| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 07 Oct 2010 : 21:32:48
Pathfinder ties D&D for best-selling RPG Q3 2010
(Edit: And yes, this one is meant to create some confrontation discussion, but not a flame-war. Keep it civil. ON BOTH SIDES.) |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 13 Jul 2011 : 13:35:03
Heh... Stupid typos.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Jul 2011 : 20:54:34
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
So... According to Lisa Stevens, CEO of Paizo Publishing, the reports she's getting from distributors is that Pathfinder is not the top-selling RPG in the market. This does not take into account board-game tie-ins or such, just the books and digital copies of those books. Add to that the fact that the Core Rulebook has been sittin' pretty at the #1 Book in Gaming on Amazon for quite a while and I think we may just be seeing a new king.
Post #1
Clarification
I believe you mean "Pathfinder is now the top-selling RPG in the market"?
Some very good news for Paizo, and I so would love to see the private reaction of WotC execs to that tidbit!  |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 12 Jul 2011 : 20:02:53
So... According to Lisa Stevens, CEO of Paizo Publishing, the reports she's getting from distributors is that Pathfinder is not the top-selling RPG in the market. This does not take into account board-game tie-ins or such, just the books and digital copies of those books. Add to that the fact that the Core Rulebook has been sittin' pretty at the #1 Book in Gaming on Amazon for quite a while and I think we may just be seeing a new king.
Post #1
Clarification |
| Bluenose |
Posted - 14 Oct 2010 : 14:44:04
quote:
Originally posted by Knight of the Gate
What *I* saw was a backlash against- not a ruleset, not a change in direction, not a 'rebooting', but in a (again, IMO) systematic destruction of the most fully-realized game world ever. Is this 'Just My Opinion'? Yes.
It's also a very hard to prove one. Not the 'destruction' bit - that is, as you say, a matter of opinion. But my copy of the Traveller Bibliography makes your 'fully-realized game world' claim look extremely flimsy. And if you think the Spellplague is bad (or regard the reaction as extreme), I can top it with Virus.
And I can think of how the cycle went afterwards, and wonder whether/hao FR might happen the same way. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 14 Oct 2010 : 13:28:07
quote:
Originally posted by Kno
the state of the pen and paper game industry is great, both types of players are getting what they want, competition benefits all
Quoted for emphasis :) As a side note, I am enjoying the DARPG as well. I could see running a Realms campaign using that system. |
| Kno |
Posted - 14 Oct 2010 : 13:22:23
the state of the pen and paper game industry is great, both types of players are getting what they want, competition benefits all |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 14 Oct 2010 : 03:09:04
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan... I did run a campaign using Modern d20 and the package someone downloaded for me ...
That's a big part of the equation, I think. People will immediately start updating their torrent collections with each and every new Wizbro product that becomes available. The little d20 guys don't suffer as much of a loss because their stuff just doesn't have the same repute or value as the "official/canon" products.
To be honest, I think most of WotC's D&D sales (in physical products) probably comes from the initial frenzy immediately after the first core sourcebooks are released for the newest edition du jour. Afterwards it's just gift bundles, boxsets, and limited rare collector's editions - all of which include a trail mix of other Wizbro accessories (maps, figs, props, etc) that wouldn't otherwise sell in quantity. I'd have to pay ~$30-$50+ for each hardback PHB in the 4e set (yeah, local game stores are a ripoff), or maybe ~$15 each in eBook/pdf formats. Or I could let WotC shoot itself in the foot while paying for a single low-cost DDI subscription (and printing out the database like a madman!).
Competition is good. And newer is not always better. Can't say I like 4e at all (at least insofar as the Realms setting goes), though I hear it's quite popular. Low-cost 3e/d20 materials work well enough ... lol, lower-cost 2e materials even better. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 13 Oct 2010 : 19:29:06
@ Markustay: Thanks for the compliment and response. Of course, your right and I don't think WotC really thought how big this edition change would affect the game so much. I'm under the impression that they felt it would go much more along the lines of the 2e to 3e shift. And I think back then, there wasn't an over-arching system like 2e. With 3e/3.5/PF, the OGL is everything and even I admit that it's soooo versatile that it's second to none for creating ANY kind of campaign you could possibly dream of (from medieval, to high-magic, to low-magic, to tech and future stuff, to a combination of all of that plus more). It's a big reason why I still utilize my 3.5 books still and enjoy playing with that system.
