company, at best, notwithstanding the Hasbro parentage.



Maul said:


> I think D&D has waited too long to release D&D next.  (snip)




Agreed.

Too many FLGSs have been starved of product during the Mearlsian winding down of D&D sales and that has sent many to the wall and those that remain now have their loyalties elsewhere simply out of necessity. More importantly, the distributors have been starved of new D&D product during this time... and they don't know when the next edition is going to land.

Maybe D&D as a brand can recover from this and maybe it can't. But damage has been done.


----------



## Umbran

Stormonu said:


> I see the D&D/Pathfinder/OSR relation a lot like other businesses - the dynamic between McDonald's/Burger King/Wendy's, Microsoft/Apple/Linux, Coke/Pepsi/Kool-Aid and others.




With all due respect to the OSR, if anyone else is teaching WotC a thing or two, it is whoever has (or is likely to take) market share - and I strongly expect the collected OSR stuff runs well behind the collected non-D&D things, and Savage Worlds, FATE, and some other brands are likely out-performing the OSR.


----------



## Alphastream

Umbran said:


> I strongly expect the collected OSR stuff runs well behind the collected non-D&D things, and Savage Worlds, FATE, and some other brands are likely out-performing the OSR.



Absolutely. Competition from other gaming systems is what D&D has dealt with for all of its life. It isn't as if those at Wizards have forgotten that. BUT, they also recognize that many gamers will play various systems and then come back to D&D. The hobby is better for that. People need a break. Having that break keeps them as returning customers (as opposed to getting bored and leaving the hobby permanently). We can hear countless stories of people coming to D&D Encounters after skipping 2E and 3E, for example. The major recent change is Pathfinder. It is the first time people have had an option that truly pulls a large segment of the audience away and seems to have staying power. But I don't see any worries to the brand. The brand remains unparalleled both within and outside the hobby.


----------



## Stormonu

Umbran said:


> With all due respect to the OSR, if anyone else is teaching WotC a thing or two, it is whoever has (or is likely to take) market share - and I strongly expect the collected OSR stuff runs well behind the collected non-D&D things, and Savage Worlds, FATE, and some other brands are likely out-performing the OSR.




eh, stating D&D/Pathfinder/Savage Worlds feels like comparing McDonalds/Burger King/Taco Bell.


----------



## Umbran

Stormonu said:


> eh, stating D&D/Pathfinder/Savage Worlds feels like comparing McDonalds/Burger King/Taco Bell.




Well, "OSR" isn't one game, either, now is it?  I'm saying it is like D&D/Pathfinder/non-D&D.


----------



## DMZ2112

I think that if Wizards and Hasbro are smart they'll take this KRE-O thing and run with it.  The success or failure of the game notwithstanding, Dungeons & Dragons is one of the most recognizable sword & sorcery brands on the planet (it's a short list).  At its core, D&D is not about expensive resource books and grown men and women arguing about the value of the brand on a webforum.  It's about kids socializing, having fun, and most importantly engaging their imaginations.

Forget the roleplaying game.  I'm not saying stop publishing, but the game is the icing on the cake.  The cake itself is D&D action figures and dress-up sets; D&D cartoons on Cartoon Network; D&D KRE-O sets.

Hasbro missed a huge opportunity here around the turn of the century while Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings were at their peak and fantasy was briefly bigger than science fiction.  I'm hoping that this KRE-O thing is evidence that they are coming to realize that, and that it isn't too late.

This is what Hasbro /does/.  They make kids want brands for Christmas.  It's ludicrous that there is any question of D&D's brand value at all.  They should have turned it into a billion-dollar industry a decade ago.

Do other game companies need to follow this model?  I don't see why they wouldn't want to, but I also don't think any of them are in a position to do so.


