TheRPGSite

My attempt to split this discussion off the "Are RPGs Getting Better, or Worse?" thread.

Based on the few comments so far in the thred mentioned above,and if you read the "So what is the consensus on PF2e?" thread on the Big Purple's d20 ghetto. Current word of mouth does not seem so hot.

It's looking like Pundit will be proven right in his prediction: (starts at 2:00 minutes in.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UDEQCJEWKo

To summarize: Pazio hit lightning in a bottle with PathFinder due to a combination of several WOTC own goals: culminating with 4e going over with the D&D fanbase like a fart in a cathedral.

But those conditions no longer exist.

I believe Pundit is correct, and Pazio should recognize the 5e market shift and quietly slow their support for PF and start dual stating all their modules/adventure paths with 5e.

A gradual shift/downsize back to what made their name in the first place would have been the safe bet.

Now IMHO, if they were gonna take a chance on a PF 2nd edition. They should have been more bold: Go even more back to the roots of D&D than 5e did...

The PF 2e design goal should have been to be the B/X rules set to 5e's "advanced" rules. Take out all the crunch you can whilst still being able to dual stat the modules/adventure paths so that PF 2e would be more or less "Upwards Compatible" with the worlds most popular RPG...

They'd get to ride 5e's successful coattails, and PF2e would still have a reason to exist as its own thing.

Now whether or not enough of the current PF fanbase would follow that big paradigm shift to make it worth the time and money? That is a different question. (I tend to think probably not.)

But as it stands now, I think Pazio is proving that when left to their own devices game design is not their forte.

But the game isn't out yet.

So, have the tea leaves been read wrong?

Or is Pundit right, and we're gonna see a train-wreck in slow motion?

I predict trainwreck, but I don't think going B/X to 5e's Advanced would at all cater to Pathfinders current player base and only accelerate their problems.

If anything, I think going compatible with 5e, but then adding a bit more fiddly crunch (essentially "Advanced" to 5e's "Basic") would be the better bet to keep those members of their player base that they're able.

For example, they could do "Compound Feats" where instead of an ASI or feat you instead get two smaller feats (one of which could be +1 to an ability score) to choose from.

They could also put in an option replacing flat proficiency bonuses with skill points... say 2 per proficient skill at level 1, then +1 point per level after that (based on the idea that every four levels you get a +1 bump to roughly four skills) and say, set the limit the max skill ranks to 3+1/4 levels for class/background skills and to +1/4 levels for non-class/background skills.

Basically, turn up the dial on customization in the same way that PF really went to town on 3e's engine in terms of offering lots of customization options.

I think they're going to do just fine with it, but then I have not read whatever you have read at The Big Purple or Paizo's own boards. What makes you think the consensus is it's not going well?

Dual-statting books seems like a good idea; since PF already is D&D IP it is very easy to convert PF stuff to 5e.

Making PF2 into BX would not work as it would lose them their current fan base, especially the 'whales' who actually buy all that crunch.

Yes Paizo have always been terrible at design, PF was successful because at core it was just 3.5e with better art.

Paizo has cultivated a large user base, and an 'early adopter' type model on their subscription system. Their user base I believe is large enough that they could make PF2 a 'success' simply if they are able to maintain half of what they built with PF1.

What I think is perhaps more interesting is Starfinder. It has magic and PF races, plus a more sci-fi model. The books and modules are also more expensive than Pathfinder (street price). Will those that invested in PF and then Starfinder jump on board with PF2 so soon?

I don't think PF2 is will fizzle the company into bankruptcy, but I think it more likely that it will not grow their business.

What will happen is what allways happens if the changes in editions are too much. You loose at least half your customer base and are not making that back in new players as you now have a bad rep AND a new system as self created barriers. Add in their tendency to virtue signal and that can be yet another barrier.

The only thing that might mitigate it are the cultists amongst the fans. But usually these fanatics are more a hindrance than a help as they invariably come across as cattle.

YMMV of course. But we've seen enough it across the board. At this point it boils down to how much momentum they have left and how they treat the fans of 1e PF.

Quote from: Lynn;1072166...

I don't think PF2 is will fizzle the company into bankruptcy, but I think it more likely that it will not grow their business.

To clarify - while I think PF2 will fail, it will not cause Pazio to make an instant save vs.bankruptcy roll.

But it's failure can certainly set them down that path.

/Armchair designer mode activate.