Though I also feel 4E has it's certain charm too. The fact that one class doesn't out-shine another yet can remain different in the way people can play it is a boon IMO. I like how 4E divorced the rules of the game from Roleplyaing in terms of restrictions and limits placed on characters for no other reason than to drive a theme or "feel". I like how the powers structure (at-will/encounter/daily) system works. It prolongs game-time and there's less of a need for rest and recovery. I like that ANY class can heal itself (albiet 1 per encounter) which gives the clerics and other Leader classes options to do their own thing and NOT be a heal-bot 90% of the time.
Now to be fair, I think even if WotC had never changed the edition and Pathfinder came around with their system, WotC would've seen drop in sales regardless. Like it was said before, gamers love their new "shiney". A new rule-system that practically converts itself to WotC system, new class features, a re-vamping of the old classes, better skill system....yea they would've taken a hit anyways. But I think at least with 4E, I can switch between the two for a change of pace. Sometimes being over-whelmed with options, feats, and powers can just get annoying and a simple +5 HP, +1 to BAB, a bonus feat is all I really need to stay interested (at least until I get bored again and change it up).
But many people don't have that mindset. They feel that the edition they've always played is the best, bar-none, and playing anything else is a waste of their time (I'm guilty of this too as I can't play 2E. It's just too horrible IMO to have any fun in).
And like you said, it's Apples and Oranges. I just hope we can have fun at the same fruit-stand and enjoy what brings us all together.....Orange Julius....er I mean the Forgotten Realms. |
| Ionik Knight |
Posted - 13 Oct 2010 : 17:41:19
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
We've got yet another edition war brewing right here... Perhaps we could get back to the original topic? I'd hate to have to close another thread because we started having the same arguments for the 15,486,168th time.
Third Edition, Fourth Edition..bah a Realmsian craves not these things. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 13 Oct 2010 : 15:52:49
Diffan, unlike many other folks since the release of 4e and Pathfinder you remain level-headed and non-judgmental, so I will respond to you - otherwise I agree with Misc and do not want to participate further in this scroll.
I never said that 4e was one great, big mistake. I said mistakes were made - that much is clear. I'm sorry if anything I said was misleading in that regard. If anything, I would agree that something needed to be done to revitalize an atrophying product line. That is what they did right - 3e's power-creep (through splats) was getting absurd, and the rules unwieldy.
To be fair, mistakes were made in all editions, but unfortunately D&D has more competition now then it ever had in the past (going by sales, NOT number of companies), so what used to be 'minor quibbles' that fans managed to overlook, now become walls which detractors can hide behind. Walls built by the fanbase, which would have never existed (in such magnitude) had their not been 'other camps' to flee to. True, there have always been other RPGs out there, but nearly all of them required players and DMs to learn a new system (as 4e did - BIG mistake). Pathfinder is so successful simply because it already had a player-base through OGL.
I can make these types of informed statements simply because I HAVE been running RPGs for over 30 years, and can say with 100% certainty that 'back in the old days' it was like pulling teeth trying to get players interested in - and INVESTED in - another system. I LOVED Runequest - try to find players. 
D&D had become "the comfortable old shoes". Didn't matter if they were ratty looking and had seen better days - they fit perfectly and were comfortable. OGL changed that, and 4e exacerbated an already-volatile situation (volatile because others were now allowed to publish products using rules EVERYONE was familiar with). D&D is no longer the 'comfortable shoe' - OGL is.
Doesn't matter that it is Pathfinder, or Monty Cook's version, or any other company's - Paizo was just clever-enough to see an opportunity. The rest just jumped on the bandwagon. If it wasn't them it would have been someone else (and I a glad it was them, because those guys have enough business-savy for a hundred companies).