----------



## DancingSatyr

If Paizo could buy the brand someday, fine. But right now they are getting my money hand over fist anyway. I love D&D, but I just didn't care for 4th edition ( I'm not trying to flare up the edition wars so peace folks! ) I would love to see what a company with passion for games like Paizo get their hands on some campaign settings like the  Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk ( yeah, I typed it ). I would suggest a third party company ( whatever happened to Kenzer and Co. ? ) show some creativity but spinning their own version of these and other favorite settings, but WOTC would want some major funds before they squeeze the last bit of revenue out of D&D.


----------



## kcannell

Morrus said:


> as I've said before - it would be pretty darn embarrassing for Paizo if they _weren't_ outselling a company which isn't actually selling anything right now!*
> 
> 
> *Reprints and weird lego type things I don't understand aside.




Pathfinder was outselling D&D before D&D Next was ever announced, and 4th Edition was in full swing.


----------



## Morrus

Umbran said:


> Well, "OSR" isn't one game, either, now is it?  I'm saying it is like D&D/Pathfinder/non-D&D.




Yeah; that's not analogous to a comparison between Coke and Pepsi.  It's analogous to a comparison between Coke and pastry products.  It's a specific brand vs. a whole category of brands.


----------



## Morrus

kcannell said:


> Pathfinder was outselling D&D before D&D Next was ever announced, and 4th Edition was in full swing.




Yup; Pathfinder first grabbed the icV2 top spot in q3 2011, a full quarter before D&D Next was announced; and has held it since then.


----------



## Umbran

Morrus said:


> Yeah; that's not analogous to a comparison between Coke and Pepsi.  It's analogous to a comparison between Coke and pastry products.  It's a specific brand vs. a whole category of brands.




Well, I wasn't the one who suggested the D&D/Pathfinder/OSR thing.  It isn't like the OSR is only one brand, either, but I didn't see you complaining about that.

Be that as it may, I think you're wrong.  D&D is a role playing game.  Pathfinder is a role playing game.  The various games of the OSR are role playing games.  Other RPGs are still RPGs, dude.  It isn't like comparing Coke to pastry - they're all still the same basic sort of product.  It's like comparing Coke to all the stuff you see in the soda section of your local Whole Foods (an organic/health-food leaning market chain in the US - I don't know if you have them over there).

And, in terms of market dynamics, I think I still have it right.  Imagine you're a brand manager at WotC or Paizo.  Part of your job is, of course, to keep an eye on your competition, right?  You're spending some of your limited, valuable time looking at what's out there, keeping an eye out for the next thing that might be a challenge to your market share.  Now, I'll agree that there's no single brand that's poised to suddenly take off like a rocket, so if you're keeping your ear to the ground, you're looking more at groups of things.  Are you spending more time watching what's happening with OSR games, or with things out by FATE, Savage Worlds, and Shadowrun?

Before you answer, remember that your own first "Spotlight" was *not* on an OSR game.


----------



## Morrus

Umbran said:


> Well, I wasn't the one who suggested the D&D/Pathfinder/OSR thing.  It isn't like the OSR is only one brand, either, but I didn't see you complaining about that.
> 
> Be that as it may, I think you're wrong.  D&D is a role playing game.  Pathfinder is a role playing game.  The various games of the OSR are role playing games.  Other RPGs are still RPGs, dude.  It isn't like comparing Coke to pastry - they're all still the same basic sort of product.  It's like comparing Coke to all the stuff you see in the soda section of your local Whole Foods (an organic/health-food leaning market chain in the US - I don't know if you have them over there).
> 
> And, in terms of market dynamics, I think I still have it right.  Imagine you're a brand manager at WotC or Paizo.  Part of your job is, of course, to keep an eye on your competition, right?  You're spending some of your limited, valuable time looking at what's out there, keeping an eye out for the next thing that might be a challenge to your market share.  Now, I'll agree that there's no single brand that's poised to suddenly take off like a rocket, so if you're keeping your ear to the ground, you're looking more at groups of things.  Are you spending more time watching what's happening with OSR games, or with things out by FATE, Savage Worlds, and Shadowrun?
> 
> Before you answer, remember that your own first "Spotlight" was *not* on an OSR game.