If I were Paizo, Pathfinder 2.0 would be a streamlined and tweaked relaunch of the existing system. Everything is as backwards compatible as possible. Don't kill the golden goose to chase the bird in the bush, to smash two sayings together.

There was a market for 3.0, that evolved into a market for Pathfinder. Making the game like 5th ed, or even more "basic" rules, puts them directly in competition with WOTC and the OSR titles. That's a competition they will very likely lose.

The problem with PF2 is that it doesn't have an audience beyond people who are Paizo fans.

Pathfinder was essentially a direct continuation of 3rd edition.  I had no interest in their adventures, but I bought their books with new classes and monster books.

Now they won't be making any new 3e material, so they lose that audience. They won't win over people who like 5e.

The only thing that TBP thread about PF2 does is reinforce that I'm glad I don't game with any of the shitheel users of that forum.  While there's certainly negative feedback regarding PF2, I wouldn't categorize that thread as a consensus that PF2 sucks.

Interesting note - the (currently) last post in that thread claims Jessica Price left Paizo of her own accord, rather than getting kicked to the curb as reality played out.  Curious if that's just confusion on the part of the poster, or if someone's trying to rewrite the narrative.

Quote from: JeremyR;1072173Now they won't be making any new 3e material, so they lose that audience. They won't win over people who like 5e.

Yeah - at some point (I'm going to guess starting with the August 2019 adventure path cycle), they're going to stop publishing any content for PF1 - they've claimed that they'll keep the miniature PF1 rulebooks in print for as long as there's demand, but nothing beyond that.

I'd love to get a look at their Q3 and Q4 books this year, and see just how bad things get.

Quote from: kythri;1072174The only thing that TBP thread about PF2 does is reinforce that I'm glad I don't game with any of the shitheel users of that forum.  While there's certainly negative feedback regarding PF2, I wouldn't categorize that thread as a consensus that PF2 sucks.

...

There's no positive press in that thread. For a community that absolutely gushes over favored titles that have barely hit the streets, the lack of positive commentary is a big tell.

And being the big purple it has naturally moved to commentary on the problematic elements in Pazio's house setting... It is awesome to behold.

PF2e may have decent initial sales and then fall into obscurity unless the final product is just drastically different.

If I was them, I would have released an "Unchained Core Rulebook" with simpler rules and classes that resulted in characters with the "correct math" to work with existing content. It wouldn't have been super pretty, but with enough innovative design Paizo could have launched a stealth new edition.

I think Paizo would have also been better served focusing on PF1e than ever doing 2e. 5e made the most ground during their development of 2e and I feel like a lot of people try 5e and then branch out to RPGs that better suit their personal taste. Paizo could have gotten those interested in a rules heavy game, but they just failed to keep delivering good content (Shifter) and I am really not confident in their ability to make an interesting game.

Oh and PR-wise, I feel like they hate their fans and really don't want feedback from a bunch of Old (probably White) Men (their fan-base)

Quote from: Jaeger;1072179There's no positive press in that thread. For a community that absolutely gushes over favored titles that have barely hit the streets, the lack of positive commentary is a big tell.

Since when has anything Paizo ever been that community's favored title?  I mean, Paizo embraced the whole "get woke" schtick pretty early, enough to delay the inevitable with the purple fucktards, but it's not as if they were ever gushing over a d20 derivative that wasn't based around a venisonocracy.

Quote from: Jaeger;1072179And being the big purple it has naturally moved to commentary on the problematic elements in Pazio's house setting... It is awesome to behold.

They've been openly critical about problematic elements of Paizo for some time now.

The problem with the Paizo devs was that they became to complacent with their position in the rpg industry just as Wotc. With an attitude of not wanting to change or really improve anything and not liking to receive any pushback from the fanbase.

There were many issues with the 3.5. rpg engine ported over to Pathfinder. With little to no attempts to try and fix them. When they did it would take forever or usually not done very well. They could have made more optional rulebooks to try and fix the issues that way those who are happy with the rules are content and those that want more could buy their books.

Mostly they assumed the competition would not do anything to try and make a better rpg which is never the smart attitude to have. Now Paizo is facing the same competition for PF 1 with a company called purple duck games with their Porphyra Roleplaying Game  essentially they want to make a clone of PF 1E. If Paizo can do it why not someone else. Though Porphyra would need a better name imo.

Naming an RPG after a type of seaweed does appear to be an odd choice.

PF2 sucking? That takes actual prophetic powers to claim?

Pfft.

C'mon. Is this really a question?