I've used this analogy before, but it works so I will do so again:
Back in the day there was a (computer) Video card company called 3Dfx, and it was king of the hill. It controlled something like 80-90% of the market-share, and they were considered untouchable. Even their two top competitors - Nvidia and ATI - begrudgingly agreed that their products were phenomenal. Their cards produced frame-rates that other companies could only envy.
Problem is, they were so focused on what got them there - their frame rates - that they became obsessed with them, to the point of expecting computer-users to buy their next-gen cards, even though the frame-rate increase they granted was not discernible by the human eye! Basically, the tech had out-distanced human perception.
Their competitors went another route, and decided that picture-quality was the way to go, and even though they were both 'dark horses', they managed to stick around just along enough to finally achieve victory. 3Dfx forgot one minor detail about their fanbase - they were inteligent consumers, and you can't sell smart people something they don't really need (unlike the majority of consumers out there).
One mistake - one tiny mistake (backing the wrong tech) - and the company that ruled the roost went bankrupt in two years. The folks there went from having $30,000 lunches (thats documented) to being unemployed in just two years.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. There was nothing wrong with their boards. In fact, the tech was still way ahead of the competition. The problem they had, and the mistake they made, was to try to sell smart people something they did not need.
And the competition pounced like hungry lions.
Business as usual, nothing more. But it sounds familiar, doesn't it?
I won't get into the mistakes that were made. There were a couple of major ones and dozens of minor ones (IMHO), but finger-pointing doesn't get us anywhere. Bottom line is, when your market-share goes from 90% to 50% in three years, there is a problem, weather anyone wants to own up to it or not.
And BTW, I visited the Paizo site yesterday for the first time in over a year. I figure if Matt James wants to point fingers, I will go in the direction he's pointing. Just because someone is a fan of another company's rules doesn't mean they are a 'traitor' to the Realms. WotC must learn to separate the rules from the setting (as so many costumers have) when they make these kinds of blanket-statements. We haven't abandoned the Forgotten Realms, which is what this site is all about. It isn't about what rules you use - that area is covered by WotC's own site.
This is THE Forgotten Realms site, not a 4th edition site (or even a Pathfinder site) - get over it. There are current threads here about using other systems beside OGL/D&D/PF, and no one is pointing fingers there. We are fans of the setting Ed created, not whatever company happens to be making rules for it.
Apples and oranges. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 13 Oct 2010 : 12:46:55
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Interesting. I do believe that number actually exceeds the amount of tasks still to be completed on my "To-Do" list. 
Bah! New fields of mathematics have been created to calculate the number of items on your To-Do list! One noted scientist was overheard to mutter "and I thought string theory was easy to understand..." |
| The Sage |
Posted - 13 Oct 2010 : 12:19:18
Interesting. I do believe that number actually exceeds the amount of tasks still to be completed on my "To-Do" list. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 13 Oct 2010 : 11:39:29
We've got yet another edition war brewing right here... Perhaps we could get back to the original topic? I'd hate to have to close another thread because we started having the same arguments for the 15,486,168th time. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 13 Oct 2010 : 08:42:52
There is no end to this is there? The same bloody posters repeating the same bloody arguments again and again whenever they get annoyed for some reason. And for the record, I don't include Diffan in that one. I am starting to feel like I deserve to go on an anti 3ed. rant concerning their version of the Realms, it as D&D, their propaganda campaign with that edition and people having posts that they don't like that edition. With that I should be able to annoy more or less everybody here be it the receipt arguers, canon-freaks "been here since year one" people etc.Why should I not be the allowed to join the fun? After all I am a part of the "attitude" and a "typical Candlekeep poster" too.
The setting has been changed, deal with it. Candlekeep was always a 3ed. site mostly, so people will lean that way. Live with it.
And that was my rant for the day. I have no problem with it being edited by moderators if they feel like it, but at least let it stand as a empty post that showed that I made a comment. |
| Knight of the Gate |
Posted - 13 Oct 2010 : 06:22:45
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
I don't recall the designers ever blaming the fanbase.
However, I do recall the fanbase turning on itself. Specifically, quite a few of the more vocal anti-4E elitist on this forum pointing the finger squarely at the rest of the supposedly uninformed fanbase for all the perceived faults built into the post-Spellplague Realms.
