# Modules, it turns out, apparently DO sell



## Steel_Wind (May 14, 2010)

So in preparation for a new podcast I’ve been working on, I sat down and took stock of the total number of products Paizo has released – or is scheduled to release later this year - for Pathfinder and the Golarion campaign setting. I knew it was a lot (because I own a lot of it) but I never had stopped to actually COUNT the titles and do the math. 

The result? In a word? Wow. Just...WOW.

There have been threads here which have compared Paizo to WotC. IMO, that comparison is wholly misplaced.  Paizo is the new TSR. I mean that in a good way – and I hope that it is taken in that fashion.  I suppose, it is entirely possible that someday we mean it in a bad way too – but so far, everything looks to be good.

Why do I say this? Because the proof is in the product line. And it is simply a _bewildering_ array of module and setting material. I don’t mean a little. I don’t even mean a canoe full – because I’m not sure it would actually FIT in a canoe. Well – maybe a large Voyageur fur-trader style cargo canoe, but not a 14’ fibreglass fishing model. If that’s the yardstick, in my estimation, Pathfinder is now coming perilously close to becoming a TWO CANOE product line.

Witness the staggering array of adventure material that Paizo has released in the past three years and plans to release in the balance of 2010 year for Pathfinder/3.5.

*Adventure Material*

This heading alone is simply mind-boggling. It breaks down like this:
*
 Pathfinder Adventure Path* 

The flagship continues to be the _Pathfinder Adventure Path_ books. There are 4 complete Pathfinder Adventure Paths series of six books each which have been released for ver 3.5 under the OGL. One more complete Path is already complete for PFRGP and another one, _Kingmaker_, also for PFRPG will complete this August. Serpent’s Skull for PFRPG is due for release in September 2010.

Total number of 96 page Pathfinder Adventure Path books: 40.  Total Pages: 3,840 

*Standard Adventure Modules*

The less “story arc” driven adventure modules that Paizo has created for 3.5 and for PFRPG is somewhat more restrained. 22 have been released for D&D3.5 and 11 have been released or are on the docket for PFRPG. 

Interestingly, Paizo has now started with some smaller multi-module adventure arcs in this line as well.  For example, the Adventure trilogy _Crypt of the Everflame/Mask of the Living God/City of Golden Death_ was just finished this month. It seems that even the one-offs sell better in “mini-paths”.

Total number of 32 page Adventure Modules: 33. Total Pages: 1,056

*Pathfinder Society Modules*

These little gems don’t get _nearly_ the respect they deserve as they are sold as PDFs only. Erik Mona just released a double adventure module this past month with three more to follow this year. They are all at least 16 pages each, are in full color and each includes at least one page of professional Paizo quality color maps. Many of the modules exceed this “page” count by 2 to 4 pages. A few of these modules exceed the 16 page “limit” by a fair bit more than that (yes Erik Mona, I’m looking at you). Paizo releases at least two of these a month, but there have been exceptions to this which have actually pushed up that release schedule by a few more than that each year. 

The end result is that there will be 54 of these things by the end of “Season 1” in July 2010. Each adventure is about the same size as we used to get in a Dungeon Magazine adventure. A lot of these adventures are written by new talent – just like Dungeon Magazine published. And many of them are written by the same prime-time professionals who write for the flagship Pathfinder Adventure Path line as well (and who used to write for Dungeon Magazine).

Total # of 16+ page Pathfinder Society Adventures: 55. Total approximate = 880 pages

*Complete Adventure Material to date:* the Total Pages to current end of Paizo 2010 catalog: _approximately 5,584 pages._

This page count excludes some unannounced titles and all of Season 2 Pathfinder Society Modules for the balance of the year, which should bring that page count to approximately 5,750 pages or so by the end of 2010.

*5,750* pages across 128 different SKUS of what can fairly be categorized as almost PURE ADVENTURE material in less than 4 years’ time. 18 physical products a year, plus an additional 26 digital release only Pathfinder Society modules. That works out to about 1,350 physical pages and  another 470 pages or so released in .pdf only format. I repeat – that’s just adventure material not setting material.

Did TSR, in its heyday in either 1st ed or 2nd edition, create as much adventure material as Paizo has on an annual basis? (Adventure material mind you – not _setting_ material) I might be wrong if the TSR era RPGA material is counted in as well – but I think the answer is probably “*no*.”

Could someone remind me again about all the CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE out there in the marketplace that modules don’t sell these days? Because unless there is a warehouse full of this stuff with rising inventories that *just won’t ever sell* (and that’s distinctly possible when it comes to Paizo’s older 3.5 OGL stock) – Ms. Stevens and Co. over at Paizo Publishing LLC seem to be awfully busy  making these modules so that they can’t sell them. 

Could it be that the real point to take away from the 2nd Edition of AD&D is that CRAP modules “just don’t sell”? Is it possible that what we are seeing with Paizo is that high quality modules, it turns out, sell pretty frickin well indeed? Consider as well that Paizo rolled the dice and perhaps struck a hidden gold mine by converting over _Dungeon_ and _Dragon_ magazine subscribers into ongoing open subscription customers at a rate that greatly exceeded their own internal expectations?

Only Paizo knows what that ultimate conversion rate of subscribers was, but, looks to me like whatever it was – it was high enough to give Paizo a solid base of “guaranteed sales” on which to embark on what can only be described as a simply breathtaking publication pace since the end of their magazine era.

And let’s be clear on this point. The above is _adventure material_ only. I haven’t even GOT to the “setting material” yet, of which there is _another_ canoe full.

*Setting Material*

*Pathfinder Chronicles*

The Pathfinder Chronicles line are principally GM only products that centre on detailing, in whole or in part, the world of Golarion. 17 were released for 3.5 under the OGL and another 18 are out or due later this year for the setting under the PFRPG. 

Page count here is much more difficult to estimate, and the product line includes map Folios and other poster maps as well as larger hardcovers and smaller scale products in between. Still, the SKU count is 35 products in total and a LOT of ink has been spilt here. They’ve only been at this for three years. It might be that the Forgotten Realms got this sort of attention paid to it in its heyday – but Greyhawk during the 1st edition era surely didn’t. Not even close.

*Pathfinder Companion*

This product line is a little more malleable. It is principally targeted at players as well as GMs. It encompasses some nearly “rule” like products which cover some magic items and equipment. Most are pure setting, culture, and region defining books for Golarion meant for mainly GMs but which are still very player friendly – especially on the more “Rules-like” side of the product line. Still, the product line is meant to be relatively inexpensive and the size of the products weighs in with a page count of 32 pages. If you had to compare it to prior products in the field, it looks a lot like what we saw in the 2nd ed era of AD&D.

They are 16 of these released or to be released through 2010. 

*Gamemastery Line
*
There are a whole raft of products which do not at first blush appear to be tied into the Pathfinder game or Golarion setting.  But this is somewhat deceiving. The highly successful flip-mat line of products is referenced and used quite often in the Pathfinder Society Modules as encounter location maps. The cards that are offered in this product line are also cross-referenced and referred to in some Pathfinder branded products too. On the whole, it’s stealth branding which nevertheless belies a level of  incestuous brand and product cross-support.*

Traditional Marketing? Who Needs It?*

The remarkable thing is, all of this solid vast array of products has been released to the public without the benefit of a single print advertisement in _Dungeon_ or _Dragon_ to generate product awareness. They would have sold those magazines if they could have of course – but they were forced to stop publishing them – and instead go into direct competition with WotC, albeit with a very different product mix. 

So instead of print advertisements, every Friday night – so that the e-mail is received on the morning of the one day which is traditionally dedicated towards gaming (and game shopping, I expect) by more members of the hobby than any other day? I don’t know about you – but that’s the day that Paizo’s direct e-mail advertising shows up in *my* inbox. 

And the delivery cost of that e-mail is a damn site cheaper than the cost of a weekly print ad, I wager.

So, what’s missing from all the above?

*Rules*

Rules are missing here of course. There is, in comparison to WotC, a staggering shortage of Rules SKUS being sold here.

The _Pathfinder Core Rules,_ even sold at $49.99 for the nearly 600 page size of the full color tome, is not likely to generate a ton of direct profit for Paizo. I’m sure they made some money on it – but it’s a big and expensive book – and they sell to Diamond Comics as their distributor principally, who takes their cut, before it goes to Amazon or other Book and Game retailers. But, just the same the PFRPG Core Rules is in its third printing now, as of this week. I’m not sure how large each print run was, but whatever the size, a third printing in under 10 months time can only mean success.

I cannot shake the feeling that the main intention, however, was to sell the Core rules and install it so they could then sell us their other products at a higher margin. With the PF Core rules, Paizo gave away the razor to sell us blades.

The PFRPG _Bestiary_, similarly, is now just in its second run. There is a _Gamemaster’s Guide_ for PFRPG due out this summer, but it’s not likely to change many rules, per se and it has not been hyped all that much. The hype is being left for the _Advanced Player’s Guide_ this Gencon.  I think Paizo wants to make some money on that rule book.

In the end, one year passes – with only one significant addition to the Rules. The rest is devoted almost entirely to adventure and setting material at a rate that no other company currently matches – and with respect to supporting only one setting world in that timespan – perhaps has NEVER been matched.

For completeness, there is a _Bestiary 2_ due out this Fall. Again – not something that will change the underlying rules and going on a power creep binge, but simply expands GM options.

Taking all of this in stride and assessing all of the product lines and the frequency of their release schedule, I think it is EXCEEDINGLY clear that Paizo is not WotC – they are, in fact, the next TSR. 

But this time, in a perhaps improved form, as:   there is only one world setting to support; there is a clear concept and vision of product quality; there is a policy of extremely high staff accessibility practiced by the CEO down; their game system is extremely open to 3rd party support; and, so far at least – there is a pattern of what would appear to be significant success in the marketplace reportedly with their best year ever in 2009.

*Still... 5,750 pages of adventures! Who says Modules  don't sell?*


----------



## crazy_cat (May 14, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> Could it be that the real point to take away from the 2nd Edition of AD&D is that CRAP modules “just don’t sell”? Is it possible that what we are seeing with Paizo is that high quality modules, it turns out, sell pretty frickin well indeed?



I think you've summarised it here just right.


----------



## Qwillion (May 14, 2010)

There is also a solid amount of 3rd party support, from 0one Games, 4 Winds Fantasy
Games, Adamant Entertainment, Alluria Publishing, Avalon Game Company, Expeditious Retreat Press, Headless Hydra, Games, Louis Porter Jr Design, Open Design, Rite Publishing,  and Super Genius Games. With Green Ronin right around the corner.  Who have taken advantage of the lack of rules.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 14, 2010)

Speaking for the tiny market segment which is me, I always much preferred modules to rules. I always spent a lot more on them, and I always found them more inspiring. I guess it is part of my nature to enjoy a static and stable rules base and then use selected modules and adventures to run enjoyable campaigns on top of that.

Anyway, Go Paizo!

Cheers


----------



## Dark Mistress (May 14, 2010)

Interesting and I can't really disagree. I mean just as a example. During the 3e I bought many Necro Adventures, a few by Green Ronin and then the 3 made by Privateer Press for Iron Kingdoms. But that was all the adventures I bought. Since 4e was announced I picked up most of the rest of the Necro stuff I was missing, either at local auctions or as a PDF and a few blow out sales by other companies. But still in the 3 years of paizo I have bought likely twice as many adventures maybe three times as many than I did in the whole 3e/3.5e run, thats even counting the ones I picked up in sales.

I use to buy a lot more splat books in 3e than adventures. Now it is the other way around. Though to be fair about 1/3rd of each AP book is non adventure stuff.


----------



## Treebore (May 14, 2010)

I have always preferred modules over any other type of support product. So yes, Paizo is single handedly bankrupting me. I even buy the Golarion material upon occasion, and definitely all the map folios and card decks, since they are all PF AP related. I have also bought most, if not all, of the flip maps as well. I even subscribe to the rules book line, and I don't even play PF, and have no desire to do so in the near future. I just love the quality and rules ideas enough to enjoy reading them, plus I can afford it.

I have to give fair warning though. After the Kingmaker series is over, I will be radically cutting back on my purchases/subscriptions. Not because Paizo has done anything wrong, but simply because I am spending too much money with them, and am forcing myself to cut back.


----------



## Umbran (May 14, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> *Still... 5,750 pages of adventures! Who says Modules  don't sell?*




How many pages of adventures they have produced does not give us much information on how well they sold, or how much profit they made for them.  All we know is that it was enough for them to continue making the products.


----------



## Maggan (May 14, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> Who says Modules  don't sell?




I'll say it, with the ever important qualifier. 

Modules don't sell as much as rules. Generally, if you invest 10 bucks, you'll get a better return on that if you develop rules and not modules.

I don't have any hard evidence to this, only my own experience working as an rpg developer, and that experience is backed by that of many others working in the industry.



> The Pathfinder Core Rules, even sold at $49.99 for the nearly 600 page size of the full color tome, is not likely to generate a ton of direct profit for Paizo.




My speculation based on my observations of the industry is that Paizo indeed sell a boatload of core books at solid profit, and that the adventures are break even support for that line.

But, I have no hard evidence so it might  be a case of adventures outselling rules, but if that is a case then this is IMO the breaking of an historical trend, not an indication that modules have always been strong sellers in spite of what a great many people working in the industry has been claiming.

It might be a reversal of a trend, since modules were strong sellers back when D&D was young, then declined and maybe things are picking up again.

My belief is that Paizo has managed to leverage their subscription model to great success, thereby guaranteeing a basic level of sales and a steady income that covers development costs for modules, which can then be sold to other customers.

And that's Paizo's greatest strength IMO; developing the business side of the whole thing. Not the modules, not the rules, but the business. And I think that's why they are as successful as they are.

/M


----------



## D'karr (May 14, 2010)

Umbran said:


> How many pages of adventures they have produced does not give us much information on how well they sold, or how much profit they made for them.  All we know is that it was enough for them to continue making the products.




Another issue is that adventures might sell well for Paizo, due in part to their outstanding work with Dungeon and Dragon before those two publications went electronic.  However, how well are adventures selling for all those 3rd party publishers for PFRPG?  

Paizo is a fluke, in terms of success in this industry.  Not because they have not worked hard at that success but because there were a number of coincidences that they were able to aptly exploit.

Don't get me wrong, Paizo puts out some outstanding work, and for a few years I was a subscriber to their Adventure Paths, but would they be as successful selling adventures if they had not had the exposure they got from publishing Dungeon and Dragon magazines?  

The position that adventures sell well for Paizo, does not automagically translate to adventures sell well for everyone that puts out adventures, or even very good adventures.  The exposure to the market is in part what made Paizo successful.

I sincerely congratulate them because they have done an outstanding job.


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (May 14, 2010)

Again, having no wider knowledge than my own experience. The people I've encountered over the years want to experience "stories" (scenarios) rather than systems (rules). The latter is just a framework for the story they're being a part of.

So I can believe that modules do sell well enough for people to keep putting them out (obviously they must).

Maybe it's just me.  When I was younger I had lots of different rulebooks for different games, now I have settled on a very few core rules sets - but still have a lot of scenarios to hand, for different systems.


----------



## Azgulor (May 14, 2010)

Umbran said:


> How many pages of adventures they have produced does not give us much information on how well they sold, or how much profit they made for them.  All we know is that it was enough for them to continue making the products.




True.  However, unless Paizo's leadership has been taking stupid pills, it seem highly unlikely that they'd continue to produce (and in such volume) products that don't sell.

Paizo blogs, postings to their forums, etc. have clearly indicated that the APs are their best-selling product.  While they may no be the original module format, they're still adventures.


----------



## Umbran (May 14, 2010)

D'karr said:


> Paizo is a fluke, in terms of success in this industry.  Not because they have not worked hard at that success but because there were a number of coincidences that they were able to aptly exploit.




Given the number of companies who have what we'd call major success in the industry (TSR/WotC, White Wolf, Steve Jackson Games, Paizo - others?), over the decades is small, it might be said that they're all flukes.


----------



## Azgulor (May 14, 2010)

D'karr said:


> Don't get me wrong, Paizo puts out some outstanding work, and for a few years I was a subscriber to their Adventure Paths, but would they be as successful selling adventures if they had not had the exposure they got from publishing Dungeon and Dragon magazines?
> 
> The position that adventures sell well for Paizo, does not automagically translate to adventures sell well for everyone that puts out adventures, or even very good adventures.  The exposure to the market is in part what made Paizo successful.




Of course, the exposure from Dungeon & Dragon helped.  It's also irrelevant.  Didn't WotC stand upon the shoulders of 1st & 2nd edition D&D when they released 3e?

Looking at TSR, 1e grew the company & the mismanagement during the 2e days killed it.  What came before was no indicator of future success.

The point the OP is making is that, regardless of the circumstances that set up the situation, Paizo appears to be disproving the "accepted truth" that modules don't sell.

Personally, I chalk the "modules don't sell" belief to subjective analysis.  True, modules sell to a smaller market (DMs vs. players).  They cost less and therefore earn less profit.  So for a company like WotC, it doesn't make business sense for them to invest in that vs. rulebooks.  For a smaller company like Paizo, it might be a viable business model.

I think that, in typical WotC fashion, when those statements were made they were wisely trying to make their point and move on rather than get ensnared in a debate.  My personal belief is the more accurate statement is "Modules don't sell enough for us (WotC) to expend resources on them."  It's apparently held true for other companies as well.

Clearly, Paizo disagrees but more importantly, they're showing the lie in the statement.  Can every publisher produce Paizo-quality modules?  Obviously, no.  But is there a market for high-quality modules?  Clearly, yes.


----------



## TarionzCousin (May 14, 2010)

Eleven posts in and nobody has misspelled the company name as "Piazo" yet? 

Whoa.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 14, 2010)

Umbran said:


> How many pages of adventures they have produced does not give us much information on how well they sold, or how much profit they made for them.  All we know is that it was enough for them to continue making the products.






Maggan said:


> Modules don't sell as much as rules. Generally, if you invest 10 bucks, you'll get a better return on that if you develop rules and not modules.



These are important points, because I don't think anyone just argues that "modules don't sell" without any context. Of course they sell, it's just a question of whether they sell _enough _to justify the company making them to make more. And the answer to that depends on the specific company in question.

So it is entirely possible for modules to sell enough for Paizo to make more, while not selling enough for Wizards to continue to make more.



TarionzCousin said:


> Eleven posts in and nobody has misspelled the company name as "Piazo" yet?



I noticed that too, TaroinzCousin.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 14, 2010)

I'm less certain that the generalization that modules do sell is accurate, but I think it can be concluded that a well-supported setting with quality material and a good business model can be successful.


----------



## Imaro (May 14, 2010)

D'karr said:


> Another issue is that adventures might sell well for Paizo, due in part to their outstanding work with Dungeon and Dragon before those two publications went electronic. However, how well are adventures selling for all those 3rd party publishers for PFRPG?
> 
> Paizo is a fluke, in terms of success in this industry. Not because they have not worked hard at that success but because there were a number of coincidences that they were able to aptly exploit.
> 
> ...




Emphasis mine: I just wanted to say that exposure in and of itself is not a good or bad thing, Paizo could have easily fumbled the ball with the magazines and their later adventures... and had a wider audience learn about it because they were connected to Dungeon and Dragon magazine. 

I mean honestly D&D has more exposure than any other rpg... yet they're recent adventures have received a lukewarm to chilly reception by many of their own fans... thus supporting the whole "adventures don't sell" meme for WotC... which should probably be changed to ... "Poor and mediocre adventures don't sell, while exceptional adventures sell exceptionally well.", or something like that.


----------



## DaveMage (May 14, 2010)

Also - check out the font size on the Paizo products.

They really, really pack in the content.



My only fear is that their workload may lead to burnout amongst the staff...


----------



## DaveMage (May 14, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I mean honestly D&D has more exposure than any other rpg... yet they're recent adventures have received a lukewarm to chilly reception by many of their own fans... thus supporting the whole "adventures don't sell" meme for WotC... which should probably be changed to ... "Poor and mediocre adventures don't sell, while exceptional adventures sell exceptionally well.", or something like that.




Well, to be fair, I think some of it is profit targets.  Sales requirements at WotC are likely much greater to consider a product "successful" than at Paizo.