I've wanted Paizo to stat their APs for 5e ever since the system dropped.

There may be room for a fantasy RPG that's more advanced than 5e, but I don't know if Pathfinder 2 will deliver what people want. Starfinder already kind of fills that niche (d20 game that's in print and more complex than 5e), except that it's a science-fantasy game. SF will keep Paizo afloat when PF2 tanks.

PF2E has a better shot than most also-rans. The fact that Paizo isn't setting up to run against 5E and actively produces adventure content is a better position than most people appreciate.

PF2e is basically just a worse D&D 4e (since 4e does everything PF2e tried to do but better).

Having 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.

Given how dependent Pathfinder's success was WotC dropping the ball so badly with 4e, I'm surprised Pazio didn't have a strategy in place. They must have known that when/if WotC ever got its act together, Pathfinder would be in trouble. "New edition!" seems like a pretty uncreative response.

Paizo is figuring out that creating a system, even one with a built in base (Both mechanic and audience) is not an easy task.  Especially since they stole the first one from D&D 3e, and they're just bolting on more systems to it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1072261Paizo is figuring out that creating a system, even one with a built in base (Both mechanic and audience) is not an easy task.  Especially since they stole the first one from D&D 3e, and they're just bolting on more systems to it.

I agree with this whole heartedly as some one who is trying to make his own tabletop rpg.  Making a games isn't easy.

Paizo's entire success is built on marketing to the players Hasbro alienated when they changed D&D to new D&D. And whether they like it or not, they're the Coke/McDonalds of the RPG world. So the only thing they could possibly achieve with PF2 is to alienate their fanbase (which seems to be a thing these days) by making exactly the same mistakes they themselves took advantage of.

Quote from: kythri;1072174the (currently) last post in that thread claims Jessica Price left Paizo of her own accord, rather than getting kicked to the curb as reality played out.  Curious if that's just confusion on the part of the poster, or if someone's trying to rewrite the narrative.

I honestly believe they just make it up as they go along without being fully aware they're doing so.

Rather like an RPG.

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.

Or Exalted players.

I'm SHOCKED SHOCKED that the company who hired the guy who came up with the dumbest 3ed house rule ever: https://web.archive.org/web/20110122073256/http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html and the second-dumbest thing I've ever seen a WotC dev post would have a hard time designing a system.

They've never been good at mechanical design. They didn't do fuck-all to fix 3ed they just hung more bells and whistles off of it. This left them with a game that people who knew 3.5ed well could move on over to and enjoy the added bells and whistles but which was pretty hard for a newbie to get into (since it's more complicated than the already pretty bloated 3.5ed) and there's only so many bells and whistles they can add. Starting from scratch just reveals that they don't have a clue how to build systems.

Quote from: Daztur;1072318I'm SHOCKED SHOCKED that the company who hired the guy who came up with the dumbest 3ed house rule ever: https://web.archive.org/web/20110122073256/http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html and the second-dumbest thing I've ever seen a WotC dev post would have a hard time designing a system.

They've never been good at mechanical design. They didn't do fuck-all to fix 3ed they just hung more bells and whistles off of it. This left them with a game that people who knew 3.5ed well could move on over to and enjoy the added bells and whistles but which was pretty hard for a newbie to get into (since it's more complicated than the already pretty bloated 3.5ed) and there's only so many bells and whistles they can add. Starting from scratch just reveals that they don't have a clue how to build systems.

What's wrong with that? It looks like a way to balance bad feats and good feats better. Though at a glance it looks a lot more involved and cumbersome to actually go through and apply.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1072319What's wrong with that? It looks like a way to balance bad feats and good feats better. Though at a glance it looks a lot more involved and cumbersome to actually go through and apply.

The valuation of the feats is hilariously wrong in ways that are really obvious to anyone who's played 3ed. His point values would be more accurate if they were inverted.

It'd be like if you balance 3.5ed by giving wizards and cleric MORE abilities. Oh wait, Pathfinder already did that.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1072319What's wrong with that? It looks like a way to balance bad feats and good feats better. Though at a glance it looks a lot more involved and cumbersome to actually go through and apply.