EDIT: I’m done with this scroll.
Note I like that Ashe started it. I enjoyed learning about the different methods Paizo is using to collect purchasing data and was surprised to see them doing so well.
Ashe champions Paizo, obviously, but that's his prerogative.
I’m just disappointed that the scroll didn’t morph into a thoughtful comparison of business strategies, along the lines of what *both* Piazo and Wotc are doing right and wrong with their products. I don't know Paizo all that well, so even more talk about their interesting products would have been great IMO.
What we got was a judgementalist type of scroll where anything WotC didn’t do in their business strategy gets magically morphed into a great big mistake they somehow made, which further opens the gates for finger pointing and game designer bashing.
If I want Glen Beck-style logic, I can watch Fox News. That’s not the sort of thing I want to experience at Candlekeep.
As soon as rant-posts like that hit this scroll, everyone automatically took up sides (myself included) to the detriment of the conversation.
I'm not going to be a part of that.
Did the fanbase turn on itself? Yes it did. Did the 'tone' turn anti 4E on this forum? A bit. Is this evidence of propaganda? I think not.
What *I* saw was a backlash against- not a ruleset, not a change in direction, not a 'rebooting', but in a (again, IMO) systematic destruction of the most fully-realized game world ever. Is this 'Just My Opinion'? Yes.
Having said all of that... The pre-SP Realms is not, not, not, not, not, NOT the post-SP Realms. The two have NOTHING TO DO with one another. To carry on with an analogy which I've made before, if, in the middle of the Harry Potter Novels, J.K. Rowling elected to jump 100 years ahead and;have Harry die offstage, rewrite the rules of magic, raze Hogwarts, have Hermione killed off when Ron couldn't bear seeing her marry someone else (again offstage), and THEN tell us that NOTHING HAD CHANGED, and that IT'S STILL THE SAME WIZARDING WORLD!!!!... well, there would be less movies made on the series, and there would be LOADS of readers talking about what a gyp the whole thing was, and what a hack Rowling is for not being able to finish a story.
I support your right to enjoy the new setting. Don't insult my intelligence by insisting that it's the same setting that I have loved and supported for years.
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 13 Oct 2010 : 03:55:17
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
If it was, it wouldn't have gone to 3+ Player's Handbooks. It woudl've have had the Living FR community it does, and it wouldn't have lasted as long as it has. Essentials makes an attempt to bring back people into the fold, Maybe because they (WotC) saw Pathfinder doing well, who knows? But I fail to see how Essentials invalidates the integrity of original 4E.
I don't know if pre-Essential 4E was a mistake or not, but a production schedule like WotC's isn't something that's easily slowed down. When they began production of 4E, they were promising a PHB/DMG/MM a year. Now, we know they were working on 4E for about 3 years before it was released. If their production timetable is two years to get a book from concept to release, then that means they already started working on the PHB3 before the first PHB hit the market.
I'm not saying that they consider it a mistake or that the rules needed fixing. Just that if they want to make a change, your not going to see that change for another two years or more. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 13 Oct 2010 : 01:42:11
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Let's keep things clean folks. This has been a fairly balanced discussion so far. I'd like to see it remain that way.
Right! No biting, eye gouging, or punches below the belt.
Ready.........LLLLLLLLLLLLLets get ready to Rumble!!!!!!
Sorry, just reminded me of that referee in a boxing ring, lol. And trying to cut through some of the seriousness.
@ Markustay: I agree with alot you said, namely the reasons for WotC switching directions. And the way some of the people protrayed 3e/3.5 wasn't necessarily correct or right. I still find alot of fun with both so they can't be totally right with it being a horrible system.
But if you still stand by Essentials making up for mistakes, then I still can't agree with you because that would mean that pre-essentials WAS a mistake and I just don't buy that. If it was, it wouldn't have gone to 3+ Player's Handbooks. It woudl've have had the Living FR community it does, and it wouldn't have lasted as long as it has. Essentials makes an attempt to bring back people into the fold, Maybe because they (WotC) saw Pathfinder doing well, who knows? But I fail to see how Essentials invalidates the integrity of original 4E.
