Pathfinder as a commercial game has two pillars:

Char Op. Pathfinder is the D&D-like game that does it the best. People who love char op do not love 5E, because it doesn't give them as many tools to optimize their PCs. As long as there's a critical mass of players who love character builds, they'll stick with Pathfinder.

Adventure Paths. It's the thing Paizo is best at, and responsible for the shared experience of Pathfinder players. Their APs have great customer reputation.

I have no idea if PF2e does char op better or worse than PF1E. I'd be surprised if it doesn't do it better than 5E.

As for adventure paths, they're the reason why not making PF2E backwards compatible would be a problem. Maybe a big one. Again, a huge part of the appeal of Pathfinder is DMs can choose from 20 or so full campaigns, well supported by Paizo and other fans on forums. From what I gather, their more popular older APs continue to sell and get played. If PF2E is not backwards compatible, the game loses the draw of that back catalogue. There would be a lot of pressure on the first PF2E APs being hits out of the gate.

Quote from: sureshot;1077840Gamers especially rpg gamers are notoriously well known for hating change imo.

Thats fake news, Gamers like change just as much as the next arbitrary group.

PF 2.0 would do better if it stuck as closely to being a "rewrite, with minor changes to the 1.0 rules" as possible. They are upsetting the apple cart in key ways based on the playtest, although I think they recognize this given some of the feedback they have taken in to consideration.

PF is by design a game that preserved 3rd edition for those who liked it, and it would be better suited to riff off of the D20 3rd edition rules more closely, but I think Paizo believes they need to find a way to make their game and IP More distinct. The result will be 2.0, for better or worse. I am sincerely hoping the final product is worth playing because 5E has a corner on the "easy D&D" market right now and I would rather play something with more granularity. I think most PF fans feel this way, and the OP is missing the point here....maybe Paizo should produce a "back to the basics" edition, sure....but not as Pathfinder 2.0. The game's core conceit (complexity, strategy and system mastery using 3rd edition mechanics) is it's selling point. I'd rather be able to buy a 2.0 that is just a cleaned up version of the 1st edition Pathfinder and retro-compatible than a new edition that lacks compatibility entirely and moves the game too far away from the 3rd edition mechanics it started from.

Quote from: camazotz;1077914PF 2.0 would do better if it stuck as closely to being a "rewrite, with minor changes to the 1.0 rules" as possible. ... I think most PF fans feel this way, and the OP is missing the point here....maybe Paizo should produce a "back to the basics" edition, sure....but not as Pathfinder 2.0. The game's core conceit (complexity, strategy and system mastery using 3rd edition mechanics) is it's selling point. I'd rather be able to buy a 2.0 that is just a cleaned up version of the 1st edition Pathfinder and retro-compatible than a new edition that lacks compatibility entirely and moves the game too far away from the 3rd edition mechanics it started from.

After 9 pages of discussion - people made some very good points, and have convinced me that the above was probably more the right direction for PF2.

(See the last paragraph in my previous post.)

But still all 20/20 hindsight at this point. Pazio has made their bed, and all that remains is to see how many they can get to jump in it with them...

Quote from: camazotz;1077914PF is by design a game that preserved 3rd edition for those who liked it, and it would be better suited to riff off of the D20 3rd edition rules more closely, but I think Paizo believes they need to find a way to make their game and IP More distinct. The result will be 2.0, for better or worse. I am sincerely hoping the final product is worth playing because 5E has a corner on the "easy D&D" market right now and I would rather play something with more granularity. I think most PF fans feel this way, and the OP is missing the point here....maybe Paizo should produce a "back to the basics" edition, sure....but not as Pathfinder 2.0. The game's core conceit (complexity, strategy and system mastery using 3rd edition mechanics) is it's selling point. I'd rather be able to buy a 2.0 that is just a cleaned up version of the 1st edition Pathfinder and retro-compatible than a new edition that lacks compatibility entirely and moves the game too far away from the 3rd edition mechanics it started from.

Which would have worked if Wotc had never released 5E. At the very least they needed to fix the flaws of 3.5 with such an edition. Why would I buy the same edition with the same flaws a second time. I might as well stay with PF 1E. At the very least your above edition would need to tone down the power level of casters and offer Fighters more than I take a five foot step and I swing and hit which they suffer from in the current edition. While also fixing the issues of high level game play where the game play can slow down because of all the math involved. One also needs to give people a reason(s) to purchase another edition of an rpg beyond the same recycled rehashed material with new cover art. Again what incentive is their for me to purchase an edition that is unchanged from the previous nothing at all really.

It's a catch 22 imo. Re-release the same recycled rehashed ruleset with little to no changes and the fans complain it's too much the same. Release a completely new edition and alienate fans who think it's too different. 5E is a good example of the mix of this PF 2E I'm not sure it's trying to please everyone. at least Wotc with 5e knew they could not please everyone and rightfully did not try to do so.