I think you've received the exact, diametric opposite of the message I was attempting to convey!  I was agreeing with you (that's why I said "yeah", and not "no").  Poorly, apparently!


----------



## Lord_Blacksteel

"I think D&D has waited too long to release D&D next. 

They have lost way too much of the market to just barge back into the hobby gaming market and just assume their place as if nothing ever happened."

Well first, I think there's a lot more emotion than reason in this statement. D&D is still the biggest name in the game. You may not think they deserve to be anymore, but it still carries weight with people.

Second, people who are interested have been able to play versions of it for free for over a year now. I would bet that's a pretty big number. Also, they've been servicing the retro crowd with a steady stream of reprints, no doubt gathering both cash and goodwill from that segment of the population too.

"When they do release their D&D Next brand, they'll have to compete with the company for which all games are compared to in Paizo and their Pathfinder brand."

Yes they will. Right now, according to the figures on this very site, D&D is #2 in sales _with no current edition in print_! I suspect having actual new material to sell will bump that up quite a bit and displace PF for months at least. What will be interesting is where things stand a year after  the D&D new-edition-release-wave is over. Familiarity vs. the new shiny plus the D&D name.


----------



## Hishen

its a wonder D&D has still maintain his position.. but why aren't they releasing next?


----------



## MichaelSomething

Scrivener of Doom said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Too many FLGSs have been starved of product during the Mearlsian winding down of D&D sales and that has sent many to the wall and those that remain now have their loyalties elsewhere simply out of necessity. More importantly, the distributors have been starved of new D&D product during this time... and they don't know when the next edition is going to land.
> 
> Maybe D&D as a brand can recover from this and maybe it can't. But damage has been done.




Funny, I thought tons of people always complained about how too many books were coming out and that their wallets were getting sucked dry.
I guess it's be careful what you wish for...


----------



## tomBitonti

MichaelSomething said:


> Funny, I thought tons of people always complained about how too many books were coming out and that their wallets were getting sucked dry.
> I guess it's be careful what you wish for...




I'd love an Illithid adventure path, say, set on Umbra.  Or a walk through the mountains in Greyhawk, to rewalk the path taken by survivors after the Rain of Colorless Fire. Or simply set in the Underdark of any of the campaign worlds.  There is a huge space of content which could be used as a base for adventure type products, which languishes.

About branding ... I was looking at "Dungeon Command": https://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndmin/dungeoncommand in a gaming store today.  And it took me a while to connect the product, which I recognized as a miniature skirmish game, with the D&D brand.  The brand logo is there on the box, but you have to look for it.  And the connection, for me, was that they were reused miniatures from the prepainted plastics line, not an association with a brand identity.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Scrivener of Doom

MichaelSomething said:


> Funny, I thought tons of people always complained about how too many books were coming out and that their wallets were getting sucked dry.
> I guess it's be careful what you wish for...




Have you ever been involved in business?

There's always a balance between the amount of stock and variety of stock: too much or too little is going to cause problems, either way. My speculation - supported by anecdotal evidence and not hard data - is that the lack of D&D stock has caused problems for FLGSs which are, in many cases, marginal businesses anyway.


----------



## Lwaxy

Ah the advantage of being in Germany. D&D isn't the main RPG here. When I need to give an RPG exaple I can always use DSA - although I personally dislike that system.


----------



## Lord_Blacksteel

Scrivener of Doom said:


> Have you ever been involved in business?
> 
> There's always a balance between the amount of stock and variety of stock: too much or too little is going to cause problems, either way. My speculation - supported by anecdotal evidence and not hard data - is that the lack of D&D stock has caused problems for FLGSs which are, in many cases, marginal businesses anyway.




I don't know - that ICV2 chart that everyone takes as gospel says D&D is still #2 in sales. Presumably that's mostly coming from the reprint hardcovers and there has been a steady stream of those.