Paizo may want sales to show a solid profit, while WotC may demand that sales show a huge profit.  No huge profit may = no success at WotC.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 14, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> Well, to be fair, I think some of it is profit targets.  Sales requirements at WotC are likely much greater to consider a product "successful" than at Paizo.
> 
> Paizo may want sales to show a solid profit, while WotC may demand that sales show a huge profit.  No huge profit may = no success at WotC.



That's basically right, but I think it's not a great characterization. It's not necessarily that the profit has to be huge just because they want huge profits. It's a business decision that needs to be made.

It's not enough that a module sells. The question is, does it sell enough to justify the company's resources being invested in it, when they could be invested elsewhere? That's the opportunity cost of a product. You need to consider how much money you could be making with another product in order to determine if making the module is worthwhile.


----------



## Celebrim (May 14, 2010)

In my opinion, the King is dead, long live the King.  I've talked to several 4e players in my area, and most of them love the system but admit that they aren't having alot of fun because the published adventures are weak or the DM running the game isn't as skilled as the one who stayed with some other system.  This will ultimately kill WotC if they don't do something about it.  They IMO have to hire top quality talent to write their adventures.  Reading a 4e adventure compared to what Paizo has put out reads like comparing a kid's work to mature designer.  I'd buy 4e adventures solely to convert them if the story was good enough.

Seriously, it has always been my opinion that the #1 reason for the success of D&D relative to other RPG product lines was modules.  As a guy who runs games, I love to see a small core line of rule books and a shelf brimming with adventures.  That's the system for me.  In my opinion, quality GM aids are the determining factor in the success of your RPG.  If you turn out good adventures, people will play your game, and simply no other RPG product line has had over the years the focus on adventures that D&D has.  What it means is that more players are willing to become GM's, more adventures get actually run, and you end up with more fans.

I once read someone reviewing the rules to Chill and wondering why the game retained a small but enduring fanbase.  The answer is simple - adventures.  What's the most awesome sauce thing about Chaosium CoC - great adventure support.  If you don't have great adventure support for your system, ultimately you just have a GM toy and you sell books to be read by DMs and then put on the shelf never to be actually used.  I've got several of these.  Heck, the majority of the GURPS product line as best as I can tell qualifies. Sure, a few GMs will be inspired enough to run a game or even a campaign, but some will suck, some won't want to put in the continued work, and with the small group remaining you never grow your market.

I don't care whether you think Pathfinder sucks and 4e is the system bomb or vica versa, if you want to look at what system is going to succeed over the long run, look for which one is putting out the strongest adventures.  If they are both putting out strong modules, then they'll both succeed.  But if one falters in that, then you can bet the other one is where all the players will end up in the long run.  

Even if modules didn't sell, they are so important to the RPG business model that you'd want to sell them at a loss IMO.  Having a great system but no modules is like having a great console, but no video games that will run on the system and expecting to have a huge market because people will want to write their own video games.  You have to have video games to sell a video gaming console.  Of course, Paizo appears to have realized that you can make money selling the games as well, and in fact, if you do it right, you might can make more money on the games than on the 'console'.


----------



## Sigurd (May 14, 2010)

D'karr said:


> Paizo is a fluke, in terms of success in this industry.  Not because they have not worked hard at that success but because there were a number of coincidences that they were able to aptly exploit.




I don't think that's fair. Its no more a fluke for Paizo to do well with their experience than for any other experienced gaming company to do well. They deserve credit for their innovation and player loyalty.

1. I think their cheap rules pdfs are a great idea. Anyone with ten bucks can get their fairly massive pdf rulebook. It is cheap enough that players buy it over the PSRD.

2. I think their subscription model for their adventure path is really well done. a) People trust their quality - they've earned that - and it generates automatic sales. b) Automatic distribution is the best kind of advertising because it sets up word of mouth.

3. They are conspiratorial rather than dictatorial. As an OGL publisher they start by recognizing there are other players in the market and other sources for gaming. They've been very open with material and fans appreciate that. They have high standards, in part, because they have to put the shared material together better than anyone else. They run a fun website where the developers are present and answer questions.

4. They have concentrated on one world setting. Golarion is a complicated setting designed for conflict and interesting stories. Their focus on it gives it consistency and lends weight to stories that are set there.

5. They're a smaller agile company. You never get the sense that there are more lawyers than gamers.

I think they deserve credit for holding themselves to the best trends of game publishing. I wish WOTC would return to its OGL roots (In whatever game edition they choose) and do as well.


----------



## Maggan (May 14, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Even if modules didn't sell, they are so important to the RPG business model that you'd want to sell them at a loss IMO.  Having a great system but no modules is like having a great console, but no video games that will run on the system and expecting to have a huge market because people will want to write their own video games.




A bit like Apple is operating the App Store and iTunes store at a little bit above break even to support their iPhones, iPod touches and iPads.

/M


----------



## Imaro (May 14, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> Well, to be fair, I think some of it is profit targets. Sales requirements at WotC are likely much greater to consider a product "successful" than at Paizo.
> 
> Paizo may want sales to show a solid profit, while WotC may demand that sales show a huge profit. No huge profit may = no success at WotC.




Isn't this a function of their larger market share? I mean if WotC's marketshare is proportinately larger... and the number of DM's is also proportianately larger... well shouldn't it (if the same percentage of their fans like their adventures as Paizo's fans) even out? I mean yes WotC has to generate a larger profit... but their customer base is magnitudes larger.


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 14, 2010)

Maggan said:


> My speculation based on my observations of the industry is that Paizo indeed sell a boatload of core books at solid profit, and that the adventures are break even support for that line.



That's a good point--in which case the number of adventures is to merely keep their fan base active. Still, break even isn't doing too badly.


----------



## renau1g (May 14, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> In my opinion, the King is dead, long live the King.  I've talked to several 4e players in my area, and most of them love the system but admit that they aren't having alot of fun because the published adventures are weak or the DM running the game isn't as skilled as the one who stayed with some other system.  This will ultimately kill WotC if they don't do something about it.  They IMO have to hire top quality talent to write their adventures.  Reading a 4e adventure compared to what Paizo has put out reads like comparing a kid's work to mature designer.  I'd buy 4e adventures solely to convert them if the story was good enough.




This, I am actually the other way. I love the 4e rules system and have subscribed to Paizo's AP with the intent on converting it to that system as the work is incredible. Kingmaker is the one I'm starting with. So cool.

Also, the Paizo people are extremely helpful, from the top-down, I love seeing them pop by here, or respond to questions over on their boards. Vic spent a fair bit of time with me lately regarding their shipping rates, I sincerely doubt I'd have the same time from WoTC.


----------



## Sigurd (May 14, 2010)

Jdvn1 said:


> That's a good point--in which case the number of adventures is to merely keep their fan base active. Still, break even isn't doing too badly.





Without financial numbers the thread mostly measures loyalty to Paizo. Production isn't necessarily profit.


----------



## DaveMage (May 14, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Isn't this a function of their larger market share? I mean if WotC's marketshare is proportinately larger... and the number of DM's is also proportianately larger... well shouldn't it (if the same percentage of their fans like their adventures as Paizo's fans) even out? I mean yes WotC has to generate a larger profit... but their customer base is magnitudes larger.




Could be.  Maybe the overhead costs at WotC are proportionally worse than Paizo.  Who knows?

If it *is* adventure quality that's the problem, it's surprising.  I have no doubt that the talent exists at WotC (and via freelancers) to do stellar adventures.  So maybe there's something internal that's harming their design methods or creativity.  (Like, you know, that axe that seems to hover over all of their heads...)


----------



## DEFCON 1 (May 14, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> As a guy who runs games, I love to see a small core line of rule books and a shelf brimming with adventures.



I suspect you are probably in the minority on this point.  

As far as trying to compare what Chill does to what WotC does, I think that's rather futile.  The fact you mentioned that Chill has a *small* but enduring fanbase tells us that we cannot use their business model to determine whether WotC's model is successful or the right decision.  The two companies are apples and oranges as far as their business models and needs are concerned.


----------



## Imaro (May 14, 2010)

Maggan said:


> My speculation based on my observations of the industry is that Paizo indeed sell a boatload of core books at solid profit, and that the adventures are break even support for that line.
> ...




I'm curious how you view the fact that Pathfinder was only released less than a year ago, and as of right now there have only been two (possibly 3 if you include the Armory book) rulebooks produced for Pathfinder (The corebook and the bestiary) and one is a purely DM book....yet many more modules have been published.  According to common belief, this almost seems like suicide.  Wouldn't it have been better to invest those resources in pumping out rulebooks on a semi-monthly basis as opposed to modules?

Also I'm curious... Rise of the Runelords was publisehd in 2007... The corebook in 2009... how did they survive for more than 2 years without publishing rulebooks?  IMO, Paizo has made a successful business off of everything WotC claims doesn't sell... mainly fluff and adventures, but I could be looking at this wrong and am honestly curious about an insiders oppinion on this.


----------



## bagger245 (May 14, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> In my opinion, the King is dead, long live the King.  I've talked to several 4e players in my area, and most of them love the system but admit that they aren't having alot of fun because the published adventures are weak or the DM running the game isn't as skilled as the one who stayed with some other system.  This will ultimately kill WotC if they don't do something about it.  They IMO have to hire top quality talent to write their adventures.  Reading a 4e adventure compared to what Paizo has put out reads like comparing a kid's work to mature designer.  I'd buy 4e adventures solely to convert them if the story was good enough.
> 
> Seriously, it has always been my opinion that the #1 reason for the success of D&D relative to other RPG product lines was modules.  As a guy who runs games, I love to see a small core line of rule books and a shelf brimming with adventures.  That's the system for me.  In my opinion, quality GM aids are the determining factor in the success of your RPG.  If you turn out good adventures, people will play your game, and simply no other RPG product line has had over the years the focus on adventures that D&D has.  What it means is that more players are willing to become GM's, more adventures get actually run, and you end up with more fans.
> 
> ...




Good points. But I do think WOTC is mostly concentrating on crunch as their focus (their constant errata is also an indication) rather than fluff material. If you look back a AD&D, though the game system many would consider clunky, alot have fond memories of it's adventures and are still being talked about until this day. Heck the good ones are being revamped (Castle Greyhawk, Ravenloft, ToH) back in 3e and now 4e. 

I think many 4e players are using the rules to run their own adventures or Paizo's adventures. There is even an outcry of wanting Paizo to make adventures for 4e, and that says alot.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (May 14, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> I have no doubt that the talent exists at WotC (and via freelancers) to do stellar adventures.  So maybe there's something internal that's harming their design methods or creativity.  (Like, you know, that axe that seems to hover over all of their heads...)



I would be more inclined to think that what WotC wants in their adventures is basics and simplicity.  They want to have the modules on the shelves of Borders to be so easy to use and not confusing or in-depth that a kid who is given a PH, DMG, and a module for his birthday can sit down and figure out how to play the game without his head exploding.  Because that way, he might continue to play the game and then buy more products.

Let us not forget the fact that practically every one of us on these forums boards who decry the modules produced by WotC are in fact moderate to experienced D&D or RPGers.  So obviously, the more basic or bland an adventure, the less useful, interesting, or enticing it will be to us here.  Why any of us are surprised by this, is beyond me.

The one thing I think all us ENWorlders forget is that WotC is a Hollywood studio, and all other game companies are small independent moviemakers.  WotC will crank out huge, big-budget opuses because they have larger bottom lines to hope they hit on, so they want/need to appeal to as wide of an audience as possible.  Other companies can make the small, personal films that are considered more 'artistic' by the critics, but aren't going to be money-makers.  And we 'savvy filmgoers' might wish that Hollywood would stop putting out 'crap' like Saw VII or Transformers 14 and instead spend more money on stuff like Hurt Locker... but Hurt Locker isn't paying the bills.  What makes the 100 million in profits?  The Hollywood blockbuster.  We might not like it... but that's the way things are right now.  Wishing things were different just isn't useful.


----------



## mudbunny (May 14, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> Could be.  Maybe the overhead costs at WotC are proportionally worse than Paizo.  Who knows?
> 
> If it *is* adventure quality that's the problem, it's surprising.  I have no doubt that the talent exists at WotC (and via freelancers) to do stellar adventures.  So maybe there's something internal that's harming their design methods or creativity.  (Like, you know, that axe that seems to hover over all of their heads...)




Another thing to consider is that WotC is set up to publish things in print runs that are much larger than Paizo. As a result, for them to break even/make a profit, the number that WotC has to sell is proportionally larger.

For WotC, the data that they have indicates that, for them at least, selling splatbooks is a better business model than selling modules.


----------



## Imaro (May 14, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I would be more inclined to think that what WotC wants in their adventures is basics and simplicity. They want to have the modules on the shelves of Borders to be so easy to use and not confusing or in-depth that a kid who is given a PH, DMG, and a module for his birthday can sit down and figure out how to play the game without his head exploding. Because that way, he might continue to play the game and then buy more products.




Isn't this what low-level adventures are for? Now if you're using this excuse for Paragon and Epic level adventures... well I'm not buying it. In fact after 3rd level I feel a DM doesn't need basic and simple anymore... he should be introduced through the module into more and more advanced techniques, storylines, rp'ing encounters, etc. of DM'ing. There's also a point where things can be too simplistic and basic (Hey it's our third fight in a row with KOBOLDS!!!)... creating boredom.



DEFCON 1 said:


> Let us not forget the fact that practically every one of us on these forums boards who decry the modules produced by WotC are in fact moderate to experienced D&D or RPGers. So obviously, the more basic or bland an adventure, the less useful, interesting, or enticing it will be to us here. Why any of us are surprised by this, is beyond me.




Again see above about levels and advancing... It's not just players who need to face more and more challenges to stay interested in the game. My brother, (who has only ever run one other game sessionin his life) tried to run KotS.... and ended up giving up on running 4e because it was such a bad experience... I think maybe WotC and even you may be underestimating new DM's and the fact that they want their adventure to be cool... not simplistic and basic.




DEFCON 1 said:


> The one thing I think all us ENWorlders forget is that WotC is a Hollywood studio, and all other game companies are small independent moviemakers. WotC will crank out huge, big-budget opuses because they have larger bottom lines to hope they hit on, so they want/need to appeal to as wide of an audience as possible. Other companies can make the small, personal films that are considered more 'artistic' by the critics, but aren't going to be money-makers. And we 'savvy filmgoers' might wish that Hollywood would stop putting out 'crap' like Saw VII or Transformers 14 and instead spend more money on stuff like Hurt Locker... but Hurt Locker isn't paying the bills. What makes the 100 million in profits? The Hollywood blockbuster. We might not like it... but that's the way things are right now. Wishing things were different just isn't useful.




Uhm... yet WotC's "big-budget opuses "... don't seem to be satisfying "as wide of an audience as possible.". In fact, IMO,  they seem to be loosing more and more of their audience. Anecdotally... I bought Thunderspire and Pyramid... but with those two adventures (compared to Paizo's) WotC lost me as a purchaser of adventures. It would take one heck of a review by someone I trust to ever get me to buy another adventure from them. Honestly, sometimes first impressions count.


----------



## renau1g (May 14, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The one thing I think all us ENWorlders forget is that WotC is a Hollywood studio, and all other game companies are small independent moviemakers.  WotC will crank out huge, big-budget opuses because they have larger bottom lines to hope they hit on, so they want/need to appeal to as wide of an audience as possible.  Other companies can make the small, personal films that are considered more 'artistic' by the critics, but aren't going to be money-makers.  And we 'savvy filmgoers' might wish that Hollywood would stop putting out 'crap' like Saw VII or Transformers 14 and instead spend more money on stuff like Hurt Locker... but Hurt Locker isn't paying the bills.  What makes the 100 million in profits?  The Hollywood blockbuster.  We might not like it... but that's the way things are right now.  Wishing things were different just isn't useful.




This is an interesting view point. Paizo has pages of detail on their NPC's even though much of the time the PC's won't get to hear, but allows the DM to actually roleplay interesting villains as opposed the the cardboard WoTC ones.


----------



## billd91 (May 14, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I suspect you are probably in the minority on this point.
> 
> As far as trying to compare what Chill does to what WotC does, I think that's rather futile.  The fact you mentioned that Chill has a *small* but enduring fanbase tells us that we cannot use their business model to determine whether WotC's model is successful or the right decision.  The two companies are apples and oranges as far as their business models and needs are concerned.




In all fairness, Chill retained that small fanbase despite being out of print most of the time over the last 15-20 years. That's a pretty good record.

As far as whether or not he's in the minority, I have mixed impressions. Back when I was a kid, having a small number of core books and tons of modules would have been and was perfect. I had the 1e AD&D hardcovers, some of which (Wilderness/Dungeoneer's Survival Guides, Fiend Folio, Deities and Demigods, Dragonlance Adventures, Oriental Adventures, Manual of the PLanes) saw very sporadic use at the time. But I had bunches of adventures - and we played most of them. We had plenty of time to do so.

Now that I'm an adult and have a lot less play time, having a whole ton of adventures is less important because I'm not going to get to them all (or even get close). But I don't really think my preference has changed. Splatbooks are fun, but I really can take them or leave them compared to the adventures. Even if I don't get to run them all, I still prefer to read modules over splatbooks. They're more varied, they inspire my own adventures, and they give me plenty of ideas to try even if I don't use the whole thing. So I don't think I've changed.

But for the gamer who comes into the hobby with less time on his hand than I had as a kid, I can understand preferring more source books over modules from the start. I think I can also understand it for players who started with 2e or 3e (or even 4e). All of these editions, particularly once 3e come out, have more focus on character rules as toolkits for building the character you want. With 2e, it was the kits that offered up bits of customization for the PC. 3e added feats and changed multiclassing to enable shopping around for the class powers you wanted. A lot of people are attracted to the lure of more interesting tools to work with (or, frankly, ramp up your power with). The (A)D&D and publishing strategy that conditioned some of us to prefer shelves of adventures over splatbooks may be long gone.

The real cypher, I think, in all this is the setting book. Making the division between splatbook and adventure and the expected market is fairly easy, at least conceptually. But settings books tend to somewhat attract DMs and players both. Players like to know more about where they're playing, at least to some degree, but probably not to the degree they may be interested in splatbooks.


----------



## Imaro (May 14, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> Another thing to consider is that WotC is set up to publish things in print runs that are much larger than Paizo. As a result, for them to break even/make a profit, the number that WotC has to sell is proportionally larger.
> 
> For WotC, the data that they have indicates that, for them at least, selling splatbooks is a better business model than selling modules.




And we should also consider that there was, only recently, a gigantic thread on here, rpg.net, and perhaps some other sites asking for help with adventures... perhaps even WotC realizes it may be quality that is affecting quantity sold... especially since, again, they have a proportionately larger customer base.

Note: As far as their data... it still doesn't determine whether this is because of quality or because "modules don't sell well."


----------



## MrGrenadine (May 14, 2010)

Sigurd said:


> Without financial numbers the thread mostly measures loyalty to Paizo. Production isn't necessarily profit.





Your point would be valid if the material produced was in the realm of a few hundred pages.  

But 5000+ pages of material, a great website, a top notch and dedicated staff, etc...these things don't exist without cash flow.


----------



## renau1g (May 14, 2010)

Agreed. Most business can't run at a loss for long (unless they're "too big to fail") without collapsing. Even if they're "breaking even or just barely above that" their shareholders won't put up with that long-term either as there's no value added for their investment. One could pretty safely take is that Paizo's model of business is making enough money to satisfy their shareholders, without more specifics we can't really say much more than that.


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 14, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> Another thing to consider is that WotC is set up to publish things in print runs that are much larger than Paizo. As a result, for them to break even/make a profit, the number that WotC has to sell is proportionally larger.
> 
> For WotC, the data that they have indicates that, for them at least, selling splatbooks is a better business model than selling modules.




I agree. This is VERY true and speaks to the different ground rules and expectations under which WotC operates and how those expectations lead them to adopt a different business model than Paizo Publishing.   

I would also point out that the focus upon rules also lends itself much more readily to a "revise, reset, resell" strategy that WotC has made the cornerstone of its business in how it sells _Magic: The Gathering_ to players of that game. 

In contrast, a business model that focuses upon selling modules and setting material has a far longer natural product cycle, in my opinion.  This is especially so, given that the incentive to sell more rules -- when the profits are derived from adventures, just isn't there to the same degree. 