And I can tell you why so many loyal Realms fans went with Pathfinder.......because it wasn't 4E. And to many, 4E is the figurehead of all that is bad with the current Realms. So WotC would have to say "Hey now, uh.... yea that whole Spellplauge thing didn't happen. Elminster is just as powerful as ever. Elistraee, Mystra, Tyr, and Helm are all doing fine and having sweet-tea down at the local tavern. Eladrin have no business being in FR and are thus no longer in the established lore. Dragon-whatsit? Never heard of Dragonborn....Dragon-kin on the other hand, sure!! And the current year is 1375 DR. BTW, pay no attention to the new rules or 4E in genearl. Go about your day now good citizens..." Probably not gonna happen. Just sayin'.
@ Mr_Miscellany: Yep, as an avid 4E, Pro-current Realms fan I've felt that finger in my face many many times. "Why are you playing in the Realms if you don't like the Chosen?! Why are you playing in the Realms if you don't like very single blade of grass mentioned and detailed? What are you even doing in the Realms if you don't like how many epic-NPCs there are in the established canon??! Your better off doing your own thing and leaving me to mine". THAT is what has been going on since 2008. But I've come along way and I just speak my mind, point out the flaws I feel held the Realms back and go on my merry way. I'm sorry you don't want to debate this topic my friend and I think that it's a shame because you have great insight to the setting and game alike. God speed to you, and happy gaming! |
| The Sage |
Posted - 13 Oct 2010 : 01:00:03
Let's keep things clean folks. This has been a fairly balanced discussion so far. I'd like to see it remain that way. |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 12 Oct 2010 : 22:04:18
I don't recall the designers ever blaming the fanbase.
However, I do recall the fanbase turning on itself. Specifically, quite a few of the more vocal anti-4E elitist on this forum pointing the finger squarely at the rest of the supposedly uninformed fanbase for all the perceived faults built into the post-Spellplague Realms.
EDIT: I’m done with this scroll.
Note I like that Ashe started it. I enjoyed learning about the different methods Paizo is using to collect purchasing data and was surprised to see them doing so well.
Ashe champions Paizo, obviously, but that's his prerogative.
I’m just disappointed that the scroll didn’t morph into a thoughtful comparison of business strategies, along the lines of what *both* Piazo and Wotc are doing right and wrong with their products. I don't know Paizo all that well, so even more talk about their interesting products would have been great IMO.
What we got was a judgementalist type of scroll where anything WotC didn’t do in their business strategy gets magically morphed into a great big mistake they somehow made, which further opens the gates for finger pointing and game designer bashing.
If I want Glen Beck-style logic, I can watch Fox News. That’s not the sort of thing I want to experience at Candlekeep.
As soon as rant-posts like that hit this scroll, everyone automatically took up sides (myself included) to the detriment of the conversation.
I'm not going to be a part of that. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 12 Oct 2010 : 21:33:19
Who blamed the fanbase for any perceived failures? |
| Markustay |
Posted - 12 Oct 2010 : 19:21:56
So, when a company decides to move in a new direction, it is because the path they are currently following is highly lucrative and successful, and they wish to end that for some bizarre reason?
Any arguments to the contrary are ludicrous.
No company, be it billion-dollar corporation or 'Mom & Pop' store would purposefully change a business model that is wildly successful. 'They' would have to be either insane or/or self-destructive to do so.
Apply this to 3e - the money coming in was slowing down, and a change was needed to recapture the kinds of sales-figures that 3e garnered during their first 2-3 years of its life. Looking at it from a purely financial perspective, a line of products is MOST lucrative during its initial release period.
Hence, 4e.
It wasn't created because 3e was 'terrible', that was just the hype (and lousy hype, I might add - fire your marketing team!) It was created to make money (as ALL games are, even the much-vaunted Pathfinder). Any argument to the contrary is, once again, ludicrous - companies want to make money; that's why they are in business.