Hishen said:


> its a wonder D&D has still maintain his position.. but why aren't they releasing next?




They're playtesting it - you can go download it for free right now. Looking at what they have right now I'm in no hurry to spend money on it - are you? Hopefully they end up with something decent and they start selling it about a year from now.


----------



## Puggins

You only need to look at the 2e/3e handover to see the power of the D&D brand name.  You can even draw quite a few parallels between now and then, honestly.

The late nineties were a bad time for D&D, at least from my perspective.  I think D&D was in dead heat with the Storyteller system in terms of sales, TSR was in the gutter, and a lot of former D&D players were wandering off to try a lot of the systems that had popped up around that time- and there were quite a few good systems even back then.

Then 3e came out, and the eyes of the entire roleplaying world swung around to d20.  Again, this is speaking from my perspective, but the transition was radical- dozens of friends that had played D&D but were no longer into it came stampeding back.  It was shocking to me.

Can 5e do the same thing?  The answer is yes- the D&D name just has that much pull.  But talking about what a product CAN do is different from talking about what it WILL do.  Will it do the same thing?  I have serious doubts that it will.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom

Lord_Blacksteel said:


> I don't know - that ICV2 chart that everyone takes as gospel says D&D is still #2 in sales. Presumably that's mostly coming from the reprint hardcovers and there has been a steady stream of those. (snip)




Actually, if you read the initial ICV post, very few people take those numbers as gospel because they only reflect a small portion of distribution.

Also, the fact that D&D is still number 2 on that list with essentially no new product suggests that there is the potential for an enormous gulf in relative sales between number 1 and number 2. But who really knows? The ICV numbers are not gospel.


----------



## Lord_Blacksteel

I agree that it's not gospel - being a little bit sarcastic there. But if you recall the first time it was posted showing that Pathfinder had passed D&D the internet was buried in pronouncements on forums and blogs that D&D was dead etc - all from this one less than comprehensive source. Since then a lot of people still seem to give those numbers more weight than they deserve.

There could be big gaps at any point in that chart - without the actual numbers it's impossible to know the relative positioning of each item.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom

Well, this is the internet.

Don't forget, you also have people who don't know the difference between revenue and profit weighing in with their "opinions".


----------



## Wicht

Morrus said:


> Yup; Pathfinder first grabbed the icV2 top spot in q3 2011, a full quarter before D&D Next was announced; and has held it since then.




I suspected at the time that one of the reasons for announcing D&D Next when they did was worry caused by the loss of the #1 spot to Pathfinder.


----------



## Morrus

Wicht said:


> I suspected at the time that one of the reasons for announcing D&D Next when they did was worry caused by the loss of the #1 spot to Pathfinder.




I doubt it; the press event (which EN World had someone at) was arranged months and months in advance.


----------



## Wicht

Morrus said:


> I doubt it; the press event (which EN World had someone at) was arranged months and months in advance.




How many months, out of curiosity?  Remembering that before Paizo grabbed the top spot, they held it in tandem for a short while, essentially in a dead heat. When Paizo moved into #1, I know I was not surprised at all, as anecdotal evidence from a number of different fields had made it fairly clear what was happening. The writing was on the wall for some months before the ICV2 2011 q3 announcement was actually made.  So, if Paizo moved into the top spot three months or so before the announcement was made, and if insiders knew the state of the market for at least 3 months before that, I could still see the two being related. I think it goes without saying that if 4th had done as well as desired, 5th would not have been announced so early and the clearest indication that the game was in trouble was the success (warranted imo) of Paizo in establishing Pathfinder as a viable market leader.


----------



## billd91

Morrus said:


> I doubt it; the press event (which EN World had someone at) was arranged months and months in advance.