Having more than 80+ 3rd edition hardbacks on my shelf, (the vast majority of which I must admit I barely cracked), I can say as a DM that my love for "more and more rules" has been greatly exhausted.  

*I think the blunt truth is that what I really liked was buying "more and more stuff"; I got a geek thrill from purchasing and collecting RPG material for my system of choice. *

The cost of that in terms of $$ was something I could live with -- but the other cost?  That's something I have become very unhappy with over time. 

Because what was made exceedingly clear to me as the power creep extended through the late part of the 3.5 product cycle, is that the primary element of the game which suffers under this inevitable power creep is the utility of adventure material.  Every splat book in the players' hands makes published adventure material increasingly unbalanced in favour of the players -- and therefore less useful to DMs.

Ultimately, I experienced in my own _Age of Worms_ Campaign a moment where the power creep in 3.5 was responsible for DESTROYING that campaign. This experience lead me to draw this conclusion: 
*
A. Either the expanded players options in the 3.5 hardbacks had to be radically disallowed;*

OR
*
B. I had to admit that the Adventure Paths I had collected from  Dungeon magazine could not be run without radically revising them. 
*
With this past experience firmly in my rear-view mirror, I am looking to the release of the _Advanced Player's Guide_ for Pathfinder at this Gencon with a *lot* less enthusiasm than most people. Trepidation would be a far more accurate word. Because fankly, I'm very worried the book's release is going to begin a cycle which will break those 128 Adventure SKUS I noted in my first post. 

And that is something I will never permit again at my table. 

I would be interested to know what Paizo thinks about this issue and whether they will entertain a change in the assumptions their adventure material for PFRPG are based upon. Will the adventures Paizo intends to release in 2011 be balanced upon the ASSUMPTION that the GM and players are using the _Advanced Player's Guide_? If not, will they consider releasing ONE Adventure Path in the future that is premised upon the _Advanced Player's Guide_ being in use at the table? 

Because it seems to me, at some point, without changing the default assumptions that are inherent in the adventure products -- power creep WILL break the utility of the adventure material published by Paizo to the DMs who buy it.


----------



## renau1g (May 14, 2010)

Oh yeah, the later 3.5 stuff killed all the early modules for me. Red Hand of Doom was trounced through by the Book of 9 Sword/Spell Compendium/Magic Item Compendium-wielding players... sad, so sad


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 14, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Uhm... yet WotC's "big-budget opuses "... don't seem to be satisfying "as wide of an audience as possible.". In fact, IMO,  they seem to be loosing more and more of their audience. Anecdotally... I bought Thunderspire and Pyramid... but with those two adventures (compared to Paizo's) WotC lost me as a purchaser of adventures. It would take one heck of a review by someone I trust to ever get me to buy another adventure from them. Honestly, sometimes first impressions count.



 I think DEFCON 1 intended the "big-budget opuses" to be the splatbooks, rather than their modules.  WotC doesn't put much time or effort into modules and they don't expect to generate the blockbuster money from them.  They will put some out to be seen as supporting the line, just like occasionally big studios might release a smaller budget film as pet project and keep some claim to "artistic endeavors," but it isn't their focus.


----------



## Scribble (May 14, 2010)

One thing I've noticed about modules (at least in my own case) is that I rarely buy them...

Once in a while if they're cool I will, but mostly to mine for ideas.

Now that I have a subscription to DDI, I haven't even looked at a WoTC module (unless you count Hammerfast) because I get 3 or so each month with my dungeon subscription, and all the info (stats and items wise) from the other ones goes into the compendium...

I wonder if WotC's module sales would increase if they didn't offer adventures each month in Dungeon, and didn't put the useful stuff to mine out of them in the compendium?

Or conversely, if Paizo published another monthly adventure magazine would sales of their stand-alones drop?

Either way they're getting money from me... It's just a question of through what means.

I do know one thing- If WoTC wants to sell me more physical modules, they should keep doing more stuff like Hammerfast. I plan to buy the next one as well. I buy them for the flavor, and inspirational ideas.


----------



## pawsplay (May 14, 2010)

Paizo started with modules and APs, and then moved into the RPG business. I'm baffled how anyone could draw the conclusion that modules are just a loss leader for their flagship products.


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (May 14, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Even if I don't get to run them all, I still prefer to read modules over splatbooks.




I think that is a significant point. Especially with respect to currently non-active players.


----------



## SkidAce (May 14, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I suspect you are probably in the minority on this point.






Celebrim said:


> As a guy who runs games, I love to see a small core line of rule books and a shelf brimming with adventures.  That's the system for me.




I am also a member of this "minority"


----------



## Beginning of the End (May 14, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I would be more inclined to think that what WotC wants in their adventures is basics and simplicity.  They want to have the modules on the shelves of Borders to be so easy to use and not confusing or in-depth that a kid who is given a PH, DMG, and a module for his birthday can sit down and figure out how to play the game without his head exploding.




The word "accessible" doesn't mean "bland and boring".

There's also a difference between "accessible" and "bad". There's nothing about continuity errors or room descriptions that don't match the maps which equates to making an "accessible" product.


----------



## guivre (May 14, 2010)

SkidAce said:


> I am also a member of this "minority"




As am I. That's the primary reason I'm dumping 4e. Since release I've bought every book that came out, this is the first month where I've balked. 

It's too many damn books (and not nearly enough playtesting IMO). 

Pathfinder has slowly grown on me over the past year, I'm going to subscribe to the AP and Modules line and see how that goes for awhile. It's a better model for me so I might as well support it.

Now I have to decide whether to quit buying 4E permanently or complete the collection. Unfortunately I'll probably stop buying stuff from GG too.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 14, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Seriously, it has always been my opinion that the #1 reason for the success of D&D relative to other RPG product lines was modules. As a guy who runs games, I love to see a small core line of rule books and a shelf brimming with adventures. That's the system for me. In my opinion, quality GM aids are the determining factor in the success of your RPG. If you turn out good adventures, people will play your game, and simply no other RPG product line has had over the years the focus on adventures that D&D has. What it means is that more players are willing to become GM's, more adventures get actually run, and you end up with more fans.




Excellent point.

I remember back in the day when FASA was producing most excellent Traveller adventures, and it helped spark a lot of interest in Traveller. There was event useful things like the "76 patrons" book. By contrast, there were very few RQ2 adventures coming out during its life time (although a few sorta campaign packs like Pavis, The Big Rubble, Griffin Mountain etc) and at the time I couldn't help wondering whether that was holding RQ back from the wider success I believed it deserved.

Cheers


----------



## ggroy (May 14, 2010)

At the present time I am not DM'ing nor playing in any regular games.  (My 4E game ended awhile ago).  I do play the occasional pickup one-shot game, about once a month.

Nevertheless, I do regularly pick up the Pathfinder AP books to read.  To me it's like reading "Dungeon Magazine" on better quality paper without any ads.  I don't think I'll ever use much of the stuff I read.

Wonder how much of the Pathfinder sales (ie. APs, chronicles, companion, etc ...), are to people who just read them without ever playing or using much of the stuff in their own games.


----------



## Punnuendo (May 14, 2010)

As someone who doesn't really play any version of DnD, and doesn't run adventures, preferring more sandbox and character focused games using Savage Worlds or Burning Wheel or FATE, I still sometimes buy Pathfinder adventures.

Why do you ask? Because they make for interesting reads. I have zero interest in the system they use, and little to no interest in ever using them as anything other than possibly inspiration, but they read well. So every now and then I pick up one just for fun. 

I'm definitely an outlier on this issue, but that's my story.


----------



## Celebrim (May 14, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> Because it seems to me, at some point, without changing the default assumptions that are inherent in the adventure products -- power creep WILL break the utility of the adventure material published by Paizo to the DMs who buy it.




One of the advantages you have in building a business model that sells games rather than game supplements is that you don't have to trash your system to make a profit.  IMO, much of 3.5 on was published with power creep deliberately built in _as a selling point of the material_.  This is a tactic that the WotC RPG picked up on from the CCG division.  With each product WotC releases for its CCG lines, they publish a few deliberately overpowered items amidst the 'chafe'.  These few items excite the player base to purchase the product line in order to get the play utility of the overpowered items.  The real selling point is a small percentage of the material.  With many of the D&D books from 3.5 on, I saw deliberate power creep being put in to the game with the intention of encouraging sales.  Of course the problem with that is if you were one of those tables that bought into the system expansion wholeheartedly, by the time of late 3.5 you were probably disgusted with the system, it's complexity, it's lack of balance, and so forth and eager for the 'new hotness'.   But on the other hand, this approach to sells burns out all but the people who, as you say, enjoy the " geek thrill from purchasing and collecting RPG material for my system of choice".  You are ultimately contracting your player base.   It's the sort of business model that killed me on MtG; it's ultimately killed me as a customer of their RPG line as well.

I hope Paizo is smart enough to realize how bad power creep would be for their business.  The basic rule of publishing new core material is that you can't publish anything that enhances an already strong strategy.  You may only publish new material that makes an existing weak strategy stronger (or opens up a new strategy altogether), and then only if you playtested to be sure you haven't over compensated.  If druids, clerics and wizards are recognized as being 'the top', you can't publish anything that signficantly enhances their existing core strategies or which fully solves their existing weaknesses.  

I understand your trepidation at an 'Advanced Player's Guide'.  I hope Paizo is smart enough to know that you can't always give the players what they say that they want.  You have to find ways to make them want what you are able to give them.  For example, I think there is ALOT of room in Pathfinder for expanded feat selection that opens up breadth and space without significantly creating power creep.  



> And that is someting I will never allow to happen again at my table.




Maybe its just that I've been playing longer, or maybe its just that one of my strengths as a DM is rules smithing, or maybe its just that I'm too poor to satisfy my geek urges by buying 80 books, but I never allowed this to happen at my table in the first place and I strongly encourage all DMs to adopt the stance you've been so eloquently outlining here and elsewhere.  Opening up a system to 40 or 50 player's books is insane, and can't lead anywhere good. 

I saw this coming in 3.0.  I picked up the 3.0 DMG and went, "What the #$!@!", when I saw PrC's.  A chill of trepidation went down my spine, and I said to myself, "I hope they realize just how bad of an idea this is."  I know what Monte was trying for, but the implementation absolutely sucked and with official no rules and guidelines to ensure balance things went to heck in a hurry.  Of course, my idea of a 'bad idea' was something bad for the game.  From WotC's perspective though, it was immediately clear that they recognized the market value of PrC's and they moved the PrC out of DM books and into player books.  Really, that was the beginning of the end of the system.  It wasn't long before I was hearing about various 'optimized' builds of multi-dipped synergized PrCs, usually either full-caster progression PrCs that ALSO got nifty powers on top of the already powerful Wizard build, or else full BAB progression PrCs that got the equivalent of a bonus feat every level rather than every other level.  And from there, as the stuff proliferated, it just got worse.  It was all I could do to hold back the tide.

I'm not doing alot of business with Paizo right now, but they are one of two publishing companies I fully respect (the other being Green Ronin) and I really really want to see them succeed.


----------



## Shroomy (May 14, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Paizo started with modules and APs, and then moved into the RPG business. I'm baffled how anyone could draw the conclusion that modules are just a loss leader for their flagship products.




Yeah, if anything, the Pathfinder RPG rulebook is a loss leader for the modules, APs, and campaign setting materials.

Here's a thing to consider.  The statement attributed to WotC that "modules don't sell" is what, almost a decade old at this point, and just because it described WotC publishing strategy and the RPG market circa 2000 doesn't mean it applies to the current situation.  Also, its not like WotC is neglecting the adventure business.  _Dungeon_ is again a house organ, there is a series of 12 published adventures, 2 setting specific adventures (with two more on the way, i.e. _Dark Sun_ and the _Gamma World_ supplements), a new series of softcover adventures (the HS series), two hardcover books of adventures (_Dungeon Delve_ and _Revenge of the Giants_, with another on the way), and plenty of LFR content.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 14, 2010)

I am also in the "minority" of adventures over rules books.  There is only so much of rules that are really needed and only so many additions/changes that can be absorbed before it becomes overwhelming.  

Adventures are great because they support the product, and they can be used to develop the game world.

Modules can also be fire and forget to a much greater degree.  You are less likely to get players asking about the encounter in the swamp adventure you ran last year than you are about the rule that came out in the splatbook last year defining how ear wax can be used to boost the potency of certain potions.


----------



## Sigurd (May 14, 2010)

I think they have been left in a unique situation. I think they are the biggest OGL 3.x publisher by the departure of WOTC. The inherited a large market that needed new modules and are the only place for that market to get new approximately correct rule books.

If they can sell one quarter of the old 3.5 market modules, that is a lot of modules.

I do think they've been very careful with quality though and, IMHO, they deserve credit for staying by the OGL.


Sigurd


----------



## Maggan (May 14, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I'm curious how you view the fact that Pathfinder was only released less than a year ago, and as of right now there have only been two (possibly 3 if you include the Armory book) rulebooks produced for Pathfinder (The corebook and the bestiary) and one is a purely DM book....yet many more modules have been published.




This is speculation.

Paizo started as a support company for D&D3e and managed to capitalise on their relationship to the D&D brand after Dragon and Dungeon were pulled. Thus, they managed to convert many of the customers to the new AP format, which was a very smart move.

But, as someone else has mentioned, Paizo is also the only company in the history of RPGs to have such a head start: an entire database of subscribers who were willing to pay for content. I don't know the conversion rate they managed, but even if they just managed to convert around 20%, that'd still translate in thousands of customers, willing to pay for content on a subscription basis.

I'd kill (figuratively speaking of course) to start an adventure publishing business with that kind of foundation in place.

This also occurred roughly as WotC started winding down D&D3e, basically ceding that market to whomever was left, i.e. Paizo. After D&D4e was released, or arguably after Paizo realised that the GSL wasn't their idea of a sound business foundation, they decided to put the Pathfinder rules on the market. IMO this in itself is a testament to the fact that "modules don't sell": the rules of the game were available for free on the internet, and the D&D3 rulebooks can be bought for a song on eBay, and yet Paizo needs to have a core rulebook in place.

Maybe the Pathfinder book scratches the "it's gotta be in print otherwise I won't buy the modules" itch that many gamers have, but I also believe that Paizo will start to transition to more rulebooks during the end of 2010 and during 2011. Add to this that the Pathfinder RPG was the huge success story of GenCon, selling tens of thousands of books. In an RPG market where a couple of thousand is considered a resounding success.

So ... hmmm ... I think that the need for a Pathfinder RPG was not urgent due to the rules being readily available in other books or on the net, and that the momentum of D&D3e carried over for Paizo until they managed to get Pathfinder in place.

The reason they sold modules in defiance of the commonly accepted conventional wisdom before the Pathfinder core rules were released was that they managed to capitalise on their exclusive access to a loyal customer base which were already spending money regularly, i.e. the Dungeon and Dragon customers.



Imaro said:


> According to common belief, this almost seems like suicide.  Wouldn't it have been better to invest those resources in pumping out rulebooks on a semi-monthly basis as opposed to modules?




I suspect that Paizo will indeed end up doing that, once the subscribers have had their fill of adventure material. After 5000 pages, how many more pages can you sell to basically the same customer base? Another 5000? 10000? 1000? I don't know, but I believe that Paizo knows.

But given the subscription model, they might shift the adventure material into being more rules material, thus negating the need for a heavy hardback every other month.



Imaro said:


> Also I'm curious... Rise of the Runelords was publisehd in 2007... The corebook in 2009... how did they survive for more than 2 years without publishing rulebooks?  IMO, Paizo has made a successful business off of everything WotC claims doesn't sell... mainly fluff and adventures, but I could be looking at this wrong and am honestly curious about an insiders oppinion on this.




I think Paizo is successful because they started with a customer base that was ready to spend money regularly, and managed to build a business foundation on top of that.

It has, IMO and all that of course, very little to do with fluff or adventures, and everything to do with capitalising on a unique opportunity and shaping the product on offer to fit the customer base available.

Why do I say that? While Paizo produces excellent stuff, they aren't the only ones to do so, and not the only ones to ever have done so. There's been people producing stellar fluff and adventures who haven't been able to reap the rewards as Paizo has, so to me it's obvious that there are other factors in play.

That said, if Paizo didn't produce top notch stuff, their business model would likely collapse due to churn among the customer base. They need to be the best to stay the best, which seems like an obvious thing to say, but many, many companies forget that.

Finally, when looking back at the major thing that the two most successful RPGs today have in common, it is ... a working subscription model.

All this from my armchair ... well, IKEA office chair, but unless I have overestimated the importance and success of the Paizo subscription model, I would be surprised if someone from Paizo came out and said: "hey dude, you are soooo wrong."

Which of course means that Erik or James or Lisa will be along on a moment saying precisely that. 

Cheers!

/M


----------



## pawsplay (May 14, 2010)

Given that WotC has continued to produce modules, I am pretty sure they came to the conclusion that, "Crappy modules don't sell." A decade ago, they couldn't figure out how to reliably produce non-crappy modules with the staff they had, who were already working on other, typically more profitable projects. 

It's true D&D needs good beginner modules. It just is. I disagree that means the adventures will be bland or boring. Writing simple and good is hard. There are a lot of opera singers who can do arias quite well, but there are only a few I would listen to sing individual notes. It's the same with children's books; writing at an eight-year-old's level and condensing an entire story into a couple of dozen pages is very, very hard. It's not a mystery to me why a good beginner module is hard to produce; it's hard to write, even for the people qualified to write one.


----------



## caelum (May 14, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Paizo started with modules and APs, and then moved into the RPG business. I'm baffled how anyone could draw the conclusion that modules are just a loss leader for their flagship products.




Definitely. Moreover, their stated purpose for the RPG was that they needed a set of in-print rules to support their adventures and setting material - not to "fix" 3.5!

Paizo has also been expanding for a long time, well before they published the RPG last year.  If that isn't evidence of a profitable business strategy, what is? 

Personally, I have way more RPGs and supplements than I will ever use.  I suspect a lot of us just buy things because they are interesting reads, and adventures are often better for that than crunch.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (May 14, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Isn't this what low-level adventures are for? Now if you're using this excuse for Paragon and Epic level adventures... well I'm not buying it. In fact after 3rd level I feel a DM doesn't need basic and simple anymore... he should be introduced through the module into more and more advanced techniques, storylines, rp'ing encounters, etc. of DM'ing. There's also a point where things can be too simplistic and basic (Hey it's our third fight in a row with KOBOLDS!!!)... creating boredom.



And yet WotC felt like releasing Revenge Of The Giants was a good idea (an adventure that from what I understand is mainly one giant battle after another, with very little 'roleplay' stuff in it).  Doesn't the fact that they chose to spend development time on a product like this instead of a product like what Paizo releases, give us a better idea of what sells better for them _in the business model_ they currently find themselves?

And again... to your point that you feel a DM after 3rd level shouldn't need basic and simple... you're coming at that statement from the perspective of someone who's played many more rpgs than the base amount needed to get your first game to 3rd level.  Or to even get your game to paragon or epic tier.  I mean let's be honest here... do we really believe that a completely new group of kids learning rpgs for the first time who manage to get through Keep, Thunderspire, Pyramid, Trollhaunt and so on... are now so experienced with what roleplaying is about that they can now _identify_ that what they are playing is subpar?  Especially if they've never actually played any other RPGs by way of comparison?  Some will, absolutely.  But that doesn't mean they're the majority.  And while your brother's experience with KotS is completely valid... that's just one person's experience.  And I think the fact that WotC did not choose to go overly elaborate on their H/P/E series of modules tells us that they didn't feel it was important to their business model, and who they were marketing those modules to.

It all comes down to who and what those modules were meant to serve.  And again... I'm willing to bet that that _wasn't us_.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 14, 2010)

Maggan said:


> Maybe the Pathfinder book scratches the "it's gotta be in print otherwise I won't buy the modules" itch that many gamers have, but I also believe that Paizo will start to transition to more rulebooks during the end of 2010 and during 2011.




I don't know what the future will bring, but I suspect that the Pathfinder core rules came about specifically (1) to keep the rules in print, as you suggest, and (2) to answer the objections about the existing 3.5 system, specifically those brought up by WotC in the 4e marketting push.