Cursory assessment: the martial feats are overcosted at 8s and 9s (near full 10 feat points = feat per lvl), while most of the spell metamagics (silent, sculpt, widen) are undercosted at 5s. And feat points are locked into one's class atop that. Looks functionally broken without me even trying, and my 3e-fu is old, tired, and decades rusty. ;)

Though Daztur or Tenbones could probably do a more in depth breakdown. (Namely it does jack shit in fixing the kludge of Feats as a "shitty fixed-spell slot." All the while introducing Skill-based System point-value delusions as the ideal 'balancing' solution (to a level-based system, no less!) -- not all of imagination's settings are equal, ergo the context flux cannot give a meaningful fixed point-value objectivity, so point-value balancing is a fool's errand in 'system failsafes'.)

What drove me out of the 3.5/PF mechanics was that it was trying too hard to be D&D GURPS or D&D Hero System.  (I think there was even a comment from one of the original 3E devs that this was intentional.)  By the time 3.5 came around, I decided if they wanted to go that route, I'd rather play GURPS or Hero to scratch that itch, since they were built by someone with a better understanding of how to design such a thing.  Heck, my house ruled Hero in the Forgotten Realms played smoother than parts of 3.5, and those house rules were definitely rough around the edges and missing a few things.  

For those still in it, is there anything that PF2 does better than GURPS or Hero?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1072340What drove me out of the 3.5/PF mechanics was that it was trying too hard to be D&D GURPS or D&D Hero System.  (I think there was even a comment from one of the original 3E devs that this was intentional.)  By the time 3.5 came around, I decided if they wanted to go that route, I'd rather play GURPS or Hero to scratch that itch, since they were built by someone with a better understanding of how to design such a thing.  Heck, my house ruled Hero in the Forgotten Realms played smoother than parts of 3.5, and those house rules were definitely rough around the edges and missing a few things.  

For those still in it, is there anything that PF2 does better than GURPS or Hero?

I do not know hero. But PF2e combat is simpler (at level 1) than GURPS 4e per second rounds of combat nor does PF2e require a hex map so that people can turn around correctly.

Once PF2e mechanics start ramping up, it's far more complicated than GURPS 4e.

Something PF2e does deliver on is that you are probably doing some damage each round, while in GURPS you will wiff a lot of attacks or spend rounds setting up a single good attack / channeling a spell.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1072343Something PF2e does deliver on is that you are probably doing some damage each round, while in GURPS you will wiff a lot of attacks or spend rounds setting up a single good attack / channeling a spell.

Guaranteed damage each round sounds almost as bad as failing forward.

A smarter method would be just get rid of the shit feats and the must have feats.  Instead feats should allow you to do amazing things that is unique to the character.  OH WAIT!  5E DOES THAT!!!

Quote from: Ninneveh;1072346Guaranteed damage each round sounds almost as bad as failing forward.

So, Magic is failure?

Quote from: Daztur;1072321The valuation of the feats is hilariously wrong in ways that are really obvious to anyone who's played 3ed. His point values would be more accurate if they were inverted.

Feats have always been traps.  Most are never worth the cost.

Quote from: Daztur;1072321It'd be like if you balance 3.5ed by giving wizards and cleric MORE abilities. Oh wait, Pathfinder already did that.

That IS what their audience wanted, after all.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1072361So, Magic is failure?

Please explain further, so that I may be able to furnish a reasonable response.

Quote from: Ninneveh;1072371Please explain further, so that I may be able to furnish a reasonable response.

Most spells that do damage, do half damage when the effect is resisted.  Fireball, Lightning Bolt and Disintegrate being the big examples.  Half-damage is still damage.

Quote from: Ninneveh;1072371Please explain further, so that I may be able to furnish a reasonable response.

I believe he means that many magic spells still do damage (often half) when the target makes their save (which means guaranteed damage every round).

My thoughts:
I trust the Pundit instincts in general, but I wont be suprized if he is wrong.
That's because I also trust the folk in paizo know more or less what they are doing.
I remember people were pretty negative in the days of 5th edition beta, or am I wrong? So maybe the whole negative take is just a normal reaction.
On the other hand creating a new edition from basicly zero is a very difficult to do, due to too many variables.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1072340What drove me out of the 3.5/PF mechanics was that it was trying too hard to be D&D GURPS or D&D Hero System.  (I think there was even a comment from one of the original 3E devs that this was intentional.)  By the time 3.5 came around, I decided if they wanted to go that route, I'd rather play GURPS or Hero to scratch that itch, since they were built by someone with a better understanding of how to design such a thing.  Heck, my house ruled Hero in the Forgotten Realms played smoother than parts of 3.5, and those house rules were definitely rough around the edges and missing a few things.  

For those still in it, is there anything that PF2 does better than GURPS or Hero?

