Quote from: sureshot;1079217If they changed nothing then they would lose fans as many do not want to mainly buy more rehash especially if nothing gets fixed. Change too much and the same happens. As well I think people needs to stop comparing PF 2E with 4E imo.

It's not the same situation back when Wotc released 4E and many fans were turned off by it. Imo PF 2E is being released to compete with 5E. Time to leave the shadow of 4E behind when it comes to talking about  PF 2E. If they simply did a rehash with little to no changes and no flaws fixed I can see the average gamer who left PF to switch over to 5e go:

"Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard check. High level play still being plagued by the rocket tag effect and slow game play at the table check. Different bonuses still not stacking with each other and slowing gameplay check" ( puts down the core PF 2E book back on the shelf and walks away). That is even if they would have got past the the first flaw because many do not want to Fighters simply to meat shield for the casters. Paizo even has competition from a 3pp competitor which may or may go somewhere though not very far if they insist on naming their core book after underwater seaweed. It just the way some talk here and elsewhere that 5E does not exist let alone a success and that fams seem to hate like they did with 4E and that is not the case.

5E existing only makes PF2e more of issue.

In a vacuum, getting 3.5 fans to switch editions didn't work out well and many just kept playing 3.5 until Pathfinder came out. Even then many kept playing 3.5.

PF2e has to compete with both PF1e and D&D 5e and an RPG market flushed with high quality Kickstarter funded projects.

I'll always think Paizo would have been better off doing a backwards compatible revamp of Pathfinder (you're not making people buy new books if they can still use old books). Only time will tell if someone else comes out with yet another 3.5 revamp and cannibalizes a large portion of RPG tables.

Quote from: Rhedyn;10792275E existing only makes PF2e more of issue.

In a vacuum, getting 3.5 fans to switch editions didn't work out well and many just kept playing 3.5 until Pathfinder came out. Even then many kept playing 3.5.

PF2e has to compete with both PF1e and D&D 5e and an RPG market flushed with high quality Kickstarter funded projects.

I'll always think Paizo would have been better off doing a backwards compatible revamp of Pathfinder (you're not making people buy new books if they can still use old books). Only time will tell if someone else comes out with yet another 3.5 revamp and cannibalizes a large portion of RPG tables.

Honestly even with Pathfinder 1E they did not switch over.In my neck of the woods the die hard 3.5 fans refused to accept that 3.5 was discontinued, refused to want switch over to PF 1E. Some even were banned from some stores because how many times can you repeat over and over that 3.5 is dead and only Pathfinder is the only replacement. Many who have 3.5. products who play Pathfinder either sold off or no longer use their 3.5. material. Many gamers are lazy and why convert when you can learn PF 1E which is easy enough as most of it is at least 90% rehash and left the Paizo devs do all the hard work.

The only competition they have that I know of so far is  Porphyra from Purple Duck Games. Which really needs a name change as "Underwater Seaweed" the Pathfinder rpg clone really sounds terrible. Many are either cutting back PF 1E, waiting for 2E or focusing more on 5E with some minimal Pf 1E support.

Making Pathfinder more accessible =/= making it more like 5E. The player-base of every RPG attrits away relentlessly, and a game's long-term success lives or dies on how appealing it is to new gamers. Pathfinder has clearly come to the conclusion, like WotC before them, that the market for highly crunchy tabletop RPGs is small and getting smaller.

So Paizo want to make the game more accessible while maintaining its distinction from 5E. Let's say D&D 5E is a 6/10 in complexity, and Pathfinder 1E is a 9/10, then it seems Paizo is aiming for an 8 with Pathfinder 2E. And they're trying to do it without removing the PC customization and tactical depth that are Pathfinder's core appeal.  

From my reading of the playtest rules, they seem to have done a good job. PC customization is still far more robust than 5E. They system isn't nearly as baroque as 1E. Pretty much every change they made looks like an improvement to me.

Will Pathfinder 2E be as popular as D&D 5E? Of course not. Will it be as popular as Pathfinder 1E was seven years ago? Maybe not, though I do think D&D has grown the market so dramatically in recent years that even just gaining a slice of that player-base that wants more PC options and tactical combat would be a nice gain for Paizo. But maintaining the status quo wasn't viable for Paizo either. They're taking a shot at reviving their player-base with a new, more accessible system, and I say all the power to them.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1079227I'll always think Paizo would have been better off doing a backwards compatible revamp of Pathfinder (you're not making people buy new books if they can still use old books). Only time will tell if someone else comes out with yet another 3.5 revamp and cannibalizes a large portion of RPG tables.