RC


----------



## mudbunny (May 14, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I don't know what the future will bring, but I suspect that the Pathfinder core rules came about specifically (1) to keep the rules in print, as you suggest, and (2) to answer the objections about the existing 3.5 system, specifically those brought up by WotC in the 4e marketting push.
> 
> 
> RC





I remember on of the Paizo head honchos (Eric??Lisa??) mentioning point #1 specifically. With WotC moving to 4E, the supply of 3.5 DMGs, PHBs and MMs starts becoming very limited, and it gets hard to bring new players in because it gets very difficult for them to find a copy of the rules. PFRPG allows them to have a set of rules that they (Paizo) can print as required.


----------



## Wicht (May 14, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The one thing I think all us ENWorlders forget is that WotC is a Hollywood studio, and all other game companies are small independent moviemakers.  WotC will crank out huge, big-budget opuses because they have larger bottom lines to hope they hit on, so they want/need to appeal to as wide of an audience as possible.




For some reason I read this and the first thing to leap to mind was "Water World."


----------



## DEFCON 1 (May 14, 2010)

Wicht said:


> For some reason I read this and the first thing to leap to mind was "Water World."




Well, one man's Water World is another man's Keep On The Shadowfell.  LOL.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 14, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> _(Wrote some awesome stuff.) _





Can't give you any more XP, but this was another great post.

Steel_Wind is quickly becoming one of my favorite posters on ENWorld.


----------



## Wicht (May 14, 2010)

I'm not allowed to give Steel Wind experience at the moment either or I would for doing that math.

I forget who said it, I think it was Jacobs, but it might have been Mona, but the statement was made, in regards to the delve format iirc, that Paizo wrote their adventures the way they did because they knew that many buyers of modules bought them to read, with the understanding they might never get the chance to play them.  I think that statement was spot on and is, I believe, a key reason for Paizo's success.  

Sure, one could argue that they were in the right place and the right time, but from another perspective you could see that they were given a room of straw and managed through skill and aplomb to spin it into pure gold.  Paizo is up front about being in the adventure business, not the rules business.  Sure they have a successfully selling game system but, while I can't speak for others, I know for myself, I bought into the system because I already liked their adventures. 

In October of 2007, Erik Mona started a thread asking Paizo fans what rule's set we wanted them to use.  I advise people to read it  and consider how many of us said we would go where Paizo went.  My own answer at the time was

"That being said, if Paizo continues to maintain a quality product with a compelling adventure/story line that I enjoy, it won't matter to me whether you go 4.0 or stay 3.5, 3.75, 3.805 or whatever model you want to use. You could probably swatch _[sic]_ to AD&D and I would dig out my old books and houserule the rules to my satisfaction and go with it."


----------



## Bluenose (May 14, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I don't know what the future will bring, but I suspect that the Pathfinder core rules came about specifically (1) to keep the rules in print, as you suggest, and (2) to answer the objections about the existing 3.5 system, specifically those brought up by WotC in the 4e marketting push.
> 
> 
> RC




What I've always found puzzling about the idea they wanted to keep the rules in print for people who wanted to carry on playing 3.5, is that they went and altered them. In a way that ensures no-one can buy the Pathfinder rules and join an existing 3.5 group. At the very basic level of the PHB, the Pathfinder classes and races have been heavily powered up in some areas, and there have been alterations to the power of spells. Thus, no-one buys Pathfinder to join a 3.5 group - people buy Pathfinder when the rest of the group already uses or intends to use it.

I'm fairly certain, more relevantly to the topic, that WotC and Paizo are working with books that sell around one order of magnitude differently. So there's a difference in the size of the intended market. WotC are intended to be generic, to fit into pretty much any world that doesn't deviate much from the default sort of setting. Almost inevitably that means they don't include a large amount of detailed and specific background material, since such material will be less likely to fit in to individual campaigns. The conclusion I draw from this is that their adventures are usually going to be less interesting to read, since that sort of detailed background is usually lacking. By comparison, Paizo adventures are written for Golarion. They usually include quite a lot of detailed background information, which is usually a good read. If you intend discarding that background to fit it into your own setting, it's interesting but hardly valuable, and leaves in many cases an adventure which doesn't look very different to a WotC one.


----------



## Azgulor (May 14, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I would be more inclined to think that what WotC wants in their adventures is basics and simplicity.  They want to have the modules on the shelves of Borders to be so easy to use and not confusing or in-depth that a kid who is given a PH, DMG, and a module for his birthday can sit down and figure out how to play the game without his head exploding.  Because that way, he might continue to play the game and then buy more products.
> 
> Let us not forget the fact that practically every one of us on these forums boards who decry the modules produced by WotC are in fact moderate to experienced D&D or RPGers.  So obviously, the more basic or bland an adventure, the less useful, interesting, or enticing it will be to us here.  Why any of us are surprised by this, is beyond me.




If this is true, then I learned AD&D incorrectly back in the day or today's kids are a lot dumber.  The sample adventure depiction in the DMG and intro modules like Keep on the Borderlands allowed me to kick the tires on D&D rules.  Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, the Gauntlet, When a Star Falls, Ravenloft etc. were entertainig for me as a GM to read and for my players to play because they were solid stories.

I'm not saying your premise is incorrect.  However, if this is what WotC believes than they are selling new players short.  My 9-yr old is playing Pathfinder as his intro to RPGs and he hasn't been unable to keep up with the mechanics.  Of course, he's focusing on having fun rather than rules lawyering.  He also bugs me regularly to find out when I'm getting a new Pathfinder module (even though I've got 2 in queue already).

I figure by the time he's old enough to want to run his own adventures, he'll know the mechanics pretty well.  And I've still got some of those basic set D&D adventures that can be Pathfinderized if necessary.


----------



## MortonStromgal (May 14, 2010)

I think Paizo is very "go with the flow" if it sells keep going with that don't rock the boat where as WOTC is very "buy the new shinny, keep up with the group!". Both are successful buisness models but ultimately WOTC is paddling up river because they need to convince the players that the new thing is better. I think D&D 5e will be where we find out if this stratagy works or not as they (most likely) integrate the line more with Heroscape and keep trying to push digital product while maintaining control of that product.


----------



## renau1g (May 14, 2010)

My 2 year old twin boys are currently reading the Kingmaker AP. They now successfully can identify trolls, dragons (through the ad in the back of the adventure), spider, elf, owlbear (they always say "who-rawr!" as they know what an owl says and the bear individually...), and giants. 

Awww...man I can't wait to DM for them in a couple years.


----------



## Azgulor (May 14, 2010)

ggroy said:


> At the present time I am not DM'ing nor playing in any regular games.  (My 4E game ended awhile ago).  I do play the occasional pickup one-shot game, about once a month.
> 
> Nevertheless, I do regularly pick up the Pathfinder AP books to read.  To me it's like reading "Dungeon Magazine" on better quality paper without any ads.  I don't think I'll ever use much of the stuff I read.
> 
> Wonder how much of the Pathfinder sales (ie. APs, chronicles, companion, etc ...), are to people who just read them without ever playing or using much of the stuff in their own games.




As for the APs, yep I read 'em rather than play 'em.  That said, as a GM, they're incredibly useful to me as a GM.  The support articles are excellent, the adventure design gives me ideas for doing a better job of designing my own stuff, and all it is useful in making Golarion come alive in my campaign.

That said, I DO use the Pathfinder Chronicles, Companions, and Gamemastery modules.

One day, I hope to run some APs, but right now I lack the right group to do so.  Even so, most of my Pathfinder purchases have been APs and I'll be restarting my AP subscription in a month or so.


----------



## amysrevenge (May 14, 2010)

I guess if all you module-guys are the "minority", then I'm solidly in the "majority".

My own RPG purchases over the last 10 years or so, expressed as a ratio of rulebooks:adventure modules, is probably something like 80:0 (which mathematically is a terrible ratio lol).

In fact, other than a couple of Dungeon magazines (fewer than 5), I don't think I have ever purchased an adventure module in my life.  I got some sent to me for free as RPGA rewards, and had a couple given to me.  I've played in a few, and I've certainly downloaded a large number of free adventures off the intarwebs.  Not one red cent has come from me for the module market though.


----------



## Imaro (May 14, 2010)

Maggan said:


> This is speculation.
> 
> Paizo started as a support company for D&D3e and *managed to capitalise on their relationship to the D&D brand* after Dragon and Dungeon were pulled. Thus, they managed to convert many of the customers to the new AP format, which was a very smart move.




But isn't this what almost every 3PP did... capitalize on their relationship to the D&D brand as support companies for whatever product they were producing? Is this any different than say Green Ronin converting D&D customers to Mutants and Materminds customers or Mongoose and Conan? If so please explain how... 



Maggan said:


> But, as someone else has mentioned, Paizo is also the only company in the history of RPGs to have such a head start: an entire database of subscribers who were willing to pay for content. I don't know the conversion rate they managed, but even if they just managed to convert around 20%, that'd still translate in thousands of customers, willing to pay for content on a subscription basis.
> 
> I'd kill (figuratively speaking of course) to start an adventure publishing business with that kind of foundation in place.




Whoa now, I don't think that customer base or it's loyalty was just handed to Paizo, IMO... Paizo created that customer base and fostered their loyalty... through the work they did on the magazine and other products. If they had done a crap job, I don't think any of the factors you cite would have meant anything... especially since, if I remember correctly, the magazine readership was dying when it was handed over to Paizo. 



Maggan said:


> This also occurred roughly as WotC started winding down D&D3e, basically ceding that market to whomever was left, i.e. Paizo. After D&D4e was released, or arguably after Paizo realised that the GSL wasn't their idea of a sound business foundation, they decided to put the Pathfinder rules on the market. IMO this in itself is a testament to the fact that "modules don't sell": the rules of the game were available for free on the internet, and the D&D3 rulebooks can be bought for a song on eBay, and yet Paizo needs to have a core rulebook in place.
> 
> Maybe the Pathfinder book scratches the "it's gotta be in print otherwise I won't buy the modules" itch that many gamers have, but I also believe that Paizo will start to transition to more rulebooks during the end of 2010 and during 2011. Add to this that the Pathfinder RPG was the huge success story of GenCon, selling tens of thousands of books. In an RPG market where a couple of thousand is considered a resounding success




First, I think your biggest mistake is in assuming that Paizo doesn't want to, or can't grow their customer base with new gamers. I know I would hate to tell a new player to find a copy of the game on ebay or get the SRD of the internet (which in fact is not easy to read through, and is actually missing some rules). Secondly... books deteriorate and/or are destroyed, I think making sure the rules are complete, available and easy to access is just common sense... especially if you offer a PFSRD and $10 PDF as an alternative... which again seems to go against the whole corebook = main revenue theory.



Maggan said:


> So ... hmmm ... I think that the need for a Pathfinder RPG was not urgent due to the rules being readily available in other books or on the net, and that the momentum of D&D3e carried over for Paizo until they managed to get Pathfinder in place.
> 
> The reason they sold modules in defiance of the commonly accepted conventional wisdom before the Pathfinder core rules were released was that they managed to capitalise on their exclusive access to a loyal customer base which were already spending money regularly, i.e. the Dungeon and Dragon customers.




Well we can agree to disagree about the necessity of the rulebook... since honestly I think a better question is if you are basing your products on a set of rules, isn't it smart business to make sure they are always and readily available... instead of being dependent upon others to make them available? 

Also again, I see you attributing alot to the "Dungeons and Dragons customers" when I would argue they had already become Paizo customers through the efforts, good service and quality products Paizo put out. If they were "Dungeons and Dragons customers" well wouldn't they have went with 4th edition... or waited for it rather than go with a different game and company?



Maggan said:


> I suspect that Paizo will indeed end up doing that, once the subscribers have had their fill of adventure material. After 5000 pages, how many more pages can you sell to basically the same customer base? Another 5000? 10000? 1000? I don't know, but I believe that Paizo knows.
> 
> But given the subscription model, they might shift the adventure material into being more rules material, thus negating the need for a heavy hardback every other month.




Well, so far I believe they have 2 rulebooks scheduled for this entire year... The GameMastery Guide in July and the Advanced Players Guide in August. I guess it's possible they are sitting on releases between now and July or have a ton of rulebooks being developed and ready to flood the market between August and December... but somehow I doubt it. As a quick comparison, on a similar scale, look at how many rulebooks as opposed to adventures have come out for Dark Heresy 10 months out from FFG's release of the rules.



Maggan said:


> I think Paizo is successful because they started with a customer base that was ready to spend money regularly, and managed to build a business foundation on top of that.
> 
> It has, IMO and all that of course, very little to do with fluff or adventures, and everything to do with capitalising on a unique opportunity and shaping the product on offer to fit the customer base available.




Again we'll have to agree to disagree. I think there success is very much based on Knowing their customer base and pleasing them by not releasing a steady stream of classes, rules, prestige classes, etc. and instead building around adventures and fluff. 



Maggan said:


> Why do I say that? While Paizo produces excellent stuff, they aren't the only ones to do so, and not the only ones to ever have done so. There's been people producing stellar fluff and adventures who haven't been able to reap the rewards as Paizo has, so to me it's obvious that there are other factors in play.




Like who? Who has created stellar adventures and fluff on a regular basis and with a dedicated focus on it... the closest I would say would be White Wolf... surprise, surprise they too at one point rose to rival D&D.



Maggan said:


> That said, if Paizo didn't produce top notch stuff, their business model would likely collapse due to churn among the customer base. They need to be the best to stay the best, which seems like an obvious thing to say, but many, many companies forget that.




Yep, totally agree. 



Maggan said:


> Finally, when looking back at the major thing that the two most successful RPGs today have in common, it is ... a working subscription model.




Hmm... I think perhaps you put too much credence in this, especially since a "subscription model" is such a wide term and encompases so much it's almost meaningless.


----------



## crazy_cat (May 14, 2010)

Wicht said:


> In October of 2007, Erik Mona started a thread asking Paizo fans what rule's set we wanted them to use.  I advise people to read it  and consider how many of us said we would go where Paizo went.  My own answer at the time was:



My response was as follows, and looking back with the benefit of hindsight oh boy was I wrong on a few assumptions - given that Pathfinder is now my system of choice and (other than eBay spend on old 1e/2e source materials and modules) Paizo gets near 100% of my gaming spend with Chronicles and Adventure Path materials.


			
				crazy_cat on Paizo forums said:
			
		

> Common sense tells me Paizo will convert to 4e, and I hope you do, as I think a 3.75 will probably kill the company. That said, even if you don't go to 4e (and I do) I'll still buy Pathfinder as no matter what edition its written for its still a quality product.


----------



## Dark Mistress (May 14, 2010)

ggroy said:


> At the present time I am not DM'ing nor playing in any regular games.  (My 4E game ended awhile ago).  I do play the occasional pickup one-shot game, about once a month.
> 
> Nevertheless, I do regularly pick up the Pathfinder AP books to read.  To me it's like reading "Dungeon Magazine" on better quality paper without any ads.  I don't think I'll ever use much of the stuff I read.
> 
> Wonder how much of the Pathfinder sales (ie. APs, chronicles, companion, etc ...), are to people who just read them without ever playing or using much of the stuff in their own games.




For me that is partially true. While i use a lot of the paizo stuff I buy, I don't use it all. The fact is they come out with stuff faster than I can use it. Which brings me to the quote below.



Punnuendo said:


> As someone who doesn't really play any version of DnD, and doesn't run adventures, preferring more sandbox and character focused games using Savage Worlds or Burning Wheel or FATE, I still sometimes buy Pathfinder adventures.
> 
> Why do you ask? Because they make for interesting reads. I have zero interest in the system they use, and little to no interest in ever using them as anything other than possibly inspiration, but they read well. So every now and then I pick up one just for fun.
> 
> I'm definitely an outlier on this issue, but that's my story.




I am the same way, some of the stuff I get from paizo. I only buy to read because they come out with stuff faster than I can use it. But they are good reads anyways, so I keep buying it.

Honestly paizo reminds me a bit of White Wolf in it's early days. Back then I use to buy white wolf's world of darkness books just because they was good reads, even when I never used some of their books.


----------



## Imaro (May 14, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And yet WotC felt like releasing Revenge Of The Giants was a good idea (an adventure that from what I understand is mainly one giant battle after another, with very little 'roleplay' stuff in it). Doesn't the fact that they chose to spend development time on a product like this instead of a product like what Paizo releases, give us a better idea of what sells better for them _in the business model_ they currently find themselves?




Wow that's one big assumption there... especially when a rep from the company has come to various messaqgeboards and asked for help in designing adventures. If the current adventures are working in the best possible way for their business model... why exactly would they do this?



DEFCON 1 said:


> And again... to your point that you feel a DM after 3rd level shouldn't need basic and simple... you're coming at that statement from the perspective of someone who's played many more rpgs than the base amount needed to get your first game to 3rd level. Or to even get your game to paragon or epic tier. I mean let's be honest here... do we really believe that a completely new group of kids learning rpgs for the first time who manage to get through Keep, Thunderspire, Pyramid, Trollhaunt and so on... are now so experienced with what roleplaying is about that they can now _identify_ that what they are playing is subpar? Especially if they've never actually played any other RPGs by way of comparison? Some will, absolutely. But that doesn't mean they're the majority. And while your brother's experience with KotS is completely valid... that's just one person's experience. And I think the fact that WotC did not choose to go overly elaborate on their H/P/E series of modules tells us that they didn't feel it was important to their business model, and who they were marketing those modules to.




I think a better question is can they recognize it as boring, repetitive, confusing and so on... to which I would answer a resounding yes. The next question I would ask is how do you plan on retaining new gamers if your modules bore them to death or are less fun than numerous other activities they could be doing?



DEFCON 1 said:


> It all comes down to who and what those modules were meant to serve. And again... I'm willing to bet that that _wasn't us_.




Well in my oppinion you and WotC are vastly underestimating what people new to the game can handle. I personally believe it is more than fight after fight after fight (Since most people can get that from videogames)... but maybe I'm wrong, and new gamers can only handle simple, basic adventures for 30 levels and also maybe WotC asked for help with their adventures because they are doing great. However for some reason I just don't think that is the case.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 14, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> I remember on of the Paizo head honchos (Eric??Lisa??) mentioning point #1 specifically.




Yes.  And I remember the discussions about specific problems WotC had brought up (although not couched in those terms) and how PF would fix them.

Grapple, for instance.



Bluenose said:


> What I've always found puzzling about the idea they wanted to keep the rules in print for people who wanted to carry on playing 3.5, is that they went and altered them.




I think that WotC's advertising the problems with 3e provided both opportunity and motive, which they were wise to take advantage of (even if they didn't move in the direction I would have preferred).


RC


----------



## Dark Mistress (May 14, 2010)

renau1g said:


> My 2 year old twin boys are currently reading the Kingmaker AP. They now successfully can identify trolls, dragons (through the ad in the back of the adventure), spider, elf, owlbear (they always say "who-rawr!" as they know what an owl says and the bear individually...), and giants.
> 
> Awww...man I can't wait to DM for them in a couple years.




"Who-rawr!" 
*L* that cracked me up.


----------



## The Ghost (May 14, 2010)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And yet WotC felt like releasing Revenge Of The Giants was a good idea (an adventure that from what I understand is mainly one giant battle after another, with very little 'roleplay' stuff in it).  Doesn't the fact that they chose to spend development time on a product like this instead of a product like what Paizo releases, give us a better idea of what sells better for them _in the business model_ they currently find themselves?




No. All it does is gives us insight (limited) to what they were thinking _at that point in time_ in which that product was green-lighted. We cannot state, with any degree of certainty, whether Revenge of the Giants would receive a green-light today. Quite frankly, we do not know how that one particular product sold nor do we know the feedback WotC has received regarding that product. For all we know, the feedback concerning that product _could_ be "Hey! Where's the story? This is nothing but boring @$$ combats." Of course, it also _could_ be "Awesome product! Keep 'em coming." The point is, I wouldn't hang my hat on the existence of any particular product to prove that the business model is/was/ever-will-be a success.


----------



## wedgeski (May 14, 2010)

I look at the quality of product Paizo produces -- not just quantity, but the sheer quality of product in both content and presentation -- and I wonder *how the hell* they can do it with the size of market share they must have. And then I think, well perhaps their market share is bigger than I think.

What I really think is the case, though, is that they have a fanatical following comprised of a much larger portion of DM's than 4E, and the conversion rate of rules to adventures among this group is significantly higher than Wizards. There's a lot of gaming dollars in Paizo's demographic, and it seems as if they're willing to spend it.