It is a game, instead of building blocks for a game. (As are all 3rd edition dnd variants).
Also it goes even further (as all versions of dnd do) and has a specific system for awarding experience and treasure, based on specific things that happen in the game.

Gurps is an awesome system but for me is very different than dnd, though I do believe if SJG wanted they could go the complete game route (and they partially have with DF).

Quote from: Malfi;1072385I remember people were pretty negative in the days of 5th edition beta, or am I wrong?

I know in 2013 I wasn't keen on switching to a new edition. By 2015 I was happy to. I don't know about PF fans but I expect many will be happy to switch. But surely it is extremely unlikely that PF 2e will bring over many 5e D&D fans, or new players. So all it can achieve is splitting the PF player base.

I expect PF 2e to do fine.

5e has been around years now. PF 2e will offer something new, and crunchier, and the "new hotness" will gather fans.

Also, since 5e brought new blood into the hobby, some of that new blood will want to try a crunchier game.

AKA, same reason why many crunchier systems evolved in the 80s and drew fans from AD&D...and why 3e was crunchier than 2e...and why 4e reacted against 3e...and why 5e went back to not crunchy.

And PF 2e will have awesome art, unlike 5e whose art is a joke.

And I'm not a Paizo fan whatsoever.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1072391I expect PF 2e to do fine.

5e has been around years now. PF 2e will offer something new, and crunchier, and the "new hotness" will gather fans.

Also, since 5e brought new blood into the hobby, some of that new blood will want to try a crunchier game.

AKA, same reason why many crunchier systems evolved in the 80s and drew fans from AD&D...and why 3e was crunchier than 2e...and why 4e reacted against 3e...and why 5e went back to not crunchy.

And PF 2e will have awesome art, unlike 5e whose art is a joke.

And I'm not a Paizo fan whatsoever.

Greetings!

Why does 5E's art suck so much? I know WOTC has a stable of good artists. They've had many good artists in the past. What's their reasons for such shitty art currently?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I'm the opposite I find Wayne Reynolds art boring. I was a huge fan at first but like Vanilla ice cream after awhile it just looks to much like the same.

Not to say I like all of 5E art  it is varied enough to be less boring for me at least.

Quote from: sureshot;1072397I'm the opposite I find Wayne Reynolds art boring. I was a huge fan at first but like Vanilla ice cream after awhile it just looks to much like the same.

I think he's quite good, but ultimately he's working for Paizo and Paizo has a very specific kitchen sink style - or I should say, "Seattle Style" with copy-cat anime weapons and smirking 90s tattooed hipsters trying but not succeeding at cool.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1072332Cursory assessment: the martial feats are overcosted at 8s and 9s (near full 10 feat points = feat per lvl), while most of the spell metamagics (silent, sculpt, widen) are undercosted at 5s. And feat points are locked into one's class atop that. Looks functionally broken without me even trying, and my 3e-fu is old, tired, and decades rusty. ;)

Though Daztur or Tenbones could probably do a more in depth breakdown. (Namely it does jack shit in fixing the kludge of Feats as a "shitty fixed-spell slot." All the while introducing Skill-based System point-value delusions as the ideal 'balancing' solution (to a level-based system, no less!) -- not all of imagination's settings are equal, ergo the context flux cannot give a meaningful fixed point-value objectivity, so point-value balancing is a fool's errand in 'system failsafes'.)

Right it's an onion of fail. On one level it worsens the problem of turning D&D into GURPS, it doesn't take into account feat synergy at all (one of the focuses of 3ed charop) and then on top of that the actual point valuations make things worse but consistently having good feats cost less than bad feats (power attack is really the exception for being properly recognized as a good feat). And then on top of THAT it makes the bread and butter feats of the weak classes cost more than the ones used by the strong classes.

I mean Natural Spell (possibly the best 3ed feat) costs half of fucking Skill Focus and less than Simple Weapon Proficiency, which is possibly the single most useless feat in 3ed.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1072340What drove me out of the 3.5/PF mechanics was that it was trying too hard to be D&D GURPS or D&D Hero System.  (I think there was even a comment from one of the original 3E devs that this was intentional.)  By the time 3.5 came around, I decided if they wanted to go that route, I'd rather play GURPS or Hero to scratch that itch, since they were built by someone with a better understanding of how to design such a thing.  Heck, my house ruled Hero in the Forgotten Realms played smoother than parts of 3.5, and those house rules were definitely rough around the edges and missing a few things.  