Its not evil, or 'slimy', or any or appellation we care to put to it. Its business-as-usual and that's what modern society has wrought. Get over it. Hasbro hasn't done anything to us that any other corporation in charge would have done in their place. Its just business.
Now, taking ALL OF THAT into account, it appears that the product life-cycle is MUCH shorter this time out then it was in previous editions. That doesn't necessarily mean anything was wrong with 4e - quite the contrary. EACH iteration of the D&D game has had a shorter shelf-life then the previous. Ergo, I think it has much more to do with the attention-span of the modern consumer then it does with anything pertaining to 'quality'.
However, I stand by everything I have said. I have not-only run two successful companies of my own (one I owned, the other I managed), but I have been on the 'inside' of major corporate dealings. I worked for Home Depot and went to many meetings wherein the 'maximum saturation point' was reached, and the company had to 'diversify' to stay profitable. Would you be shocked to know that many chains start their own competition, knowing that someone WILL take their place, so it might as well be themselves?
4e had to be created because of something from WotC didn't, then something else would. The same goes for Essentials. Thats how it works. A void is created by consumer apathy, and something need be created to fill it.
Quality only comes into the picture by looking back in hindsight and examining the life-cycle of the product. Good ones can stay 'on-top' for years. D&D, in the RPG industry, did so for many, many years. Not too long ago, one could easily say that the summation of all of D&D's competitors combined did not equal TSR/WotC's share of the pie.
Can the same still be said? WotC did create its own competition; we call it OGL. Unfortunately, that is an epic-level monster they haven't figured-out how to kill. A product is like weapon of war - it is only useful to the side that created it so long as they retain control over it.
Otherwise it goes 'BOOM!" in your face.
Consumers will go where they are wont to go, and only by finding that 'sweet spot' will you acquire them, and only by keeping them interested will you hold onto them. Essentials is just the latest WotC way to keep folks interested. They've apparently lost the 'sweet spot'.
And why make accusations? 
I'm still here - I haven't gone over to Paizo. Maybe instead of casting stones, you should be wondering what they are doing so differently that that are able to steal away so many of the Realms' loyal fans.
Don't blame the fanbase for your own failures.  |
| Shemmy |
Posted - 12 Oct 2010 : 19:20:10
quote:
Originally posted by Bluenose
I wonder if anyone has looked at the figures from Nielsen Bookscan? While that only covers book stores, it does give actual sales figures, as opposed to 'number shipped to stores'. I rather suspect it wouldn't be too reliable in this case, mind you. Excluding hobby stores, online retailers, and direct sales by the publisher would miss a sizeable part of the market.
quote:
Lisa Stevens over on the Paizo boards
We actually have very good data about sales into the "big chains" like Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders, etc. through a company called Bookscan which records every single sale through those chains and aggregates them. Believe it or not, we know the sales of RPG products through book stores much more accurately than we do through hobby game stores. Weird, I know. :)
-Lisa
and with respect to the ICv2 material in general
quote:
Lisa Stevens
t may not be scientific, but it jives well with some much more scientific data that we have internally. We will never be able to have 100% transparency about how sales of somebody else's products are going, but we can get some pretty good data that customers don't have access to. And that data tells us that icV2 is pretty much right on. Which is pretty cool, IMHO! :)
-Lisa
|
| Bluenose |
Posted - 12 Oct 2010 : 19:11:51
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
ICv2 uses interview techniques with local gaming stores and major book chains to determine what is selling, not only in the RPG industry but also comics, manga and other industries. They are NOT looking at Amazon.com, Paizo's Store OR DDI subscriptions.
I wonder if anyone has looked at the figures from Nielsen Bookscan? While that only covers book stores, it does give actual sales figures, as opposed to 'number shipped to stores'. I rather suspect it wouldn't be too reliable in this case, mind you. Excluding hobby stores, online retailers, and direct sales by the publisher would miss a sizeable part of the market. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 12 Oct 2010 : 18:50:59
No problem, Diffan. I agree with you, which is why Matt's tweet disappointed me. The tone of it implied that we're rejected stuff outright instead of encouraging people to play in the Realms they want to play in. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 12 Oct 2010 : 18:16:29
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Is the preferred rules system 3.0/Pathfinder? Yes.