4E is my game of choice at the moment for very many reasons, and we've been playing it for a long time. I think the system is fantastic. But there is absolutely no question in my mind which of these two companies produces the best adventures, and I hope that the recent survey by WotC on what's wrong with their output inspires them to follow Paizo's lead and take a few risks on their next generation of adventure output.


----------



## MrMyth (May 14, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> *Pathfinder Society Modules*
> 
> These little gems don’t get _nearly_ the respect they deserve as they are sold as PDFs only. Erik Mona just released a double adventure module this past month with three more to follow this year. They are all at least 16 pages each, are in full color and each includes at least one page of professional Paizo quality color maps. Many of the modules exceed this “page” count by 2 to 4 pages. A few of these modules exceed the 16 page “limit” by a fair bit more than that (yes Erik Mona, I’m looking at you). Paizo releases at least two of these a month, but there have been exceptions to this which have actually pushed up that release schedule by a few more than that each year.




Wait - I can't really comment on the main topic here (as a player who buys far more rulebooks than adventures), but I'm a bit confused by this point. It was my understanding that Pathfinder Society was the living campaign for Pathfinder (similar to Living Greyhawk in 3rd Edition, and Living Forgotten Realms in 4E). 

Are you saying that you have to pay to purchase the modules for Pathfinder Society? That completely blows my mind. Maybe it is just my own experiences in the other living campaigns, but having the adventures for it as items for sale rather than freely available for all gamers is just not something I would have expected.


----------



## ggroy (May 14, 2010)

Dark Mistress said:


> Honestly paizo reminds me a bit of White Wolf in it's early days. Back then I use to buy white wolf's world of darkness books just because they was good reads, even when I never used some of their books.




I completely missed White Wolf in its early days.  I was on a 15+ year hiatus away from tabletop rpg gaming at the time.

At the present time, Paizo does sort of remind me of Forgotten Realms back in days of late 1E AD&D to early 2E AD&D (circa late 1980's).  One can see the setting world emerging in the supplement books and modules being released over a period of several years.


----------



## billd91 (May 14, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Are you saying that you have to pay to purchase the modules for Pathfinder Society? That completely blows my mind. Maybe it is just my own experiences in the other living campaigns, but having the adventures for it as items for sale rather than freely available for all gamers is just not something I would have expected.




They're only $3.99. Not exactly bank breakers. And you don't have to go through the hassle of reporting an event on the website to get the PDF and the code to unlock it like I remember doing for LG.


----------



## Treebore (May 14, 2010)

Paizo is no fluke, they are simply a business who did everything right. They only sell profitable products, which can mean anything from they sell enough to pay for the costs of making it to they actually make enough extra to re invest in the company. They pay attention to keeping their balance sheets balanced.

Above all, as several posters have pointed out, the thing Paizo does better than everyone else is produce top quality products that ALSO contain top quality content.

THATS why Paizo is successful, and the only reason it can be called a fluke is because so many companies, in all areas of business, fail to do this. So they fail, or limp along until they figure out how to be a better business, or fail.

So since they only sell modules/adventures because they make money off of them, the OP is correct modules do sell well, especially when they are made top notch in every way, production values, content, and value to the consumer with their subscription plans, talking to their customers every day via their message boards, from the CEO on down, etc...

Every single RPG company would do well to emulate Paizo as much as they possibly can, because Paizo is doing everything right, even maintaining friendly relations with competitors.

Simply put, Paizo is a smartly run business, and every smartly run business succeeds, that is no fluke, just fact.


----------



## Treebore (May 14, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Wait - I can't really comment on the main topic here (as a player who buys far more rulebooks than adventures), but I'm a bit confused by this point. It was my understanding that Pathfinder Society was the living campaign for Pathfinder (similar to Living Greyhawk in 3rd Edition, and Living Forgotten Realms in 4E).
> 
> Are you saying that you have to pay to purchase the modules for Pathfinder Society? That completely blows my mind. Maybe it is just my own experiences in the other living campaigns, but having the adventures for it as items for sale rather than freely available for all gamers is just not something I would have expected.





Well, to be fair, in  comparison to these modules that PAizo produces, the freebies WOTC and others have always made available for free sucked 80% of the time. Paizo still gives us great content, with great presentation, and still do it cheaply, for about $2.00 to $3.00 per module. 95% of the time.

So even though I would have liked for them to be free, the quality of content makes the small fee far from painful. In fact it makes them worth while. To me at least, but I have always been an adventure whore and always will be. So the fact that I am getting top notch quality content for a couple of bucks makes me tingly all over.


----------



## Dannager (May 14, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Uhm... yet WotC's "big-budget opuses "... don't seem to be satisfying "as wide of an audience as possible.". In fact, IMO,  they seem to be loosing more and more of their audience. Anecdotally... I bought Thunderspire and Pyramid... but with those two adventures (compared to Paizo's) WotC lost me as a purchaser of adventures. It would take one heck of a review by someone I trust to ever get me to buy another adventure from them. Honestly, sometimes first impressions count.



Isn't the whole point of what he was saying that the experienced, seasoned DMs that make up the vast majority of ENWorld (and other D&D forum community) members wouldn't find WotC modules especially groundbreaking? I mean, when someone points out that you're nowhere near a representative example of the larger D&D gaming body, you can't really counter with something like "IMO, they seem to be loosing more and more of their audience." Not only is that not actually an opinion - at best, it's an educated guess about a factual measure - but the point is that you don't come from the mainstream (as mainstream as your average D&D player can get, anyway) viewpoint to begin with.


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 14, 2010)

MrMyth said:


> Wait - I can't really comment on the main topic here (as a player who buys far more rulebooks than adventures), but I'm a bit confused by this point. It was my understanding that Pathfinder Society was the living campaign for Pathfinder (similar to Living Greyhawk in 3rd Edition, and Living Forgotten Realms in 4E).
> 
> Are you saying that you have to pay to purchase the modules for Pathfinder Society? That completely blows my mind. Maybe it is just my own experiences in the other living campaigns, but having the adventures for it as items for sale rather than freely available for all gamers is just not something I would have expected.




Yes. You buy the modules for play. They cost $3.99 a pop. Unlike the old RPGA modules, these are full color and profesisonally illustrated with a quality Paizoesque map.

You can use them for organized play -- or just borg them and adapt some aspect of the module for use in your home campaign.  The value the adventures presents is a very good one -- and the people writing them are not just newbie authors (like most of the RPGA and Star Wars Living Force modules are/were). 

If you want quality and name talent for modules like this -- and especially to pay the artist for the map -- someone's got to pay for that work. In this case, that someone is you. 

At $3.99 they present a great value, imo.  You may have a different view.


----------



## Stormonu (May 14, 2010)

Shroomy said:


> Yeah, if anything, the Pathfinder RPG rulebook is a loss leader for the modules, APs, and campaign setting materials.
> 
> Here's a thing to consider.  The statement attributed to WotC that "modules don't sell" is what, almost a decade old at this point, and just because it described WotC publishing strategy and the RPG market circa 2000 doesn't mean it applies to the current situation.  Also, its not like WotC is neglecting the adventure business.  _Dungeon_ is again a house organ, there is a series of 12 published adventures, 2 setting specific adventures (with two more on the way, i.e. _Dark Sun_ and the _Gamma World_ supplements), a new series of softcover adventures (the HS series), two hardcover books of adventures (_Dungeon Delve_ and _Revenge of the Giants_, with another on the way), and plenty of LFR content.




To me, the statement "Modules don't sell" was nothing but a cover for other issues with the adventures that were being pushed.  Beyond what Paizo is releasing, Goodman's DCC (Dungeon Crawl Classics) produced a line over 50 modules long - nearly building their entire business on modules.  Likewise, AEG had a popular line with the Adventure Keep line, that was even reprinted into two full-sized products.  All of these even while _Dungeon_ magazine was rolling along in the background.  The statement "Modules don't sell" is BS.  The real truth is "Modules that suck don't sell".


----------



## Beginning of the End (May 14, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Well in my oppinion you and WotC are vastly underestimating what people new to the game can handle. I personally believe it is more than fight after fight after fight (Since most people can get that from videogames)... but maybe I'm wrong, and new gamers can only handle simple, basic adventures for 30 levels and also maybe WotC asked for help with their adventures because they are doing great. However for some reason I just don't think that is the case.




This, to me, is the insanity of WotC's current marketing approach. They see a threat from video games and their response has been to design their products to incorporate the elements that they think make video games appealing to their potential customers.

But that's exactly the wrong way to do it: You can't compete with the strengths of video games. You want a combat simulator to provide fight after fight after fight? Tabletop RPGs effectively lost that market years ago. Video games have better graphics and better soundtracks; they do the boring math for you and speed up the pace of the hack and the visceral appeal of the slash; they even let you play solo.


----------



## Treebore (May 14, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> Yes. You buy the modules for play. They cost $3.99 a pop. Unlike the old RPGA modules, these are full color and profesisonally illustrated with a quality Paizoesque map.
> 
> You can use them for organized play -- or just borg them and adapt some aspect of the module for use in your home campaign.  The value the adventures presents is a very good one -- and the people writing them are not just newbie authors (like most of the RPGA and Star Wars Living Force modules are/were).
> 
> ...




Ah, yeah, it is $3.99, I was confusing it with recent purchases I made from Rite Publishing. Those are $1.99 PDF's!


----------



## Imaro (May 14, 2010)

Dannager said:


> Isn't the whole point of what he was saying that the experienced, seasoned DMs that make up the vast majority of ENWorld (and other D&D forum community) members wouldn't find WotC modules especially groundbreaking? I mean, when someone points out that you're nowhere near a representative example of the larger D&D gaming body, you can't really counter with something like "IMO, they seem to be loosing more and more of their audience." Not only is that not actually an opinion - at best, it's an educated guess about a factual measure - but the point is that you don't come from the mainstream (as mainstream as your average D&D player can get, anyway) viewpoint to begin with.




All I can say to this is... anytime you are coming on to various message boards asking us "non-mainstream D&D players" how you can make your adventures better... maybe this mythical "mainstream" or "average" D&D player (especially as we are talking about DM's for the most part) isn't that far from us "non-mainstream" DM's in what makes an adveture fun or interesting enough to spend cash on.  Crazy talk I know, but maybe... just maybe there's something to this line of thought.


----------



## Maggan (May 14, 2010)

Imaro said:


> But isn't this what almost every 3PP did... capitalize on their relationship to the D&D brand as support companies for whatever product they were producing? Is this any different than say Green Ronin converting D&D customers to Mutants and Materminds customers or Mongoose and Conan? If so please explain how...




Paizo was official D&D. That carries a lot more weight than being a 3pp in the crowd.



Imaro said:


> Whoa now, I don't think that customer base or it's loyalty was just handed to Paizo, IMO...




Neither do I. They worked hard, but the fact remans: when Dragon and Dungeon were pulled, Paizo had something no other company has ever had, namely the names and credit card numbers of 50 000 odd customers. That wanted periodical support and were willing to pay for it.



Imaro said:


> First, I think your biggest mistake is in assuming that Paizo doesn't want to, or can't grow their customer base with new gamers.




Of course they want to do that. That's why they made the core book. Because their adventures wouldn't sell if there weren't rules for the game on the market.

The momentum carried over from people having D&D3.5 and buying AP from Paizo could only last for a while.



Imaro said:


> Well we can agree to disagree about the necessity of the rulebook... since honestly I think a better question is if you are basing your products on a set of rules, isn't it smart business to make sure they are always and readily available... instead of being dependent upon others to make them available?




Yes. I don't think I said otherwise? If so, I apologise for being unclear. I'll clarify.

You asked how Paizo could sell well before they released their core rules. I answered that I believe the momentum from D&D3.5 carried over, and that the availiability of the D&D3.5 books as well as the SRD on the internet meant they didn't need the core rules in print.

Now they do, and I believe they will make more rulebooks, and make more money selling them than they do selling adventures.



Imaro said:


> Also again, I see you attributing alot to the "Dungeons and Dragons customers" when I would argue they had already become Paizo customers through the efforts, good service and quality products Paizo put out. If they were "Dungeons and Dragons customers" well wouldn't they have went with 4th edition... or waited for it rather than go with a different game and company?




Yes. And many did go with 4th edition. The majority in fact. But Paizo converted enough to base their new business model on. Even if only a fraction of the Dragon and Dungeon customers stayed with Paizo, they were in a much better position than any other RPG company bar WotC and maybe White Wolf.



Imaro said:


> As a quick comparison, on a similar scale, look at how many rulebooks as opposed to adventures have come out for Dark Heresy 10 months out from FFG's release of the rules.




 Okay. The Dark Heresy line (which I own in its entirety) consists of 9 books and a Game Master toolkit, of which three are adventures (one other adventure is upcoming). Thus the majority are rulebooks.



Imaro said:


> Like who? Who has created stellar adventures and fluff on a regular basis and with a dedicated focus on it...




Chaosium. Necromancer Games. Fantasy Flight. Privateer Press. Sword&Sorcery. Green Ronin (e.g. Freeport), Atlas Games, Columbia Games, Kenzer, West End Games ... and that's not looking very far back in history.

Take some of the most lauded adventure campaigns in the history of RPGs, Masks of Nyarlathotep, Horror on the Orient Express and Beyond the Mountains of Madness.

Brilliant. Groundbreaking. Massive. Cool. Fun. And still, Chaosium isn't taking the world by storm.



Imaro said:


> Hmm... I think perhaps you put too much credence in this, especially since a "subscription model" is such a wide term and encompases so much it's almost meaningless.




No it's not. It's a subscription model. People pay for continual support. EN World has been saved by it. WotC seems to be doing alright by it. Paizo is doing great thanks to offering subscriptions, it was one of the things they based the entire launch of their AP strategy on.

Subscriptions.

And access to a database of customers prepared to give you money is a holy grail of any business. Take Apple e.g. they have a database of millions of people signed up to iTunes, and their credit card numbers. Every single competitor would kill for that database (they'd preferably kill Apple).

It is my belief that what Paizo is doing right is running their business as pros. And making great stuff, but the key to their success is mainly how they run their business, not the quality of their offerings.

If they started compromising on quality, they'd still survive. If they took out the business savvy, they'd collapse. 

Look, I'm saying that they are geniuses. Ok? They are brilliant, they make brilliant stuff. But there's much more to running a successful business than making brilliant stuff, that's all I'm saying.

/M


----------



## ggroy (May 14, 2010)

Maggan said:


> Paizo was official D&D. That carries a lot more weight than being a 3pp in the crowd.




Kenzer also had the official D&D logo on the cover of all their 3E/3.5E books for "Kingdoms of Kalamar".  Though Kenzer didn't continue their success once the official D&D logo was gone.

"Knights of the Dinner Table", seems to be their main success over the years.


----------



## MrMyth (May 14, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> Yes. You buy the modules for play. They cost $3.99 a pop. Unlike the old RPGA modules, these are full color and profesisonally illustrated with a quality Paizoesque map.
> 
> You can use them for organized play -- or just borg them and adapt some aspect of the module for use in your home campaign. The value the adventures presents is a very good one -- and the people writing them are not just newbie authors (like most of the RPGA and Star Wars Living Force modules are/were).
> 
> ...




Yeah, I wasn't trying to say this is some evil scheme, and that explanation does make some amount of sense - the concept just caught me by surprise. While I certainly prefer the more player-support driven support of the RPGA (and have certainly enjoyed many of their free modules), I can understand the appeal of a different approach, and certainly don't begrudge anyone the chance to pursue it.


----------



## Maggan (May 14, 2010)

ggroy said:


> Kenzer also had the official D&D logo on the cover of all their 3E/3.5E books for "Kingdoms of Kalamar".  Though Kenzer didn't continue their success once the official D&D logo was gone.
> 
> "Knights of the Dinner Table", seems to be their main success over the years.




Yeah, Kenzer is also an interesting company. They have said that the official stamp was great and did boost their sales, for a while.

As time passed, that official stamp didn't mean as much as it once did, and at the end of D&3.x it was mostly a wash between having the logo and not having it, at least for Kenzer.

/M


----------



## Imaro (May 14, 2010)

Maggan said:


> It is my belief that what Paizo is doing right is running their business as pros. And making great stuff, *but the key to their success is mainly how they run their business, not the quality of their offerings.*
> 
> *If they started compromising on quality, they'd still survive.* If they took out the business savvy, they'd collapse.
> 
> ...





Emphasis mine... This is the main gist I'm having a problem with... they are continually praised by their fans for their quality and you believe that quality has little or no bearing on their success, I find that almost impossible to believe.

Do you think Paizo customers are so caught up and mesmerized by the "way they run their business" that even if the quality plumeted they would just continue to mindlessly buy from the company. Sorry I'm not buying it, a subscription can be cancelled just as quickly as it can be bought.


----------



## Imaro (May 14, 2010)

Maggan said:


> Paizo was official D&D. That carries a lot more weight than being a 3pp in the crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do I. They worked hard, but the fact remans: when Dragon and Dungeon were pulled, Paizo had something no other company has ever had, namely the names and credit card numbers of 50 000 odd customers. That wanted periodical support and were willing to pay for it.





 Which if they didn't create, greatly increased... since, as I said earlier, the magazine was in decline when Paizo took over.  They built the customer base up... not WotC.


----------



## Maggan (May 14, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine... This is the main gist I'm having a problem with... they are continually praised by their fans for their quality and you believe that quality has little or no bearing on their success, I find that almost impossible to believe.




Ok, put it this way:

I think that there are many companies that deliver high quality material apart from Paizo.

So what is it that separates Paizo from the others?

What, in your opinion is it that Paizo is doing that no one else can match? What is it that Chaosium, Mongoose, Green Ronin, Fantasy Flight, Open Design and the rest of the very competent bunch of companies out there aren't doing?

Are you saying that only Paizo is giving people quality? That only Paizo is in tune with what their customers want?

Is quality the sole defining factor of Paizo's success?

That I don't believe for a second.

/M


----------



## Maggan (May 14, 2010)

Imaro said:


> They built the customer base up... not WotC.




So you don't think that the very successful launch of D&D3 by WotC had anything to do with popularity of Dragon and Dungeon rising?

/M


----------



## Dannager (May 14, 2010)

Imaro said:


> All I can say to this is... anytime you are coming on to various message boards asking us "non-mainstream D&D players" how you can make your adventures better... maybe this mythical "mainstream" or "average" D&D player (especially as we are talking about DM's for the most part) isn't that far from us "non-mainstream" DM's in what makes an adveture fun or interesting enough to spend cash on.  Crazy talk I know, but maybe... just maybe there's something to this line of thought.



Asking the community for ways they think the adventures can be improved is not the same as lending credence to the idea that simple, easy-to-run prepackaged adventures aren't the way to go for WotC. Keep in mind that the _designers_ of D&D are experienced DMs, as are most of their staff and freelancers - the people who write their adventures. If they felt that publishing adventures that feature greater complexity at the cost of less hand-holding was something they should do, they would just do it - and they still might (and, arguably, do exactly that in Dungeon magazine). Getting community input is a smart idea, but trust me, they're not going to let the ENWorld forum base write their adventures for them (save a handful of people who _literally_ write WotC's adventures for them).


----------



## MortonStromgal (May 14, 2010)

Maggan said:


> Ok, put it this way:
> I think that there are many companies that deliver high quality material apart from Paizo.
> 
> So what is it that separates Paizo from the others?
> ...





Open Style Commitment - For example while MRQ is also open, the worlds are not. I can find more wiki information about various Pathfinder rules and world information that I can about MRQ. 

I wouldn't say they are the only ones who do high quality or open games but they go above and beyond most other companies in multiple areas. Picking D&D as a base already lets to tap a huge community though much bigger than MRQ has. Also I think pumping out so much material of high quality keeps fans excited and keeps them playing Pathfinder rather than playing another game. I don't think they are the best in perhaps any individual field but even 80% across the board makes you a big guy on campus. Paizo really excites me as a company, regardless of if I like Pathfinder or not (not a d20 fan) and I will keep buying product to use in my other games and maybe someday even give Pathfinder an old college try.


----------



## Imaro (May 14, 2010)

Maggan said:


> Ok, put it this way:
> 
> I think that there are many companies that deliver high quality material apart from Paizo.
> 
> ...