Quote from: Jaeger;1077880If the "new" edition is more of less what the fans want, all the talk of backwards compatibility is nothing more than a psychological placebo.






And that is what they failed to do the first go around. by their own admission with PF1:

 "We certainly didn't fix everything we could have in 3.5--some issues are endemic to the math underlying the core system"
https://paizo.com/community/blog/tags/paizo/auntieLisasStoryHour

On reflection, they should have taken a chance and fixed all the underlying issues of 3.x  streamlined the system and gone for a crunch level closer to 5e's. (Just a bit more "Advanced"...)

But, hindsight is 20-20, and it's real easy to tell other people what to do with their resources...

About 3 years from PF2 release well see the effects and know for sure which way Pazio is headed.

A big problem with PF2e is that it is still a rules/crunch heavy game.

It has nebulous "streamlined" rules-heavy crunch and way less content compared to PF1. It's very much like the 3.5 vs 4e comparison all over again. Or even GURPS 3e vs 4e. Paizo might be the first but "new edition not backwards compatible" has been pretty bad for more rules-heavy RPG companies coming from a success (A lot of people used AD&D 1e and 2e content together. I used some 3e content with 3.5. WotC made 3e after TSR collapse. 4e failed, and 5e was after that).

Quote from: Shasarak;1077910Thats fake news, Gamers like change just as much as the next arbitrary group.

I disagree. I love the NBA, and sports fans get over massive change very quickly as soon as the team starts winning. Nobody says, "I am not watching anymore" or "I am just going to re-watch old games prior to this change" with sports.

Even board gamers I have not seen be as adamant about change. If a new version of their game comes out they either like it or don't, but don't take to the net in hordes to bitch for years about it. RPG fans however will bitch up a storm for years far more often than board gamers.

Quote from: camazotz;1077914PF 2.0 would do better if it stuck as closely to being a "rewrite, with minor changes to the 1.0 rules" as possible. ...
...I'd rather be able to buy a 2.0 that is just a cleaned up version of the 1st edition Pathfinder and retro-compatible than a new edition that lacks compatibility entirely and moves the game too far away from the 3rd edition mechanics it started from.

Quote from: sureshot;1077925Which would have worked if Wotc had never released 5E. At the very least they needed to fix the flaws of 3.5 with such an edition. Why would I buy the same edition with the same flaws a second time...

Exactly.

Which is why at the very least a actual cleaned up 3.x should have been done.

It's not like people do not know where and what the flaws are at this point.

And it would still be more crunchy than 5e, and be relatively backwards compatible.

And they could have gone through and flavored the feats and mechanics for their house setting.

Quote from: camazotz;1077914PF is by design a game that preserved 3rd edition for those who liked it, and it would be better suited to riff off of the D20 3rd edition rules more closely, ...The game's core conceit (complexity, strategy and system mastery using 3rd edition mechanics) is it's selling point.

If the last is true then Pazio would still be in a catch 22 with an actual cleaned up 3.x PF2 edition.

Because if they really cleaned up the underlying problems of 3.x, that system mastery will go away, because it is artificial:

Quote from: Monte Cookhttps://4thmaster.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/ivory-tower-game-design/
"When we designed 3rd Edition D&D, people around Wizards of the Coast joked about the "lessons" we could learn from Magic: The Gathering, …

But, in fact, we did take some cues from Magic…

Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.

…players are rewarded for achieving mastery of the rules and making good choices rather than poor ones."

In other words; they put in a bunch of crap rules/Feats into the game on purpose to create "system mastery".

A real cleanup of 3.x rules would get rid of that.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1078070A big problem with PF2e is that it is still a rules/crunch heavy game.

It has nebulous "streamlined" rules-heavy crunch and way less content compared to PF1. It's very much like the 3.5 vs 4e comparison all over again. Or even GURPS 3e vs 4e. Paizo might be the first but "new edition not backwards compatible" has been pretty bad for more rules-heavy RPG companies coming from a success (A lot of people used AD&D 1e and 2e content together. I used some 3e content with 3.5. WotC made 3e after TSR collapse. 4e failed, and 5e was after that).

Which is why PF2e will fail.

Quote from: Mistwell;1078077I disagree. I love the NBA, and sports fans get over massive change very quickly as soon as the team starts winning. Nobody says, "I am not watching anymore" or "I am just going to re-watch old games prior to this change" with sports.

Even board gamers I have not seen be as adamant about change. If a new version of their game comes out they either like it or don't, but don't take to the net in hordes to bitch for years about it. RPG fans however will bitch up a storm for years far more often than board gamers.

Gamers hate change...which is why Pathfinder was a success.

Gamers hate change...which is why 5e was a success.

Gamers hate change..which is why the OSR movement was a success.