I really doubt the 3.5 player-base is substantial anymore. I'd bet half of Pathfinder players at this point never even played 3.5. And gamers who are still playing 3.5 probably buy few if any RPG books. Why would any business target customers who don't buy anything?

Quote from: Haffrung;1079234Making Pathfinder more accessible =/= making it more like 5E. The player-base of every RPG attrits away relentlessly, and a game's long-term success lives or dies on how appealing it is to new gamers. Pathfinder has clearly come to the conclusion, like WotC before them, that the market for highly crunchy tabletop RPGs is small and getting smaller.

So Paizo want to make the game more accessible while maintaining its distinction from 5E. Let's say D&D 5E is a 6/10 in complexity, and Pathfinder 1E is a 9/10, then it seems Paizo is aiming for an 8 with Pathfinder 2E. And they're trying to do it without removing the PC customization and tactical depth that are Pathfinder's core appeal.  

From my reading of the playtest rules, they seem to have done a good job. PC customization is still far more robust than 5E. They system isn't nearly as baroque as 1E. Pretty much every change they made looks like an improvement to me.

Will Pathfinder 2E be as popular as D&D 5E? Of course not. Will it be as popular as Pathfinder 1E was seven years ago? Maybe not, though I do think D&D has grown the market so dramatically in recent years that even just gaining a slice of that player-base that wants more PC options and tactical combat would be a nice gain for Paizo. But maintaining the status quo wasn't viable for Paizo either. They're taking a shot at reviving their player-base with a new, more accessible system, and I say all the power to them.



I really doubt the 3.5 player-base is substantial anymore. I'd bet half of Pathfinder players at this point never even played 3.5. And gamers who are still playing 3.5 probably buy few if any RPG books. Why would any business target customers who don't buy anything?

To me, it looks more like 4e than it does PF1 or 3e. That's not me knocking it - I liked 4e just fine. But that's my impression of it - that it's most similar to 4e.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1072254Having read the preview I can say this.  Feats are not going to save you Pazio!  Seriously you have hundreds of fucking feats!  Players are going to be overwhelmed and only power gamers will enjoy it.

I kind of like the feats. It's weird. Pathfinder 2.0 looks like a game I would like to play with a group of dedicated autists. I wouldn't even try to play it with people that weren't somewhere on the autism spectrum. I mean that in the best possible way. That said, I really don't like the politics they're pushing to appease the "woke" crowd. I don't need my games to preach at me. I was annoyed when the 5e PHB did it. It was like finding a fly in my soup. The soup still tastes okay, but you know there's fly shit in there somewhere. The idea that the most inclusive hobby I can imagine is now suddenly a hive of scum and villainy that must be converted to the true religion of "wokism" is surreal to me. I'm also not a fan of the acting agenda being pushed in roleplaying now.

Quote from: sureshot;1079012Agreed and seconded about the softcovers mostly except if you have problems with one eyesight and need to wear glasses to read they are imo a bit of a pain to read. I can read the hardcovers with or without my glasses. Not so much with the softcover. That being said I give them a big kudos for being honest in their pricing of the softcover. Unlike too many rpg companies and developers who will releases their core and sourcebooks in that same size than price gouge the fans claiming that Hardcover or pocket softcover both need to be sold at 40-60$.

The font size / font style / background decisions in RPGs seem to border on the ridiculous. I have been to a number of PaizoCons over the years (none in the last few), and there were plenty of Paizo staff that wear glasses, and a lot of bespecked people in attendance. That's another reason why I think PDFs that are not optimized for the platform are a complete waste.

Quote from: Lynn;1079794The font size / font style / background decisions in RPGs seem to border on the ridiculous.

Yep. I work in the writing industry, and the rule is you don't put anything you want people to actually read in less than 10 point font. So many RPG publishers, including the big ones with professional staff like Paizo and WotC break this. I'm assuming it's because they want to keep the page count down. But it's gotten to the point that it affects what books I'll buy. It's also why I've gradually come to prefer PDFs, because I can at least zoom in to a readable scale.

This is the main problem with S&W Light as a way to promote the OSR. Yeah sure, it fits on one page printed back and front. If you can read it! I only bitch about this because I love the idea. It's just poorly executed. Typography is a difficult skill to master.