When did I say only Paizo is giving people quality... are you saying no one else publishing rpg's has any business acumen? And the only thing I was defining was why they, as opposed to WotC, are able to succesfully implement a model of mostly selling adventures and fluff books... not why they as a whole are a successful business.

However I do believe quality can entail many areas within a company and few have the total overall level of quality that Paizo has... As an example, I can't think of a single company you've listed that has the same quality of interaction with their fans and customer service. This is another facet of quality that I think greatly helps their success as a business. In the end I think them being a quality company has more to do with their success than a subscription model and being in the right place at the right time... especially over the longterm. That, for me at least, is why I support their company.


----------



## darjr (May 14, 2010)

Quite a few of the LFR RPGA adventures are good. Not crap. And some of those authors are no longer 'no names' because of it.

Wasn't the SWSA Dawn of Defiance adventure path written by Rodney Thompson?


----------



## darjr (May 14, 2010)

I think that if a LFGS sets up the pathfinder society at their store they can get the adventures for free... I think.

I actually considered running it here locally for a while.


----------



## Jasperak (May 14, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> Your whole Point




Spot on in my opinion.

BTW, I must spread XP around.


----------



## Maggan (May 14, 2010)

Imaro said:


> When did I say only Paizo is giving people quality...




So what is the defining difference between Paizo and the rest?

Come on, I've given my thoughts clearly and straight. So what, in your opinion is it that make Paizo so successful that they have taken the number 2 spot as the best selling RPG company?

What is it that the others aren't doing, that they should be doing?

It can't be quality, others are doing that, so it has to be something else.



Imaro said:


> As an example, I can't think of a single company you've listed that has the same quality of interaction with their fans and customer service.




Fantasy Flight. They have hands down the best customer support in the industry.

Loose a component for one of their games? They replace it. 

Have a damaged collector's edition slipcase? They replaced it.

And I'm in Sweden, on another continent. I have found FFG customer service to be leagues better than Paizo's, and Paizo's is still one of the best in the business. Just not the best.

Also, Chaosium is tight with the fan base. And Open Design ... the fan base is part of the design process. Can't get much more in tune than that.

I think you are right about one thing. We're going to have to agree to disagree.

EDIT: 



Imaro said:


> are you saying no one else publishing rpg's has any business acumen?




I am of the opinion that common business sense is very uncommon in the RPG business, both at many publishers and at many games stores. So if we want to polarise my viewpoint, yes there are only a few publishers with enough business acumen to build a stable and growing business out of RPGs.

/M


----------



## James Jacobs (May 14, 2010)

Hey everyone... first of all, let me just say thanks for all the kind words in this thread. And that first thread, the one that pointed out how many pages of adventures and stuff we've produced over the past few years helped explain to me why I'm so tired all the time lately! 

Seriously, though... adventures do sell. Paizo more or less exists as a game company today (and not merely as an online RPG store) because adventures sell. If they're done right. And by "right," I mean "fun to read."

Because I suspect that the majority of adventures published by game companies are never actually played by most of those who read the adventures.

Now, don't get me wrong. I LOVE hearing stories about how much fun folks have had playing adventures, and I'm really pleased with how robust our messageboards are with just this type of feedback, but the truth is that there are more gamers than there are gaming groups. And you don't STOP being a gamer when you're not actually playing an RPG.

So, gamers who don't currently have groups and gamers who want to enjoy their hobby on days when they're not gaming need something fun to read. And adventures, which tell stories, ARE fun to read. (If they're built to be read.)

If someone plays an adventure that Paizo publishes, I count that as MUCH as a successful adventure as if someone reads an adventure and uses an idea in his home game AND as much as someone who just reads an adventure one rainy afternoon and enjoys it.

After all... there are lots of movies and books and comics out there; reading one doesn't fill the urge to read more. The same goes for adventures.

I'm pretty confident that adventures, as long as they're fun to read, will remain popular and profitable (and yes, our adventures ARE, as a general rule, profitable—the Adventure Path line is quite profitable).

And if an adventure is fun to read, chances that the person who had fun reading it will want to share that experience by running it for his/her friends, I think, DRAMATICALLY increases. At least, that's how it works for me. If an adventure's not fun to read, has dull maps, and/or has lame art, it goes right back on the shelf and stays there.

Anyway... I gotta run! Gotta get started on the next 5,000 pages of adventures!


----------



## Treebore (May 15, 2010)

Maggan said:


> Ok, put it this way:
> 
> I think that there are many companies that deliver high quality material apart from Paizo.
> 
> ...




Its not the sole factor, but it is definitely the biggest with me. Like I have posted before, I do not play or run Pathfinder, and have no desire to do so, ever. So the MAIN reason I buy stuff from Paizo is that their quality of productions, and most especially, content, is the best in the business. Again, IMO, and yes, I do buy a lot of stuff from Green Ronin, Mongoose, AEG, Goodman, and a few others. 

As much as I like the other companies, they come no where near to matching Paizo on several fronts. First is, once again, the top production values in combination with the content being top notch. Next is value for my money. Who else gives me free PDF's along with the print copy if I subscribe? No one else, period. Plus they give me a modest discount on the print copy, which almost pays for the shipping.

Plus who else talks to their customers on their forums anywhere as often as Paizo does? I know Mongoose, AEG, Goodman, and Green Ronin certainly do not.

There are only 3 RPG companies who get me to buy directly from them. 2 of them because they have given me free PDF's along with my print copy.  1 of those 2 is Paizo, the second is the guys who have Mongoose as their publisher and have given us Doctor Who, Qin, Wild Talents 2E, etc... Cubicle 7, who have given me free PDF's with my pre orders. The only other company I buy directly from on a extremely regular basis, like, every product they have made, is Troll Lord Games, because they give substantial discounts when you wait for their sales, which I do.

Every other company I follow, Mongoose, AEG, Green Ronin, FFG, etc... only sells to me via Amazon.

So Paizo is definitely the best of the best, in my book, at least.


----------



## JoeGKushner (May 15, 2010)

I think this is again where WoTC failed in that they didn't provide a core setting that was continuously supported with a lot of printed adventurers.

Older editions had a ton of adventurers and the play experience of those helped to expand the game. 

I think people want stories. Every adventure, every adventure path, and every setting sourcebook, feeds into that shared experience. The lack of variety on the WoTC side is staggering in comparission.


----------



## Treebore (May 15, 2010)

Maggan said:


> I am of the opinion that common business sense is very uncommon in the RPG business, both at many publishers and at many games stores. So if we want to polarise my viewpoint, yes there are only a few publishers with enough business acumen to build a stable and growing business out of RPGs.
> 
> /M




I take it that you are not aware that across the business world, for every one business that lasts/succeeds, there are a bunch that do not? I do not remember the exact ratio, but I believe its greater than 1 to 5. 

So "common business sense" is uncommon across the business community, period.


----------



## Nikosandros (May 15, 2010)

MrGrenadine said:


> Your point would be valid if the material produced was in the realm of a few hundred pages.
> 
> But 5000+ pages of material, a great website, a top notch and dedicated staff, etc...these things don't exist without cash flow.



Indeed. We might not know the numbers, but the fact that Paizo keeps churning out this amount of adventure and setting material means that they are making good profits out of it, otherwise they would alter their strategy.


----------



## Imaro (May 15, 2010)

Maggan said:


> So what is the defining difference between Paizo and the rest?
> 
> Come on, I've given my thoughts clearly and straight. So what, in your opinion is it that make Paizo so successful that they have taken the number 2 spot as the best selling RPG company?
> 
> ...




Are you being purposefully obtuse or not reading my posts...  I think a combination of overall quality in all areas is the key to Paizo's success...

And since we are calling poarticular companies out, here's an example... while pretty, the books in FFG's new WFRPG 3e are flimsy and of poor quality, also the amount of actual game and world info you get for the amount of money is poor.  I don't see reps from Chaosium or FFG coming to gaming forums they don't own and chatting with fans... Hey look, there's James Jacobs above me now posting on a site other than paizo.com with gamers.


----------



## Rechan (May 15, 2010)

I think using Paizo as the example really Isn't Fair. When someone says "Paizo", you think adventure modules. Paizo has produced adventure modules since the days of the print magazines, and then started doing JUST the modules until the PFRPG came out.  All of their resources were put into making the best modules in the  market. They have the best writers in the market.

To say "Hey modules sell, Look at Paizo" is a little unfair because  Modules are What Paizo Does (until recently).

Not to mention that Paizo didn't HAVE to produce rules UNTIL after 4e came out. All the rules they needed were in the SRD.

The question is not "Do modules sell (for Paizo)?" but "Do Modules Sell for anyone ELSE?" Ask Necromancer, or any other 3PP if the amount of purchasing for modules are worth it?


----------



## James Jacobs (May 15, 2010)

We've been doing more than modules for a while, actually—campaign setting stuff, player crunch, board games, card games, generic RPG accessories, all before we tackled the Pathfinder RPG last year.


----------



## guivre (May 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> And since we are calling poarticular companies out, here's an example... while pretty, the books in FFG's new WFRPG 3e are flimsy and of poor quality, also the amount of actual game and world info you get for the amount of money is poor.  I don't see reps from Chaosium or FFG coming to gaming forums they don't own and chatting with fans... Hey look, there's James Jacobs above me now posting on a site other than paizo.com with gamers.




They also effectively killed 2E by deleting all of the forums and support content needlessly, didn't finish rolling out the promised PDFs for 2E, and are going to pull the ones they did release (though hopefully they got some integrity and decided not to go ahead with that plan). Enforcing their skewed vision of WFRP just made it that much worse. They've also yet to resolve productions issues with Warhammer Invasion. 

FFG has good service, but it's not "hands down" the best by any stretch of the imagination. (I'd give that title to Privateer Press but that's besides the point) Many, many game companies provide a fairly high level of service compared with what you'll find outside the industry. FFG is right there in the middle. 

I've encountered Paizo issues here and there but they're right there in customer service too. If one of these companies is better than the other in that respect it's by the narrowest of margins.

I don't even see why the comparison is necessary. Paizo is making smart choices, involving their fans, and putting out quality product (similar to PP). It shouldn't be surprising that they're doing well.


----------



## Dark Mistress (May 15, 2010)

I am going to add to what Treebore said up above. Paizo is top or near top in the following ways.

1) Quality Production values(WoTC and a few others are as good maybe better)
2) Quality of writing/material (once more there is a few companies up there with them)
3) Customer Service (some of the best, personally Iron Crown Enterprise has given me the best but paizo is close)
4) Making you feel apart of things. Posting on the forums, engaging in conversations, posting on other forums and acting like a gamer geek like their fans. (a few companies do that but not many)
5) Cost, for what you get paizo is some of the cheapest products out there. Aka bang for your buck.

Now I personally don't know of another company that does all 5 things as well as paizo does. yes some others are as good in one or more area's but I don't know of any that is as  even close to as good in all area's. I think that has a effect on their sales.

As for adventures selling, well part of why I think the AP line of adventures sell is 1/3rd of it is other non adventure stuff.

Edit: You know what? I am not completely sure which side of the debate i am on anymore. I guess I am just posting cause I find the topic interesting.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 15, 2010)

I think it's also important to note that Paizo has experience.  When it messes up, it learns from the mistakes and, on the next module or AP or what have you, they know what the mistake was and fixes it.  They try to keep experienced writers around...not kick them to the curb.

It also might help that their CEO knows just a _few_ things about the gaming industry ;p


----------



## The Little Raven (May 15, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> It also might help that their CEO knows just a _few_ things about the gaming industry ;p




This.

I don't underestimate their creative talent, even if I don't buy any of their material, but the company has Lisa Stevens at the helm. Things just seem to turn to gold in her hands.


----------



## Edgewood (May 15, 2010)

I came to the Pathfinder AP party late but when I did, man I was glad I came!! I have started reading them from the very first and continue to do so. I have to say without any embellishment. I actually have fun reading them. Not playing them or adapting them, to my campaign or anything like that. Just simply reading them. 
Once I have that round of fun though, get this, I then get the joy of mining them for ideas for my game. So to me that's twice the fun. Finally, the maps are top notch quality, which I get to use. So, not only do I get the joy of simply reading them, I also get the joy of using them for my game.  
And after all of that, if I want to, I STILL have the option of running them as a full adventure. The untapped usefulness is still there. 
To me the Paizo modules and APs have helped me to recapture my love of reading and GMing. They deserve my hard earned dollars.


----------



## Windjammer (May 15, 2010)

James Jacobs said:


> Hey everyone... first of all, let me just say thanks for all the kind words in this thread. And that first thread, the one that pointed out how many pages of adventures and stuff we've produced over the past few years helped explain to me why I'm so tired all the time lately!
> 
> Seriously, though... adventures do sell. Paizo more or less exists as a game company today (and not merely as an online RPG store) because adventures sell. If they're done right. And by "right," I mean "fun to read."
> 
> ...




Someone brought up that post on another forum, and I decided to cross-post my response there on here. 

----

It's an interesting post, if old old news, as Jacobs has said this time and again. See, what he glosses over is the context in which his "adventures are also there to be just read, not played" posts usually arise on the Paizo boards, and that is when customers point out how _Paizo's simultaneously catering to the audiences Jacobs mentions_, to wit

(1) GM running module as written
(2) GM stealing an NPC here, a location there
(3) GM without a group, just likes to read,

_is not without problems_. Just look at the first 20 pages of Burnt Offerings, Jacobs' own flagship instalment in the Pathfinder adventure path series, and you'll see what it means when an author entirely compromises the needs of audience (1) to cater to the needs of audience (3). WotC does it the other way round, all their modules are solidly geared towards audience (1) and don't give a flying  about audience (3); which is, incidentally, why they sell so poorly: I really can't imagine that anyone casually browsing 4e modules in a bookstore on a rainy Saturday afternoon at Barnes & Modules gets his imagination fired away. By contrast, every Paizo module to date has had the instant effect of visually and verbally scoring a bull's eye on the casual reader. That's the legacy of Paizo running Dragon magazine, which they had to design in such a way that casual readers on news stands or Barnes & Nobles bookshelves would feel prompted to pick them up and quickly peruse them... that being the point at which Paizo (as Erik Mona once said) already considered their product a success. Needless to say, this type of customer context is utterly alien to audience (1). When I GM a module, most of the visual and verbal effort in Paizo products often comes as a hindrance, as it's not even geared towards the players at my table; 95% of the text doesn't concern the actual adventure at the table, very little is cast so as to make it easy to convert it into read-alout text (or into something I can paraphrase as such without 'reading it alout from the book'), very few pictures work as table devices since they don't just show the baddies but also _some other heroes fighting them_, and so on and so on. 

Paizo has very clearly dedicated its efforts to writing modules for group-less GMs, which also includes GMs who have a group but not the time to run another Pathfinder campaign for them (either because they're running a campaign of their own - which is where (2) above comes in - or because they're already running an earlier Pathfinder campaign). Which, come to think of it, is 95% of all their customers. Heck, I myself got probably 3000 pages of Paizo content on my shelves with only a thin chance of using 10% of that material at my gametable in the foreseeable future.


----------



## Maggan (May 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Are you being purposefully obtuse or not reading my posts...  I think a combination of overall quality in all areas is the key to Paizo's success...




Ok, in your opinion they are the best in all areas. Fair enough. That's where we'll continue to disagree.



Imaro said:


> I don't see reps from Chaosium or FFG coming to gaming forums they don't own and chatting with fans...




I've seen Jay Little on Strike-to-Stun. Aint that many more WFRP boards outside the FFG ones.

But I agree with your point. The amount of direct interaction between Paizo and the fans is unmatched. Good delivery of a smart sales and marketing strategy in my opinion.

/M


----------



## Maggan (May 15, 2010)

guivre said:


> They also effectively killed 2E by deleting all of the forums and support content needlessly, didn't finish rolling out the promised PDFs for 2E, and are going to pull the ones they did release (though hopefully they got some integrity and decided not to go ahead with that plan). Enforcing their skewed vision of WFRP just made it that much worse. They've also yet to resolve productions issues with Warhammer Invasion.




Yeah, they deleted the 2e forums. No surprise, but still disappointing.

But they have rolled out all PDFs as far as I can tell.



> and are going to pull the ones they did release (though hopefully they got some integrity and decided not to go ahead with that plan)




I'd like to write about that plan on my WFRP blog. Have any links that I can read about those plans? I'm sure they exist, but I would need verification to make a blog post out of it.

I'm a little bit sad they didn't continue the WFRPv2 legacy, but they've treated me as a customer way better than e.g Paizo, so IME I stand for my assessment of the level of service they provide.

FFG is an interesting company to follow actually. I think the WotC strategy of D&D board games is inspired by their succcess, and FFG are making some bold moves opening up a game center and going PDF with their rule books. (EDIT: and of course Pazio is a leader in the PDF development).

The big three to watch the next year is WotC (the incumbent) and Paizo and FFG, mostly for the business moves they make.

/M


----------



## Maggan (May 15, 2010)

James Jacobs said:


> (and yes, our adventures ARE, as a general rule, profitable—the Adventure Path line is quite profitable).




Thank you for chiming in, James.

/M


----------



## guivre (May 15, 2010)

Maggan said:


> Yeah, they deleted the 2e forums. No surprise, but still disappointing.




They deleted more than just the forums. All the support material was lost too. The articles, the modules (fan made included), etc.

You're trying to minimize what they did.



> But they have rolled out all PDFs as far as I can tell.




Simply not true. I can see at a glance that books are still missing.



> I'd like to write about that plan on my WFRP blog. Have any links that I can read about those plans? I'm sure they exist, but I would need verification to make a blog post out of it.




I went back and looked, they quietly edited that line out of the FAQ, which is good at least. Originally it said that the 2e PDFs would be available for a "limited time". Glad to see they have some shame at least. 

It's still a travesty what they did to the franchise. 



> I'm a little bit sad they didn't continue the WFRPv2 legacy, but they've treated me as a customer way better than e.g Paizo, so IME I stand for my assessment of the level of service they provide.




Wonderful. So you have anecdotal evidence just like the other posters do about Paizo and just as relevant, or irrelevant as the case may be.

Holding up FFG as a counter to Paizo is ludicrous. FFG isn't nearly as angelic as you make them out to be. You are a victim of the same rose colored glasses you're accusing other posters of wearing.

 Both companies provide a high level of service, both do some questionable things.


----------



## Maggan (May 15, 2010)

guivre said:


> They deleted more than just the forums. All the support material was lost too. The articles, the modules (fan made included), etc.
> 
> You're trying to minimize what they did.




Hmmm ... no, I'm not. I didn't think about that stuff, mainly because I've downloaded it, and also because the biggest loss were the stuff from BI. Yeah, that was a shame.



guivre said:


> Simply not true. I can see at a glance that books are still missing.




Did you scroll down? Or did you just rest your eyes on the section saying "newest products in this section"? Cause I did the first time I looked at the page. Then I scrolled down, and I can't see any book missing, apart from the collector's edition.



guivre said:


> I went back and looked, they quietly edited that line out of the FAQ, which is good at least. Originally it said that the 2e PDFs would be available for a "limited time".




Ok, I won't be writing about that then. Thank you for checking!

EDIT: I still think it is a real possibility that the PDFs will be pulled, so I'll keep an eye on that.



guivre said:


> Wonderful. So you have anecdotal evidence just like the other posters do about Paizo and just as relevant, or irrelevant as the case may be.




Yes. Have I claimed otherwise?



guivre said:


> You are a victim of the same rose colored glasses you're accusing other posters of wearing.




Have I accused people of wearing rose coloured glasses?

I think you are reading way, way, way too much into my posts, and I believe that you are bringing issues to the table that relate to other stuff than what I have posted about.

To me, answering the question "why is Paizo the best" with "it's simple, it's because they are the best at everything" is not scratching my itch for learning more about what they do that others aren't doing, and what they have done that others haven't done, and what opportunities they've had that others didn't have, and so on.

I'm not claiming cosmic wisdom, I'm offering my own opinions on the situation, after being asked to do so by Imaro.

/M


----------



## Mikaze (May 15, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> Needless to say, this type of customer context is utterly alien to audience (1). When I GM a module, most of the visual and verbal effort in Paizo products often comes as a hindrance, as it's not even geared towards the players at my table; 95% of the text doesn't concern the actual adventure at the table, very little is cast so as to make it easy to convert it into read-alout text (or into something I can paraphrase as such without 'reading it alout from the book'), very few pictures work as table devices since they don't just show the baddies but also _some other heroes fighting them_, and so on and so on.