Probably not as a proximate cause, but I suspect WotC saw the writing on the wall and the direction things were headed even without ICv2's Q3 2011 report, particularly since Paizo had already cracked the top spot in a tie with D&D a year earlier with 2010's Q3 report. Over the last few years, Paizo has alluded to other data sources indicating they've got a pretty strong showing against D&D and I'd be surprised if WotC doesn't make use of equivalent or the same sources. If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, I expect Pathfinder's inroads into the D&D market share and dominance was a significant factor in cutting 4e's product schedule short in favor of an new edition's extended R&D and playtest period.


----------



## Radiating Gnome

billd91 said:


> Probably not as a proximate cause, but I suspect WotC saw the writing on the wall and the direction things were headed even without ICv2's Q3 2011 report, particularly since Paizo had already cracked the top spot in a tie with D&D a year earlier with 2010's Q3 report.




It's been pointed out before, but this report is just one avenue -- it's Pathfinder's primary avenue, but WOTC still has the DDI subscription going -- and even conservative estimates of that subscriber base would make some big changes to those figures.  I think it's dangerous to read too much into just that one report.  

Still, the upward trend of Pathfinder is strong, and it's fan base tends towards the fervent. It will be interesting to see what it takes to chip away at the pathfinder fanbase to win people back to D&D. 

Also -- sales figures are still not a great way to try to measure the power of brand identity.  I'd still argue that if you ask someone who is not part of the RPG community what Pathfinder is they're very unlikely to have any clear sense of what it is. 

-rg


----------



## tomBitonti

Radiating Gnome said:


> Still, the upward trend of Pathfinder is strong, and it's fan base tends towards the fervent. It will be interesting to see what it takes to chip away at the pathfinder fanbase to win people back to D&D.
> 
> -rg




Not sure if this is in the same thread, but is Pathfinder still trending upwards?  My feeling is that the product line is saturated: The core books plus the "advanced" books are more or less complete, and there is a huge number of adventure paths, modules, and work guide books available.  There are still new miniatures being sold, but that seems to be a smallish part of the Pathfinder space.

I know there is the upcoming Pathfinder Online (I am a backer), which could be huge (or smallish, or might fail; time will tell), but my overall feel is that the product line is shifting into a "mature" part of it's lifecycle.

Seriously, isn't the Roleplaying product segment just a bit overfilled at this point?  I get to feeling that what is needed more are refinements, not whole new systems.  Perhaps that's what D&DNext will be -- a refinement of OSR style play -- but having a whole new dramatically different system seems to be the wrong direction.

All based on my personal sense of the matter.  YMMV.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## billd91

Radiating Gnome said:


> It's been pointed out before, but this report is just one avenue -- it's Pathfinder's primary avenue, but WOTC still has the DDI subscription going -- and even conservative estimates of that subscriber base would make some big changes to those figures.  I think it's dangerous to read too much into just that one report.




???

One report? Didn't I just say that Paizo has alluded to other data sources?


----------



## Radiating Gnome

billd91 said:


> ???
> 
> One report? Didn't I just say that Paizo has alluded to other data sources?




Yes, you did -- but we don't have those reports to look at. I don't mean to be argumentative -- but hinting at something isn't the same as providing the data so we can make our own conclusions.  

-rg


----------



## Azgulor

tomBitonti said:


> Not sure if this is in the same thread, but is Pathfinder still trending upwards?  My feeling is that the product line is saturated: The core books plus the "advanced" books are more or less complete, and there is a huge number of adventure paths, modules, and work guide books available.  There are still new miniatures being sold, but that seems to be a smallish part of the Pathfinder space.




If you trust Eric Mona of Paizo as a reliable source (and I do), then yes, the upward trend continues.  Over on the Paizo boards, in a post on a speculative thread he made a quick stop to point out that the number of PF Core rulebooks sold had increased every year since its release.

There are tons of areas in Golarion that haven't been touched by print products, they are consciously trying to avoid the class & race splat model and are moving into new creative spaces with products like Ultimate Campaign and Mythic rules.

Take it for what you will.


----------