Quote from: Haffrung;1079810Yep. I work in the writing industry, and the rule is you don't put anything you want people to actually read in less than 10 point font. So many RPG publishers, including the big ones with professional staff like Paizo and WotC break this. I'm assuming it's because they want to keep the page count down. But it's gotten to the point that it affects what books I'll buy. It's also why I've gradually come to prefer PDFs, because I can at least zoom in to a readable scale.

I went to a 10.5 point font in a single column 6x9" layout for precisely this reason (the half point made a world of difference for some of the older people I had look at proofs in various font sizes. It works out to about half a typical RPG page per page in the finished book, but its far more readable (it also resulted in having to split what was originally going to be one book into two since it seems about 380 pages is about where 6x9's go from handy to shove in a bag to cumbersome to deal with).

It's also ideal for displaying on an ipad or other e-reader since you can get a full single column easy to read page per page without needing to zoom. You just have to make sure your e-reader version fixes the margins to account for the e-version not needing a gutter like the printed version does.

Wow I must be a saint because I am using a twelve font.  How small of a font do these RPG writers use?

Quote from: Snowman0147;1079867Wow I must be a saint because I am using a twelve font.  How small of a font do these RPG writers use?

I've measured most at about a 9-point font and some as small as 8-point.

I was tempted to go 11 point, but the extra half point when you're only doing one 4.5" x 7.5" column a page made it way too difficult to fit key rules onto a single spread (I try to keep key rules to a single page or pair of facing pages with art and some dead space to pad the layout) whereas 10.5 and some tight editing let me keep all my core rules cleanly laid out.

The funny thing is that after a lifetime of reading typical rpg books a 10.5 pt font feels HUGE to me (to be fair it is 16% bigger than the typical 9 pt and 30% bigger than 8 pt) despite being only half a point larger than what is the minimum standard elsewhere.

Quote from: Haffrung;1079810Yep. I work in the writing industry, and the rule is you don't put anything you want people to actually read in less than 10 point font. So many RPG publishers, including the big ones with professional staff like Paizo and WotC break this. I'm assuming it's because they want to keep the page count down. But it's gotten to the point that it affects what books I'll buy. It's also why I've gradually come to prefer PDFs, because I can at least zoom in to a readable scale.

You can zoom yes, but if the PDF is just an export from InDesign, chances are the artwork is massive and navigation is a nightmare.

I think a better response is figure this into any reviews and dick them an entire 'point'. If it is hard to read even with your correction glasses, then it is a quality problem and 'age hostile'.

Quote from: Lynn;1078866Our expectations for edition release were set by TSR / WotC, but also at the time, there seemed to be an unacknowledged belief by some that these are not actually new editions (upgrades) but new games (by those happily sticking with OD&D, Basic, etc), and the only one that was really had a lot of negative push back was 4e (the revised 3.5 being so similar to 3.0 got some negative push back but that seemed minimal)..

Part of the resistance is it is seen as, and 99% of the time really is, a money grab with a publisher thinking that they have to make the fans re-buy the game every five years to "grow" the game. When instead it usually does more harm than good.

When you get little resistance is when the changes are not huge. White Wolf and Shadowrun come to mind. in the early editions. The overall system was still the same. But some smaller elements might be twaked or fixed. Fans are usually more ok with new editions that fix things. Long as the thing fixed was broken in the first place.

Quote from: Shasarak;1078898Now I am hardly an expert on board games and on the other hand every time I go into a book store they seem to be selling a different flavour of Monopoly depending on the "popular" IP at that moment.  Now that is a continuous treadmill of printing and reprinting the same game over and over that a RPG just can not even match.

But with most of those is is still the same Monopoly, or Risk, or Life, just with new art and pieces. It is not a total overhaul of the game. Even the new Clue just changed the characters. Gameplay is still the same.

What alot of companies do, and TSR did for a while, was put out variants while still keeping the original in circulation. Clue, Clue Jr, Clue Museum and so on for example.

Also the Monopoly variants may not be the best of examples. As of last check there was a different company making some of those. USAopoly. Not sure how they can do it. But they seem to have grown over the years.

Quote from: Omega;1079972Part of the resistance is it is seen as, and 99% of the time really is, a money grab with a publisher thinking that they have to make the fans re-buy the game every five years to "grow" the game. When instead it usually does more harm than good.

I actually think there is some truth to that. There are done finished RPGs that are great, but no one plays them, if your RPG isn't fresh people will just play something else and most groups aren't made up of people willing to learn tons of systems.

D&D hardcore edition treadmills (even in the TSR days) and it's the most popular. Every new edition is a chance to lose your fans (especially the more incompatible it is) but without new product, an RPG just kind of dies.