Sure seems like gamers are just hating change all over the place.

Oh look a disingenuous attempt at discrediting an argument!  Lemme play!

Quote from: Shasarak;1078134Gamers hate change...which is why Pathfinder was a success.

Yes, because it claimed to be the spiritual successor to 3e, allowing you to still use your old material!  Meaning you don't have to change your game!

Quote from: Shasarak;1078134Gamers hate change...which is why 5e was a success.

Yes, because it uses everything previous to 4e, allowing you to use your old stuff interchangeably with EVERY, OLDER version of D&D.  Meaning you don't have to change your game!

Quote from: Shasarak;1078134Gamers hate change..which is why the OSR movement was a success.

Because it uses your nostalgia and memories of the game to promote their off brand older versions of D&D and a play-style supposedly popularized by the Old School.

Quote from: Shasarak;1078134Sure seems like gamers are just hating change all over the place.

Yes, they DON'T.  They fight it like no one else ever will.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1078141Oh look a disingenuous attempt at discrediting an argument!  Lemme play!

Its hardly an argument.  That would assume that there was some evidence put forward to support it.

QuoteYes, because it claimed to be the spiritual successor to 3e, allowing you to still use your old material!  Meaning you don't have to change your game!

Why would you change your game, which you hate to do, to play something that was a spiritual successor when you could just keep playing the same game?

It sure is a mystery.

QuoteYes, because it uses everything previous to 4e, allowing you to use your old stuff interchangeably with EVERY, OLDER version of D&D.  Meaning you don't have to change your game!

Except you know what what other edition you can use all of your old stuff interchangeably with?  The old edition which you still must be playing because you hate change so much.

QuoteBecause it uses your nostalgia and memories of the game to promote their off brand older versions of D&D and a play-style supposedly popularized by the Old School.

You know what other game uses your nostalgia and memories?  Yeah, you got it, the original game that you are still playing because you hate change so much.  Why would you change to a different edition to get the things that you already are getting right now?

QuoteYes, they DON'T.  They fight it like no one else ever will.

Except that they fight it exactly the same as everyone does.

I mean it sure is strange how you never see a Boardgamer complaining about different editions of Board games when they are on a Roleplaying forum, the only reason that explains it must be because Roleplaying Gamers dont like change.

The Paizo devs never struck me as being able to think outside the book let alone willing to do so imo. For me the last real good release was the Advanced Players guide. Their curent playtest llike the previous one is nothing more than an absolute sham. While conning the player base into thinking they have an actual say in the development  of the new edition.

Oh they listen to player feedback when it suits them . Ignore it when they should be listening to it. Gun rules are a good example. They made one ranged weapon better than the others. It's  so damn easy to target touch AC even if one limits the player choice to guns that do little damage. The played takes one with a good crit range and they can do decent amounts of damage. The stupid insistence on favoring fluff over crunch, I would say 60-75% of their archetypes I would never take and the pages they  are written on fit to be used as toilet paper. Before anyone say "one man's trash is another man treasure" . Trash is trash sure one might find the occasional good piece usually it's nothing but garbage.

As for rpg gamers liking change. They  don't and you won't  convince  me otherwise.

I just can't see people rushing out to replace 6 Bestiaries, plus the Monster Codex, NPC Codex, Advanced Players Guide, Ultimate Magic, Gamemastery Guide, etc......

Because a few rules changed.

The Core Rulebook, and the 1st Bestiary "might" sell pretty well.  Then I think PF2E will fizzle.

If it was a few rule changes it be one thing, but Pathfinder 2E is not even D&D 3.5+ which was Pathfinder 1E.  It is completely different.

Quote from: sureshot;1078151The Paizo devs never struck me as being able to think outside the book let alone willing to do so imo. For me the last real good release was the Advanced Players guide. Their curent playtest llike the previous one is nothing more than an absolute sham. While conning the player base into thinking they have an actual say in the development  of the new edition.

Oh they listen to player feedback when it suits them . Ignore it when they should be listening to it. Gun rules are a good example. They made one ranged weapon better than the others. It's  so damn easy to target touch AC even if one limits the player choice to guns that do little damage. The played takes one with a good crit range and they can do decent amounts of damage. The stupid insistence on favoring fluff over crunch, I would say 60-75% of their archetypes I would never take and the pages they  are written on fit to be used as toilet paper. Before anyone say "one man's trash is another man treasure" . Trash is trash sure one might find the occasional good piece usually it's nothing but garbage.

As for rpg gamers liking change. They  don't and you won't  convince  me otherwise.

Eh the Magus was Paizo's most important contribution to 3.X and came after the advance player's guide.

I called out Paizo's "Power Seep" problem at least half a decade ago. You can't keep trying to produce things "as good or worse" than current material with most material being useless trash after awhile, except for all those happy little accidents of something useful slipping through the cracks.