I wouldn't put that as an absolute. I know most if not all of that fluff geared towards the GM's eyes alone has seen play in my Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign, both in front of the PC's and lurking in the background waiting to be found even as it has visible effects both obvious and subtle.

It really depends on the type of GM and the type of games they and their players want.

Still, I'll concur that they're definitely good reading. The last time I enjoyed simply reading RPG material this much was when Planescape was still supported.


----------



## Wicht (May 15, 2010)

Aside from the picture of the ogre-kin mother in Hook Mountain Massacre, I have found most of the pictures in the Paizo APs to be useable with the players. I also have never found the extra text to be a hindrance towards my running a game.  As I more or lest said said in the "What makes a good module thread," the better I understand the world, the better I can present it as a cohesive whole.  

So I think it is entirely possible to please DMs who both like to read the modules and play the modules.  Because it works for me even if it might not work for someone else.


----------



## Imaro (May 15, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> Someone brought up that post on another forum, and I decided to cross-post my response there on here.
> 
> ----
> 
> ...




 I feel like the information your talking about is or isn't brought into the play experience by the individual DM and how much he wants to use it... which leads me to a 4th category you seem to have left out. This category runs the module with minor or major changes. This DM modifies the adventure to his heart's content and thus can easily bring in as much or as little of the information provided as he wants. 

For me personally, if I can't get through reading an adventure... I don't want to run it. I know if I find it a boring, slog-fest to read... more than likely it's going to play out that way with my players as well, and I won't be excited to run it.

I also think your absolutes fall apart in the face of DM preference. For me, as a DM who does not believe the combat encounter is all important, WotC modules are very much not written for play... in fact they take major modification and many of the boring and pointless combats have to be excised, plausible motivations created, and so on... so I would be very careful with these types of sweeping generalizations.


----------



## Maggan (May 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> For me personally, if I can't get through reading an adventure... I don't want to run it. I know if I find it a boring, slog-fest to read... more than likely it's going to play out that way with my players as well, and I won't be excited to run it.




This I agree whole-heartedly with!

/M


----------



## Windjammer (May 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I feel like the information your talking about is or isn't brought into the play experience by the individual DM and how much he wants to use it... which leads me to *a 4th category* you seem to have left out. This category runs the module with minor or major changes. This DM modifies the adventure to his heart's content and thus can easily bring in as much or as little of the information provided as he wants.




Ha! Indeed I left out that 4th category. Which is all the funnier because that type of DM isn't just you - it's also me.  You see, when it came to hammering _Second Darkness_ into a type of campaign that suited my group's needs, I fiddled around so much that I ended up feeling like I'm a category (2) GM - the type of GM who's ending up writing his own campaign around bits and pieces of Paizo's. 

You certainly raise an interesting point, and that is that my categories (1) and (2) are merely extremes on a scale permitting many intermediaries. Part of being on that scale, of course, is to be actively involved in the GM reference threads on paizo.com for the respective modules. WotC wouldn't just need to hire authors to write them decent modules, they'd also have to bring people on board willing to invest this much time with their fans and readers (which I'm inclined to think won't happen soon). See, *what Monte Cook of dungeonaday.com and Wolfgang Baur at Kobold Quarterly give their customers at a charge - treating them as patrons with exclusive rights to communicate with the module authors - is given to you at Paizo for free.* _

That _is a key ingredient of what continues to make Paizo so special in the RPG world, and why running a campaign of theirs is so awesome at the time it's released. Just recall the forum explosion when _Shackled City_ first got released, that was amazing.


----------



## BryonD (May 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> For me personally, if I can't get through reading an adventure... I don't want to run it. I know if I find it a boring, slog-fest to read... more than likely it's going to play out that way with my players as well, and I won't be excited to run it.






Wicht said:


> I also have never found the extra text to be a hindrance towards my running a game.  As I more or lest said said in the "What makes a good module thread," the better I understand the world, the better I can present it as a cohesive whole.




There are (at least) two completely different approaches to DMing that are talking past each other here.  

I recently commented that I did not agree with the assessment that modules reduce prep time.  In retrospect I was kicking myself for not anticipating the response, but I was blasted by quite a few posters for making a wildly inaccurate statement.

If you want a set of ready to run set-piece encounters with a narrative sequence, then a module with just that provides everything you need.  And the most demanding piece of what you need is stating out all those mechanics.  That is done for you.  Prep time is slashed.

The set-piece encounters and the narrative revealed by the sequence must still be interesting and cool.  As Imaro says, you can have all the pieces together and still just end up with a boring slog-fest.  

But, there are also people who come at it from a completely different approach.  If the BBEG is an evil cleric, simply having that information and his stats, plus a narrative sequence of events revealing his terrible plan, is just the tip of the iceberg. If you are like me, you want a hell of a lot more context.  The context is both broad and generalized, as well as detailed and specific.  I want know a lot about the cleric's religion and the area he lives in and how it all interacts.  And I want to know about how that guy became this evil cleric and what relationships he has with other key npcs.

This level of depth can really add to the play experience through fleshing out interactions and motives and even little details that may not matter to the results.  But for me as a DM they also add to fun of DMing at the table.  It adds to my sense of seeing not just how the PCs overcome an EL X encounter, but how they interact with the world and the significance of it.  It is fun.

And a module does not need to provide this level of information.  The DM can insert it into any module.  But whether you are making up your own adventure, inserting your own life into someone else's adventure, or reading and learning a lot of extra information, you need to spend time and consideration making that all come together.  And that is what takes time for me.  It takes time to know the "whos" and "whys", and have them cold so that they flow naturally at the table.  

I can run a module without bothering.  And yes, that takes less prep time.  But it also results in a significantly less satisfactory experience for me.

And I'm not saying that running it my way is more fun.  I'm saying that that running it the way *I* enjoy it is different than the way some others enjoy it.  The same pieces can be used to play two very different games, even if the distinctions may not be obvious to a non-gamer.


----------



## Jack99 (May 15, 2010)

Windjammer said:


> what Monte Cook of dungeonaday.com and Wolfgang Baur at Kobold Quarterly give their customers at a charge - treating them as patrons with exclusive rights to communicate with the module authors - is given to you at Paizo for free.




As a patron of Open Design, you get much more than exclusive rights to communicate with the module authors. Saying Paizo gives their customers for free the same as Open Design charges for, seems very odd.

Do you have any experience as a patron?


----------



## BryonD (May 15, 2010)

Jack99 said:


> As a patron of Open Design, you get much more than exclusive rights to communicate with the module authors. Saying Paizo gives their customers for free the same as Open Design charges for, seems very odd.
> 
> Do you have any experience as a patron?



He stated a specific thing.  Are you you saying the other don't charge for it?  (I honestly don't know) or are you saying Paizo doesn't share it for free?


----------



## Dannager (May 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> I feel like the information your talking about is or isn't brought into the play experience by the individual DM and how much he wants to use it...



I've run a number of Pathfinder adventures, and I have to agree that I will often run across background information in the text (or even _non-_background stuff) that makes it _more difficult_ for me to run the adventure as written. All of this fantastic story material is provided that is practically _impossible_ for the players to discover during the course of normal play. This can lead to really odd, confusing moments such as that in Burnt Offerings where the PCs stand an almost inevitable chance of witnessing a sack of pickles fly out of a goblin tower. In actuality, the pickles were tossed out by a pair of goblin pickle thieves who assume they've been caught when they hear the alarm raised, but there's absolutely no way for the PCs to actually discover this (the only clue being that one of the pickle barrels has a hole in it). Sure, this is solid, amusing stuff to read if you're just browsing through the modules, but it certainly lends them a feeling of the adventure having been written to be read, rather than to be played. I have to imagine that a pretty significant chunk of Paizo's subscriber base is people who stand practically no chance of actually getting a group together and running a game, but like to imagine what it would be like to do just that while reading through the adventures.


----------



## Imaro (May 15, 2010)

Dannager said:


> I've run a number of Pathfinder adventures, and I have to agree that I will often run across background information in the text (or even _non-_background stuff) that makes it _more difficult_ for me to run the adventure as written. All of this fantastic story material is provided that is practically _impossible_ for the players to discover during the course of normal play. This can lead to really odd, confusing moments such as that in Burnt Offerings where the PCs stand an almost inevitable chance of witnessing a sack of pickles fly out of a goblin tower. In actuality, the pickles were tossed out by a pair of goblin pickle thieves who assume they've been caught when they hear the alarm raised, but there's absolutely no way for the PCs to actually discover this (the only clue being that one of the pickle barrels has a hole in it). Sure, this is solid, amusing stuff to read if you're just browsing through the modules, but it certainly lends them a feeling of the adventure having been written to be read, rather than to be played. I have to imagine that a pretty significant chunk of Paizo's subscriber base is people who stand practically no chance of actually getting a group together and running a game, but like to imagine what it would be like to do just that while reading through the adventures.




Take this with a grain of salt, as I haven't actually read Burnt Offerings... but if you wanted that to be brought to the attention of the PC's why not have one of the goblins at the window while the other is hollering in Goblin about being caught and stolen pickles.  Now granted if none of your players speak goblin this won't work but I believe with some imagination it's not hard to bring out the info you want the players to know in an adventure.


----------



## Dannager (May 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> Take this with a grain of salt, as I haven't actually read Burnt Offerings... but if you wanted that to be brought to the attention of the PC's why not have one of the goblins at the window while the other is hollering in Goblin about being caught and stolen pickles.  Now granted if none of your players speak goblin this won't work but I believe with some imagination it's not hard to bring out the info you want the players to know in an adventure.



Well, that's sort of my point - _as written_, this is not something the goblins do. You can, as a DM, use a bit of foresight to anticipate that the information given isn't enough to give the PCs an idea of what exactly was going on, and then embellish or add interactions to compensate, but this is not something that the adventure itself explicitly encourages. This is a clear example of something being written for the reader, rather than for the DM or player. The PCs experience the barest shell of this interaction and are unaware of the full story. The DM does not have the chance to explain (without stepping out from behind the 4th wall) what exactly has occurred, but the _reader_ knows all of it.


----------



## Dark Mistress (May 15, 2010)

Imaro said:


> For me personally, if I can't get through reading an adventure... I don't want to run it. I know if I find it a boring, slog-fest to read... more than likely it's going to play out that way with my players as well, and I won't be excited to run it.






Maggan said:


> This I agree whole-heartedly with!
> 
> /M




I agree completely with that as well.


----------



## James Jacobs (May 15, 2010)

Bloating an adventure with stuff that the PCs will never have a chance to learn is bad adventure design. The worst case example is something like: "This room was once a treasury, and it contained all manner of wondrous items and loot, including a talking robotic parrot who could fly and could recite poetry that granted bonuses to Wisdom-based abilities. Alas, looters have long since taken all of this treasure, and it is now an empty room with no clue to its previous use." There's been plenty of adventures that pull this stunt, and I try to make sure that no Paizo adventure ever tries it.

In fact, we try really hard to make sure that if we put in a lot of cool backstory to something that somehow there's a way for the PCs to learn that info. In a lot of cases, PCs will skip that stuff simply because they're not interested, but providing all that info is necessary so that when a player DOES pull a fast one and speaks with dead on a minor NPC villain or puts a huge number of ranks into knowledge skills and always wants to use them or the like, the information is there for the GM to provide.

We don't always pull it off. Authors love going on a bit too much about the secret parts of their adventures; I'm certainly no exception! But it's still important to give the GM cues in the text of the adventure as to how the PCs can learn about these things.

Most (I belive all, but I could be wrong) of our adventure paths have some sort of encounter or NPC in the last installment that is accompanied by text that says something like "You can use this NPC to answer any lingering questions the PCs have about the Adventure Path before you head into the final encounters."

As for things like the goblins and the pickles... there are plenty of ways for PCs to learn about that if they're not just stabbing goblins. They could sneak into the lair and watch the goblins, in which case details like "kill-gull" and the pickle scandal are there for GMs to use as things the PCs learn by spying. They could learn about the theft by charming a goblin or intimidating it or otherwise giving a goblin a hard time; babbling about stolen pickles is a great way for a GM to give a goblin some chatter for the PCs to enjoy. And at the very least, it DOES provide entertaining reading, and if there are parts of our adventures that only the GM ever truly gets to enjoy, I'm actually fine with that. GMs need to have fun too, after all!


----------



## Imaro (May 15, 2010)

Dannager said:


> Well, that's sort of my point - _as written_, this is not something the goblins do. You can, as a DM, use a bit of foresight to anticipate that the information given isn't enough to give the PCs an idea of what exactly was going on, and then embellish or add interactions to compensate, but this is not something that the adventure itself explicitly encourages. This is a clear example of something being written for the reader, rather than for the DM or player. The PCs experience the barest shell of this interaction and are unaware of the full story. The DM does not have the chance to explain (without stepping out from behind the 4th wall) what exactly has occurred, but the _reader_ knows all of it.




And I guess my point is that there is no way for an adventure writer to know what will and will not interest a particular group. Personally, as long as I can think of ways for the information and details to be relayed, then I would rather have interesting stuff to pick from... rather than nothing at all, or only the barest minimum. I think you also miss the category of DM who doesn't run a module as written but instead modifies and makes from it what he wants, for that type of DM the tidbit about pickles is a good thing because it sparks the imagination beyond simply figuring out how the goblins will kill the PC's. 

I'm sorry but I don't believe in this "reader only" philosophy. The DM is the eyes and ears of the PC's in the game... the only information and details that are "Reader" only in an adventure... are those he chooses to make so.


----------



## Wicht (May 15, 2010)

Dannager said:


> Well, that's sort of my point - _as written_, this is not something the goblins do. You can, as a DM, use a bit of foresight to anticipate that the information given isn't enough to give the PCs an idea of what exactly was going on, and then embellish or add interactions to compensate, but this is not something that the adventure itself explicitly encourages. This is a clear example of something being written for the reader, rather than for the DM or player. The PCs experience the barest shell of this interaction and are unaware of the full story. The DM does not have the chance to explain (without stepping out from behind the 4th wall) what exactly has occurred, but the _reader_ knows all of it.




Personally, I find that when players witness things happening for which they have no explanation, (pickles flying out the window) they become more curious and wonder what is up.  I've run that particular area twice now, once live and once for PbP.  In the live game, the players intuitively leaped to the conclusion that the goblins with pickle juice all over them had been eating pickles but nothing more did they deduce iirc.  Nevertheless, that extra bit of window dressing kept it from being, "you walk into a room.  there are two goblins waiting.  Like the last room." A little whimsy, in small doses, makes the story richer.  In the PbP game, the goblins didn't hear the alarm and were in a pickle induced slumber and promptly got their heads bashed in by the barbarian.  

And as Jacobs said, knowing some of what the goblins are doing helps if you have a group that wants to take prisoners (the barbarian cited above could have) and interogate them or if you have a group that wants to use diplomacy.


----------



## smug (May 15, 2010)

Dannager said:


> I've run a number of Pathfinder adventures, and I have to agree that I will often run across background information in the text (or even _non-_background stuff) that makes it _more difficult_ for me to run the adventure as written. All of this fantastic story material is provided that is practically _impossible_ for the players to discover during the course of normal play. This can lead to really odd, confusing moments such as that in Burnt Offerings where the PCs stand an almost inevitable chance of witnessing a sack of pickles fly out of a goblin tower. In actuality, the pickles were tossed out by a pair of goblin pickle thieves who assume they've been caught when they hear the alarm raised, but there's absolutely no way for the PCs to actually discover this (the only clue being that one of the pickle barrels has a hole in it). Sure, this is solid, amusing stuff to read if you're just browsing through the modules, but it certainly lends them a feeling of the adventure having been written to be read, rather than to be played. I have to imagine that a pretty significant chunk of Paizo's subscriber base is people who stand practically no chance of actually getting a group together and running a game, but like to imagine what it would be like to do just that while reading through the adventures.




I've found the extra info to be really helpful, making it easier to decide how to play characters, etc, and add side-treks or additional subplots. If some of it's not used, well, that's the nature of background; I don't try to shoe-horn it all in. For me, Paizo's APs are the gold standard for modules I want to run, and when I run them, I flat-out love running them.


----------



## Azgulor (May 16, 2010)

Dannager said:


> Well, that's sort of my point - _as written_, this is not something the goblins do. You can, as a DM, use a bit of foresight to anticipate that the information given isn't enough to give the PCs an idea of what exactly was going on, and then embellish or add interactions to compensate, but this is not something that the adventure itself explicitly encourages. This is a clear example of something being written for the reader, rather than for the DM or player. The PCs experience the barest shell of this interaction and are unaware of the full story. The DM does not have the chance to explain (without stepping out from behind the 4th wall) what exactly has occurred, but the _reader_ knows all of it.






Just because it's printed on the page, it's not expected that the PCs will know it.  Perhaps it's purpose is:

A) To highlight the fact that while goblins are wicked, evil creatures, in Golarion they're to be played up as comical misfits & generally speaking - batcrap crazy as well.

B) Give the GM a chuckle as he/she reads.

C) A & B

Hell, there are plenty of things in your average adventure that PCs might learn through the course of the adventure.  That doesn't mean that if they get to the end of the module, they're guaranteed to learn everything that they module says is possible for them to learn.


Seriously, does the module HAVE to specifically encourage a DM to do something?  As a DM, I can play a module straight as written or I can make it my own by adding, tweaking, etc. as others have mentioned.  If the publisher gives me snippets to riff off of that's a FEATURE not a flaw.


----------



## lejanius (May 16, 2010)

I didn't go through this whole thread but here is all I have to add.

I don't really play Pathfinder, only on occasion as a player, never GM.  I buy a lot of Pathfinder Modules.

Why?  Well, there good, very good.

In my eyes good product sells.  Paizo had a built in fan base from Dragon and Dungeon but this takes nothing away from their production values, which in my opinion, are the best in the industry.  Pick up any of their modules (especially the adventure path's) and see what good art, layout, maps, etc. they have.

Well written, beautifully laid out and designed adventures sell.  I have no proof of this but I own a lot of Paizo's stuff and I don't run it, so I buy it for those reasons...


----------



## firesnakearies (May 16, 2010)

If I was going to look into Paizo's modules, which one or two specific adventures would you most highly recommend as being the best, most impressive representation of what makes their adventures awesome?


----------



## pawsplay (May 16, 2010)

Dannager said:


> I've run a number of Pathfinder adventures, and I have to agree that I will often run across background information in the text (or even _non-_background stuff) that makes it _more difficult_ for me to run the adventure as written. All of this fantastic story material is provided that is practically _impossible_ for the players to discover during the course of normal play. This can lead to really odd, confusing moments such as that in Burnt Offerings where the PCs stand an almost inevitable chance of witnessing a sack of pickles fly out of a goblin tower. In actuality, the pickles were tossed out by a pair of goblin pickle thieves who assume they've been caught when they hear the alarm raised, but there's absolutely no way for the PCs to actually discover this (the only clue being that one of the pickle barrels has a hole in it). Sure, this is solid, amusing stuff to read if you're just browsing through the modules, but it certainly lends them a feeling of the adventure having been written to be read, rather than to be played. I have to imagine that a pretty significant chunk of Paizo's subscriber base is people who stand practically no chance of actually getting a group together and running a game, but like to imagine what it would be like to do just that while reading through the adventures.




I think the flying bag of pickles justifies itself. The backstory is there because such a thing demands explanation. The PCs can seek explanation if they are so inclined.


----------



## Dannager (May 16, 2010)

firesnakearies said:


> If I was going to look into Paizo's modules, which one or two specific adventures would you most highly recommend as being the best, most impressive representation of what makes their adventures awesome?



Burnt Offerings is, itself, a really fantastic adventure, and a solid introduction to the world of Golarion at large. My quibbles with extraneous DM information are really minor, and my complaints are _far_ dwarfed by my appreciation for their design. I mean, I'm basically whining about them giving DMs _too much stuff_ to work with, which is hardly even a complaint to begin with.

I'm also a fan of Escape from Old Korvosa, if you want to check another Pathfinder adventure out, but that one is midway through an adventure path.


----------



## Wicht (May 16, 2010)

firesnakearies said:


> If I was going to look into Paizo's modules, which one or two specific adventures would you most highly recommend as being the best, most impressive representation of what makes their adventures awesome?