I really dont think that's an honest appraisal of the majority of people here at CK. Yea, out of 100 votes, 57% prefer 3E/Pathfinder but what about the other 5,661 who didn't vote? But that really doesn't matter, what does matter is that people should be encouraged to enjoy D&D in all it's incarnations.
We as scribes of this site should be looking for ways to incorporate EVERYTHING for the use of Forgotten Realms. Take Airspur and the floating ships that once existed in Halruua. In 4E, they're the remains of that vast arcane-civilation. That doesn't mean the idea can't be used in another time of Faerun. Take Lantan, a island country steeped in mechanical wonders and inventions. There's no reason that someone can't incorporate that into a Post Spellplague Realms. Take the AP Kingmaker from Paizo. It could easily be used in any medieval setting of Faerun or Post-Spellplague Faerun.
I think we all need to start CREATING, INVENTING, CUSTOMIZING, and BUILDING more for Forgotten Realms and stop bickering, crying, yelling, complaining, and "told ya so-ing" which does nothing but damage this community. Lets all get off our High-horses and soap-boxes and actually make the Realms better.
end Rant.
PS- Sorry for derailing this thread buddy. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 12 Oct 2010 : 17:20:44
I guess the reason I was disappointed is that this site was, is and always will be about the Realmslore before any rules system. I've contributed over at Matt's Loremaster site when possible, but I am definitely more reserved over there since it's more about 4th Edition D&D than the Realms.
Is the preferred rules system 3.0/Pathfinder? Yes. But it's not the ONLY system and by far there are FAR fewer discussions on how to rule/stat something out here. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 12 Oct 2010 : 17:09:05
I agree with Diffan on this. I do get a "Told you so!!" type of vibe from posts/topics like this one (not saying that it is the intent of the poster mind you, just that it is the first thing that I feel coming from it). I play 4E and have nothing against Pathfinder or people who choose to play whatever system. Just seems like there is still al ot of anti-4E indirect bashing... |
| Diffan |
Posted - 12 Oct 2010 : 16:51:32
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
And, I'm a little disappointed in your tweet that Candlekeep is now an unofficial Pathfinder site.
I think it's in regards to threads like these that sorta give praise to Paizo and Pathfinder. I know it may not be intended, but it comes off like "see, haha we told you 4E wouldn't sell and Paizo is doing better!! Told you so!!" espically with the general, over-all concensus of Candlekeep being very anti-WotC at the present moment.
No need to point out why, but when a site dedicated to the Forgotten Realms constantly shows examples of their competitor doing well and being happy about it...well I can understand why a designer FOR the Forgotten Realms might be a bit miffed and say that this site is "unoffically" a site of Pathfinder material.
The thing I find frustrating is when people say that won't or can't incorporate any ideas from FR4e into the current campaign (due to the Spellplague or the time shift or Returned Abier) yet have no qualms about adding stuff from Paizo w/o a second thought.
And I say these things as an observation and belief, not fact. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 12 Oct 2010 : 14:14:10
ICv2 uses interview techniques with local gaming stores and major book chains to determine what is selling, not only in the RPG industry but also comics, manga and other industries. They are NOT looking at Amazon.com, Paizo's Store OR DDI subscriptions.
And, I'm a little disappointed in your tweet that Candlekeep is now an unofficial Pathfinder site. |
| Matt James |
Posted - 12 Oct 2010 : 13:43:13
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
The interview with Mike Mearls clearly demonstrates THIS FACT.
I'm sorry, I think this quote more than anything summarizes the overall mentality of Candlekeep in regards to 4e. .
I see no "facts" presented-- only argument fallacies rounded out to fit a single point of view. There are so many factors required to come up with a complete an honest picture that we'll never really know while numbers are guarded. I can data mine any number of metrics in order to paint things in any light I wish. Where I live, in the land of professional politicians (Washington DC), this is almost a requirement
Can someone point me to their polling set-up or is it only reported sales from FLGS? What about Amazon.com or eBay? DDI? I would like to know how the picture was developed (as it were). |
|
|