For those still in it, is there anything that PF2 does better than GURPS or Hero?

I think you're referring to the dumbest thing ever written by a WotC dev: https://4thmaster.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/ivory-tower-game-design/

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1072361Feats have always been traps.  Most are never worth the cost.



That IS what their audience wanted, after all.

Nah a lot of 3ed charop is based on feats. What happens is that there's was no real coordination between different splatbooks so that splatbooks A, B and C would all have mechanically separate feats that give you bonsues to ass scratching. So then if you go through all of those books and cherry pick every feat that gives you a bonus to ass scratching and stack them then you'll get a character who's ungodly good at ass scratching. You'll have a boring one trick pony character but damn will he be good at it. These builds were usually based around stacking feats to make you really good at tripping or (especially) charging with a power attack.

Of course caster based charop is more powerful since you get flexibility with spells.

As for that's what the PF audience wanted. That's when I noped out of PF1. I was arguing that it didn't make sense to balance 3.5ed by buffing the most powerful classes and i got told that they needed to buff core casters in order to make them balanced with 3.5ed splatbook classes. Which showed a complete misunderstanding of the reasons behind 3.5ed power creep. Splatbook content wasn't more powerful than core content (on average it was weaker) it's just that if you have a big stack of books and cherry pick a bunch of things that stack you'll get a much more powerful character than with core alone. Giving stuff in core a boost doesn't help with that problem at all.

This also shows why PF is running into trouble. PF1 was basically 3.5ed with some new bells and whistles but you just can't keep on adding those forever.

Quote from: Daztur;1072407I think you're referring to the dumbest thing ever written by a WotC dev: https://4thmaster.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/ivory-tower-game-design/

I had never seen that before and think I'm actually dumber having read it. Monte Cook deliberately designed a game in such a way that players were rewarded for system mastery by offering choices that are sub-optimal in certain situations? What does that even mean? If anything, this little essay just makes me pity all the powergaming munchkins I encountered playing D&D 3.X. While I used to feel disdain, now I think they might have been playing the game right, according to Monte.

Does this mean 3.X isn't a roleplaying game? The implication is that it's somehow a collectible card game.

Quote from: Lynn;1072401I think he's quite good, but ultimately he's working for Paizo and Paizo has a very specific kitchen sink style - or I should say, "Seattle Style" with copy-cat anime weapons and smirking 90s tattooed hipsters trying but not succeeding at cool.

The sad part of it is, mechanically, Reynolds' is terrible.  Has no idea of proportions, doesn't know perspective, and uses an excellent sense of colour to cover it up.  He's a terrible artist, he should be a colourist.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1072319What's wrong with that? It looks like a way to balance bad feats and good feats better. Though at a glance it looks a lot more involved and cumbersome to actually go through and apply.

When you start assigning point costs to each Feat you should basically just start GMing GURPS or Hero.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1072437The sad part of it is, mechanically, Reynolds' is terrible.  Has no idea of proportions, doesn't know perspective, and uses an excellent sense of colour to cover it up.  He's a terrible artist, he should be a colourist.

I don't know enough about art to say how good or bad Reynolds is.  I do know that I got tired of his stuff really fast.  He's the last person I'd want a game to have dominate their art, short of someone so awful that even I can see it.

Quote from: Brad;1072433I had never seen that before and think I'm actually dumber having read it. Monte Cook deliberately designed a game in such a way that players were rewarded for system mastery by offering choices that are sub-optimal in certain situations? What does that even mean? If anything, this little essay just makes me pity all the powergaming munchkins I encountered playing D&D 3.X. While I used to feel disdain, now I think they might have been playing the game right, according to Monte.

Does this mean 3.X isn't a roleplaying game? The implication is that it's somehow a collectible card game.

It means they deliberately made stuff bad and hid the good stuff so like a good chessmaster a player with "system mastery" can discern the right move through all of that.

Though the comparison of a character to a deck of cards in MTG is apt.

Quote from: S'mon;1072388I know in 2013 I wasn't keen on switching to a new edition. By 2015 I was happy to. I don't know about PF fans but I expect many will be happy to switch. But surely it is extremely unlikely that PF 2e will bring over many 5e D&D fans, or new players. So all it can achieve is splitting the PF player base.

My points was people were negative during 5e beta, but then it was successful. Maybe the same will happen with Pathfinder?
Then again I could be wrong about the negativity in 5e beta.