Burnt offerings is a great adventure.  Good luck finding one for less than $100. 

More realistically, Crypt of the Everflame is an excellent 1st level introductory adventure for the PFRPG.  The Kingmaker AP, currently being released, is shaping up into a very nice adventure path.  


From their 3.5 days: I have enjoyed running the first Legacy of Fire, Howl of the Carrion King - in part because there are some excellent paper mini and terrain resources for it.  We are currently on the 3rd book of the AP and so far so good.  

For spy work - there's Tower of the Last Baron, which I think is good. And though I haven't read it, Entombed with the Pharoahs has recieved a lot of very good feedback.


----------



## renau1g (May 16, 2010)

I would highly second Wicht's comment about the Kingmaker adventure path, however I might suggest starting with a single adventure before investing approx. $100-120 on the adventure. Crypt of the Everflame is great as a single one.

http://paizo.com/store/downloads/pa...les/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy89c9&source=search


----------



## an_idol_mind (May 16, 2010)

While I think Crypt of the Everflame is a good module, my personal recommendation for a single module produced by Paizo recently would be its sequel adventure, Masks of the Living God. It's got both an interesting concept for an adventure and so many different ways of accomplishing the goal that it could probably be played a dozen times over with a new result each time.


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 16, 2010)

Funny the discussion should turn to _Crypt of the Everflame_ and _Masks of the Living God.
_ 
The reason I got into the whole analysis of what Paizo was producing in the first post in the thread (and, inferrentially, what people were buying within Paizo's product lines) was in preparation for a new Podcast I'm working on entirely dedicated to _Pathfinder_.  Most especially, the point of the analysis was to delve into what the focus of our Podcast should be. 

As a consequence, we've decided that the focus (not exclusively, but primarily) will be on Paizo's adventure products for _Pathfinder_. Fully half to two-thirds of the podcast will be  directed at _Pathfinder_ GMs, not players. A player listening to the podcast will have the featured adventure *THOROUGHLY AND IRRETRIEVABLY spoiled for them*. We aren't just going to discuss a "few spoilers" in the Podcast -- we're going to review and deconstruct the module/adventure, sometimes at a genetic level of detail. 

We'll have a lot more to say on these specific modules and the one that follows it in the trilogy, _City of Golden Death_ in our first few episodes which should be up for download weekend after next. (Well - hopefully. The learning curve on Podcasting is a little steep at the start). 

For now, I think there are some strong elements that both of those modules offer -- and I think there are some rather weak design elements to them as well which _Pathfinder_ GMs should be alerted to. None of those weak elements with _Crypt of the Everflame_ are terminal, though I'm not sure the same can be said for _Masks of the Living God.  _

Whatever the case, whenever a GM is alerted to possible design issues ahead of time, he (or she) can take those issues into account when integrating a module into their _Pathfinder_ campaigns.  That's our misison statement on the  _Yet To be Titled Pathfinder _Podcast.


----------



## Wicht (May 16, 2010)

I'm going to be interested, Steel Wind, in hearing what you have to say about these.  I think Crypt of the Everflame is an excellent introductory module.  It likely does have some weaknesses, but I suspect they are tied into the fact it is designed almost as a "first time" adventure. Masks of the Living God however I would hesitate to recommend to starter DMs, which I find curious as it is the sequel to such an excellent introductory adventure.  I think the learning curve for new DMs between Crypt and Masks is too steep in that Masks is much more open-ended, almost too much so.  I think Masks would be an excellent adventure with the right crew, but getting that crew together might be a challenge for a first time DM who doesn't know how to keep a story moving when the Players start getting intuitively dull.  That's my take anyway.


----------



## firesnakearies (May 16, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> That's our misison statement on the  _Yet To be Titled Pathfinder _Podcast.





Sounds like an awesome podcast.  I'll listen to it for sure.


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 16, 2010)

firesnakearies said:


> Sounds like an awesome podcast.  I'll listen to it for sure.




Well, I don't know how awesome it will or won't be. I hope so 

I can only assess what I want in a Podcast in terms or my own personal tastes to start out. There are a very large number of podcasts on the Internet when it comes to RPGs and all of them bring something to the table. I like some of them -- and I don't like some of them. Everyone's tastes are different.

The more narrow the focus you place upon the topic matter of the Podcast, the more necesarily restricted your target audience ends up. Still, the very nature of Podcasting is that it's free. We're not making money off of it. So if we can make a few hundred Pathfinder GMs (and maybe, someday a few thousand) interested and engaged in the discussion of an adventure product at a level of granularity and detail that is not often seen in RPG podcasts - that's fine by me.

That doesn't mean that players are unimportant and we'll do some more player inclusive things as well for all PFRPG enthusiasts. Still, Ryan already serves that audience on his own podcast, so I don't think people would be well served by our just trying to do the same thing. 

It's pretty clear to me that what Paizo is most interested in making is game products that are aimed squarely at GMs -- or at least at people who enjoy reading game products from a GM's perspective. I think it is overwhelmingly clear that's who Paizo sees as their principal market. Discussing the nuts and bolts of adventures and adventure design, what each of them offers -- and what they don't -- seems to me to be an entertaining (though narrow) subject matter to those of us geeks who enjoy that sort of thing.

Hopefully it will all work out. It might not. "We'll see."


----------



## Beginning of the End (May 16, 2010)

Dannager said:


> Well, that's sort of my point - _as written_, this is not something the goblins do. You can, as a DM, use a bit of foresight to anticipate that the information given isn't enough to give the PCs an idea of what exactly was going on, and then embellish or add interactions to compensate, but this is not something that the adventure itself explicitly encourages. This is a clear example of something being written for the reader, rather than for the DM or player. The PCs experience the barest shell of this interaction and are unaware of the full story. The DM does not have the chance to explain (without stepping out from behind the 4th wall) what exactly has occurred, but the _reader_ knows all of it.




I generally hate adventures where:

(a) The reader/DM has this really amazing sequence of events playing out; but

(b) The players are only experiencing an essentially random series of encounters that they have no way of comprehending.

I just don't understand the methodology: If you're designing this really nifty stuff, why not take the relatively minimal effort necessary to let the players know about it?

OTOH, this pickle-encounter doesn't qualify for me. Paizo's goblins are wacky little trouble-making imps. Having pickles fly randomly out of windows is, in fact, just part of the module's larger establishment of the goblins as whirling dervishes of chaotic destruction. In addition, the module does include a patently obvious way to figure out what the goblins are doing: Curious PCs can simply go to that room and interrogate the goblins. (Is there every chance for that interrogation to turn into a wacky comedy of fang-baring desperation? Yes. Yes, there is. But that tone was pretty well established as soon as we said 'pickle thieves".)

Hell, knowing some of the people I've played with over the years it wouldn't shock me if I somehow ended up with players offering to help the goblin chieftain out by tracking down his pickle thieves in exchange for getting what they want from the tribe.

Rather than being a detail that the players can never learn, this kind of detail is exactly the kind of rich texture which allows the PCs to chart their own course instead of following the railroad tracks.


----------



## darjr (May 16, 2010)

This blog entry at the Quest For Fun Black Diamond Games official blog seems to come in at an opportune time. I've linked back to this thread and wondered if the success that Paizo see's and WotC doesn't on adventures has a bit to do with the difference in the FLGS focus of both companies.

What with WotC being more hyper focused with FLGS and Paizo being more subscription/pdf model based.

The blog entry essentially says that adventures don't sell nearly as well and also don't make nearly as much profit. Though he does point out that the Paizo adventure path subscription is more than just adventures, there is supplement content in those books as well. Note though that this is from his store's perspective.


----------



## jmucchiello (May 17, 2010)

Beginning of the End said:


> OTOH, this pickle-encounter doesn't qualify for me. Paizo's goblins are wacky little trouble-making imps. Having pickles fly randomly out of windows is, in fact, just part of the module's larger establishment of the goblins as whirling dervishes of chaotic destruction. In addition, the module does include a patently obvious way to figure out what the goblins are doing: Curious PCs can simply go to that room.



I don't know the module. Is it a 10 foot square room with a goblin and a pickle? Oddly, that sounds familiar.


----------



## Dark Mistress (May 17, 2010)

darjr said:


> This blog entry at the Quest For Fun Black Diamond Games official blog seems to come in at an opportune time. I've linked back to this thread and wondered if the success that Paizo see's and WotC doesn't on adventures has a bit to do with the difference in the FLGS focus of both companies.
> 
> What with WotC being more hyper focused with FLGS and Paizo being more subscription/pdf model based.
> 
> The blog entry essentially says that adventures don't sell nearly as well and also don't make nearly as much profit. Though he does point out that the Paizo adventure path subscription is more than just adventures, there is supplement content in those books as well. Note though that this is from his store's perspective.




Interesting blog post from the view of one shop owner.


----------



## darjr (May 17, 2010)

Dark Mistress said:


> Interesting blog post from the view of one shop owner.




I do think that his exp may be more typical of other FLGS.


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 17, 2010)

Paizo has a relationship with its customers that is very different that the relationship other game mftrs have. This is as a consequence of:

1 - being a general online RPG shop; and
2 - having a history of being the publishers of _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ and developing that subscription delivery model directly with their customers.

The best customers of Paizo's Adventure Path are people that this FLGS store owner is never going to see.  And Paizo's profit per unit by selling directly to the customer is at a level that is much larger than the profit he makes.

If you count the sale of oranges at retail, in an attempt to measure the profitibility of Paizo's apple production -- and don't even see the sales levels from the hardcore apple purchasers, almost by definition?

My guess is that your orange count, while it may have something significant to say about the overall volume and profit of fruit at a retail level --  is not a great measure of the profitability of a specific apple grower.


----------



## darjr (May 17, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> Paizo has a relationship with its customers that it very different that the relationship other game mftrs have.




I agree. Nice way to put it. I think it's a contributing factor, not to take away from Paizo and what Gary Ray of Black Diamond games says "writing the absolute best adventures I've ever read" about Paizo's adventures.


----------



## BryonD (May 17, 2010)

What does the most successful part of 4E and Paizo's general strategy have in common?

A: Subscription


----------



## Dark Mistress (May 17, 2010)

darjr said:


> I do think that his exp may be more typical of other FLGS.




Maybe and maybe not. We have no way to know. While i agree with you that he is likely in the typical group, no way to know. Personally I find posts buy game shop owners interesting especially when they talk about how their shop runs, what sells in their area ect. I just find it fascinating.


----------



## darjr (May 17, 2010)

Dark Mistress said:


> Maybe and maybe not. We have no way to know. While i agree with you that he is likely in the typical group, no way to know. Personally I find posts buy game shop owners interesting especially when they talk about how their shop runs, what sells in their area ect. I just find it fascinating.




I find it fascinating too. Let me add that I've discussed similar things with the local shop owners around here and I think that they would mostly agree with Gary about the sales performance of adventures.


----------



## frog (May 17, 2010)

Dannager said:


> I've run a number of Pathfinder adventures, and I have to agree that I will often run across background information in the text (or even _non-_background stuff) that makes it _more difficult_ for me to run the adventure as written. All of this fantastic story material is provided that is practically _impossible_ for the players to discover during the course of normal play. This can lead to really odd, confusing moments such as that in Burnt Offerings where the PCs stand an almost inevitable chance of witnessing a sack of pickles fly out of a goblin tower. In actuality, the pickles were tossed out by a pair of goblin pickle thieves who assume they've been caught when they hear the alarm raised, but there's absolutely no way for the PCs to actually discover this (the only clue being that one of the pickle barrels has a hole in it). Sure, this is solid, amusing stuff to read if you're just browsing through the modules, but it certainly lends them a feeling of the adventure having been written to be read, rather than to be played. I have to imagine that a pretty significant chunk of Paizo's subscriber base is people who stand practically no chance of actually getting a group together and running a game, but like to imagine what it would be like to do just that while reading through the adventures.




Ah the dreaded "flying pickles". The characters were completely baffled by the fact that a bunch of pickles came raining down on their heads...the PLAYERS had a big laugh afterwards when I told them what REALLY happened there.

I don't have a problem sharing the secrets after the session has ended as long as it doesn't spoil future sessions. Some players find it enormously amusing.


----------



## Treebore (May 17, 2010)

I can believe LGS' do not sell Paizo products well at all. Why would anyone buy such products at the LGS? Especially if you have to pinch your pennies, like about 90% of us do? We are going to get teh best bang for our dollars, so we will order from Paizo if we like the value of the PDF being added, or we will order from Amazon or some other discount seller for the cash savings.

As much as we may like to have an LGS, we still have bills to pay, food to buy, and roof's to keep over our heads, so the cost benefit analysis will win out every time, which means the LGS' lose sales.

If I had to buy at my LGS I wouldn't buy half of what I buy every month. Between full retail, 8.5% sales tax, and having to drive an hour just to get to him, yeah, I would buy much less.

Heck, the 8.5% tax keeps me from buying from a lot of on line stores, because in AZ you have to pay if they have a "location" in AZ. So I rarely buy from eBay anymore, or Target, Wal mart, Barnes and Noble, etc...


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (May 17, 2010)

*Yeah*

It's really true.

I have a choice of buying Paizo stuff in the game store and giving Paizo a smaller cut, or buying direct and giving them a bigger piece of the pie.

If I hang out at the game store I get to talk with Joe the Game Store Employee.  If I hang out on the Paizo board I get to talk with James Jacobs.

It's an easy choice for me...

Ken


----------



## James Jacobs (May 17, 2010)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> It's really true.
> 
> I have a choice of buying Paizo stuff in the game store and giving Paizo a smaller cut, or buying direct and giving them a bigger piece of the pie.
> 
> ...




Or if you hang out here, too!


----------



## DaveMage (May 17, 2010)

Haffrung Helleyes said:


> It's really true.
> 
> I have a choice of buying Paizo stuff in the game store and giving Paizo a smaller cut, or buying direct and giving them a bigger piece of the pie.
> 
> ...




Yeah, the only way to top JJ, would be if the LGS had Candi, the hot Pathfinder-playing gamer chick clerk.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 17, 2010)

Treebore said:


> I can believe LGS' do not sell Paizo products well at all. Why would anyone buy such products at the LGS?




They seem to at Hairy Tarantula in Toronto, where I do most of my shopping these days.


----------



## Doug McCrae (May 17, 2010)

BryonD said:


> What does the most successful part of 4E and Paizo's general strategy have in common?
> 
> A: Subscription



Videogame-y!


----------



## Treebore (May 17, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> They seem to at Hairy Tarantula in Toronto, where I do most of my shopping these days.




Are Canadians like Americans to where 90% of us live pay check to pay check? If not, that may be why people there are willing and able to waste money.

Or, if Canadians are like Americans, they are perfect examples of why so many do live paycheck to paycheck. Assuming they aren't rich or not living pay check to pay check in the first place.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 17, 2010)

Treebore said:


> Are Canadians like Americans to where 90% of us live pay check to pay check? If not, that may be why people there are willing and able to waste money.
> 
> Or, if Canadians are like Americans, they are perfect examples of why so many do live paycheck to paycheck. Assuming they aren't rich or not living pay check to pay check in the first place.




Heh.

I'm an American living in Canada......I have the worst habits of both!  

(AFAICT, the biggest difference is that we have pay*cheques*.)


RC


----------



## renau1g (May 17, 2010)

We're slightly better up here than down south, but that's because we're taxed to hell if we buy anything, 13% combined sales tax rate here in Ontario (now coming to previously exempted items, thanks Dalton ). It's easier to not purchase something when you're taxed that hard, combined with out much higher personal tax rates, and inability to write-off our interest on mortgages leaves us with less disposible income. However, our housing market (outside of Toronto and Vancouver) is not as inflated as most markets in the US. 

One nice thing for the LGS' here if they buy from the US our dollar is nearly par with teh USD, so that has to help the bottom line, compared to even a year ago.


----------



## renau1g (May 17, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> Yeah, the only way to top JJ, would be if the LGS had Candi, the hot Pathfinder-playing gamer chick clerk.




oh...Candi, yeah I've seen her before too 

Link removed by Admin. We don't need that. ~ PCat


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 17, 2010)

Also, if it is between gaming and food....Who needs food?


----------



## DaveMage (May 17, 2010)

renau1g said:


> oh...Candi, yeah I've seen her before too
> 
> [color=red]Link removed by admin.[/color][/quote]
> 
> Aaugh!  My eyes!!!


----------



## Steel_Wind (May 17, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> They seem to at Hairy Tarantula in Toronto, where I do most of my shopping these days.




They are cheaper at 401 Games though 

Seriously though: Toronto suffers from an embarassment of riches when it comes to well-stocked FLGSs in comparison to most cities in the US.


----------



## Treebore (May 17, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> Aaugh!  My eyes!!!





No kidding! I am suing for damages!


----------



## renau1g (May 17, 2010)

DaveMage said:


> Aaugh!  My eyes!!!




And that's why I only posted the link


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 17, 2010)

Steel_Wind said:


> They are cheaper at 401 Games though




I like 401 Games, too.  But they don't cover the niche products as well.


RC


----------



## Twowolves (May 17, 2010)

renau1g said:


> My 2 year old twin boys are currently reading the Kingmaker AP. They now successfully can identify trolls, dragons (through the ad in the back of the adventure), spider, elf, owlbear (they always say "who-rawr!" as they know what an owl says and the bear individually...), and giants.




My 2 1/2 year old son can identify the chromatic dragons AND what each dragon's breath weapon is! 

Unfortunately, to him, half the beastiary is still "a ghost"...


----------



## Mistwell (May 17, 2010)

Azgulor said:


> True.  However, unless Paizo's leadership has been taking stupid pills, it seem highly unlikely that they'd continue to produce (and in such volume) products that don't sell.




Well, he DID say that Paizo compares to TSR 

In all seriousness though, Dungeon Magazine proved long ago that adventures do sell.  I think it's just a difference in format and variety of offerings within that format (magazine vs. module vs. book).


----------



## mkill (May 18, 2010)

Congrats to Paizo. However, I'm really torn on this issue. 

On one hand, I prefer the 4th edition rules. On the other hand, I really like quality modules, but everything I've ever seen from WotC in that regard is crap. I don't need a simple string of combat encounters with a bit of read-aloud text. Call me spoiled, but I learned the ropes on the German RPG Das Schwarze Auge, which is known for its detailed setting and excellent, plot-driven modules.

I'm pretty sure Paizo and many other publishers would LOVE to bring converted modules for 4th edition to the market, but WotC pretty much banned them from doing that. WotC shot itself in the foot here. Hard. With a chainsaw. On fire.

To add to the insult, WotC fired pretty much everyone who wrote 4th edition by now, but I'm sure the person responsible for killing their ecosystem is still working there.

Crap like that just makes me angry, because the hobby doesn't deserve it.


----------



## Votan (May 18, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> I saw this coming in 3.0.  I picked up the 3.0 DMG and went, "What the #$!@!", when I saw PrC's.  A chill of trepidation went down my spine, and I said to myself, "I hope they realize just how bad of an idea this is."  I know what Monte was trying for, but the implementation absolutely sucked and with official no rules and guidelines to ensure balance things went to heck in a hurry.  Of course, my idea of a 'bad idea' was something bad for the game.  From WotC's perspective though, it was immediately clear that they recognized the market value of PrC's and they moved the PrC out of DM books and into player books.  Really, that was the beginning of the end of the system.  It wasn't long before I was hearing about various 'optimized' builds of multi-dipped synergized PrCs, usually either full-caster progression PrCs that ALSO got nifty powers on top of the already powerful Wizard build, or else full BAB progression PrCs that got the equivalent of a bonus feat every level rather than every other level.  And from there, as the stuff proliferated, it just got worse.  It was all I could do to hold back the tide.




I think that this also tends to be an issue for modules -- the CR that challenges a party varies (and the variance gets worse as level increases).  Some of this was inherent in the system: it made a big difference if a player had teleport at level 10 (some parties would have it, some would not).  Some parties had 40 books, some parties had core only.  It seemed increasingly hard to write a module in the absence of specific campaign details.  

This made module crafting much more difficult.  What I find surprising is that Paizo manages it so well (I liked Rise of the Runelords a lot).  

Now, for 4E what is more interesting is most of those issues are gone and the modules still seem somewhat flat.  They make great tactical battles, though, so if the non-combat stuff could be made interesting they'd be real winners.


----------