Quote from: Daztur;1072407Right it's an onion of fail. ...
I think you're referring to the dumbest thing ever written by a WotC dev: https://4thmaster.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/ivory-tower-game-design/.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1072454It means they deliberately made stuff bad and hid the good stuff so like a good chessmaster a player with "system mastery" can discern the right move through all of that.
...

That Monte Publicly admitted as much is incredibly stupid... 3.5 was just bad design by any standard then.

Quote from: Daztur;1072407This also shows why PF is running into trouble. PF1 was basically 3.5ed with some new bells and whistles but you just can't keep on adding those forever.

PF got away with turning the dial to 11 because of 4e.  Now they have to double correct for PF2; once to clean up /streamline thier tacked on additions, and once to clean up core 3.5 issues. But it seems that they are just trying to mix and match stuff that they think would be cool, rather than doing a true clean sheet redesign...

Quote from: S'mon;1072388I know in 2013 I wasn't keen on switching to a new edition. By 2015 I was happy to. I don't know about PF fans but I expect many will be happy to switch. But surely it is extremely unlikely that PF 2e will bring over many 5e D&D fans, or new players. So all it can achieve is splitting the PF player base.

This is what I think will happen - it won't be an instantly killing blow, but a few years on we'll be hearing about layoffs and "restructuring of focus".

5E's success is due to it being able to deliver the D&D experience while being significantly easier for new people to pick up as a game, than either 4e or 3.x.

It was an objectively better product than the last two editions. (For most - and the proof is in the sales.)

For PF2 to work, it has to be objectively better than PF1. Otherwise not enough people will switch, and Pazio will begin to hemorrhage their player base.

Things are made even worse for Pazio by 5e doing so well. Because whatever they do will not only be measured against the first PF, but 5e as well.

Which is why in my OP I though they should either go for a bold paradigm shift for PF2 - or start dual stating...

Paizo spend 2 years before the announcement not really working on PF1, so by then our PF group had ran and burnt ourselves out on 5e and then switched to a new system.

Paizo dropped the PF ball to focus on 2e and 2e has managed to draw no interest from our group. A couple of us like hating it a little.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1072437The sad part of it is, mechanically, Reynolds' is terrible.  Has no idea of proportions, doesn't know perspective, and uses an excellent sense of colour to cover it up.  He's a terrible artist, he should be a colourist.

And I think that goes back to the work that Paizo wants. They've come up with a pseudo-cartoon style that they like, plus so much of it is obviously done as single art pieces that are then layered together like the bad art used on cheap DVD cases. Id like to see some of his work that has nothing to do with Paizo.

Quote from: Lynn;1072484Id like to see some of his work that has nothing to do with Paizo.

Looks pretty much the same:

https://www.waynereynolds.com/fantasy-art-gallery-2

There's a fair amount of stuff he's done for WotC (and a couple others) there.  Looks like he's been the cover artist for a lot of Eberron stuff.

Quote from: Malfi;1072385That's because I also trust the folk in paizo know more or less what they are doing.

I'mmm pretty sure they don't.

Quote from: Jaeger;1072467For PF2 to work, it has to be objectively better than PF1.

Which it never will be.

Quote from: Jaeger;1072467Things are made even worse for Pazio by 5e doing so well.

Which is their only real competition.

Quote from: Jaeger;1072467they should either go for a bold paradigm shift

Which would alienate fans.

Quote from: Jaeger;1072467or start dual stating.

Which would double the complexity of creating support products.

They are literally making the same mistakes which cost Hasbro the market and gave them their window of opportunity.

PF2e should have been backwards compatible like PF was. Sure eventually most groups stopped using 3.5 material, but that backwards compatibility helped PF get off the ground.

Backwards compatibility is imo highly overrated. My anecdotal evidence is that most who play and rune Pathfinder usually don't use 3.5. material. I'm not saying no one converts from 3.5 to PF. Not enough imo for PF 2E to be backwards compatible. This time around they need more than " 3.5 thrives as a sales pitch. "

Quote from: Brad;1072433I had never seen that before and think I'm actually dumber having read it. Monte Cook deliberately designed a game in such a way that players were rewarded for system mastery by offering choices that are sub-optimal in certain situations? What does that even mean? If anything, this little essay just makes me pity all the powergaming munchkins I encountered playing D&D 3.X. While I used to feel disdain, now I think they might have been playing the game right, according to Monte.

Does this mean 3.X isn't a roleplaying game? The implication is that it's somehow a collectible card game.

Yeah, it's really dumb but it also reeks of bullshit. I mean, "no man, we totally didn't make some options better than others by accident. It was all part of our genius plan." Seriously?

Quote from: jhkim;1072457Even as a simplification, I don't think this is right. The key is that there are usually multiple trends going on at the same time. As I would put it,

70s design had a lot of D&D imitation, with inconsistent assumptions. I think Runequest was the most influential in setting the pattern for skill-based games, as standards started to arise.

80s design had some heavy rules, but also a lot of variety. It was failing market as the D&D boom faded. There were some rules-heavy games like Champions and GURPS, but also key others like Pendragon, Ghostbusters, Ars Magica, and Star Wars D6.

90s design standardized around Shadowrun and World of Darkness - medium-heavy rules and dice pools. Second ed D&D came out. Most games conformed to a similar pattern, and modules added more story - which was preplotted into acts and scenes. Metaplot for game worlds was introduced.

00s design saw the simultaneous rise of D20 and the reaction of Forge games, both of which were a reaction against the White Wolf story trend. D20 shifted more focus onto system mastery and game play which intensified in 4th edition, while Forge games tried to create alternative story games to the perception of railroading in dramatic games like White Wolf.

10s design saw some the rise of OSR along with more mainstreaming of story games with the introduction of Apocalypse World and the spread of FATE. 5th ed saw more OSR influence into D&D.

That's more or less what I was saying, just expressed better.

For the 80's design it was all reacting to D&D like you said but I think even if it wasn't rules heavy, being "more realistic" than D&D was a big focus for a lot of games in that decade. No HPs some attempts at more realistic advancement etc. etc.

For the 90's I should've mentioned metaplot but I think I've blanked that out. In any case a focus on "plot" in general.

For the 2000's both were reacting against the plot-heavy 90's. The Forge basically actually make a game that accomplished that WoD/SR set out to do with some Forgey stuff feeding back into 4ed. Also both there's a big emphasis on character with 3.5ed massive heaps of character options and indie games focusing much more on character than the world, with the world going from a richly detailed background against which your PCs often didn't matter that much to an often pretty thin sound stage that could be shifted around to meet the need of the PCs. But they're certainly better at being story focused than 90's games.

Then yeah, the rise of the OSR with that feeding back into 5ed.

Bit hard to see where we're going next. Most of the squacking about the OSR is from the fading Forgey wing of the hobby and that's not what we're going to see more of in the future. And with 5ed hard to see where a strong reaction against it is going to come from since even the people who don't want to play it aren't generally much more negative than "yeah, it's OK I guess." It'll be something OSR-influenced even if stuff that's strictly OSR (i.e. able to run a TSR-D&D module without any conversion) eventually wanes.

Quote from: sureshot;1072500Backwards compatibility is imo highly overrated. My anecdotal evidence is that most who play and rune Pathfinder usually don't use 3.5. material. I'm not saying no one converts from 3.5 to PF. Not enough imo for PF 2E to be backwards compatible. This time around they need more than " 3.5 thrives as a sales pitch. "

Think that backwards compatibility is important in terms of ease to learn. Something as crunchy as PF only became as popular as it did because people came in already knowing 3.5ed and then just had to learn a bit more to play PF. Having to learn a whole new crunchy system from scratch if PF2 deviates too much from the 3.5ed baseline is going to make a lot of people nope out.

Quote from: kythri;1072489Looks pretty much the same:

https://www.waynereynolds.com/fantasy-art-gallery-2

There's a fair amount of stuff he's done for WotC (and a couple others) there.  Looks like he's been the cover artist for a lot of Eberron stuff.

God, I fucking HATE Reynolds...

I should say I hate his art, I have no idea what the man is like.

Quote from: sureshot;1072500My anecdotal evidence is that most who play and rune Pathfinder usually don't use 3.5. material.

Really? Because my anecdotal evidence is most people only use the Adventure Paths and Settings Books.

Quote from: sureshot;1072500Backwards compatibility is imo highly overrated. My anecdotal evidence is that most who play and rune Pathfinder usually don't use 3.5. material. I'm not saying no one converts from 3.5 to PF. Not enough imo for PF 2E to be backwards compatible. This time around they need more than " 3.5 thrives as a sales pitch. "

I disagree. As far as I've witnessed any RPG that proceeds with a non-backwards compatible new edition risks falling apart completely as their niche audience weighs every other RPG against the next edition. Meanwhile backwards compatible editions get to provide new exciting things while being low effort to get into.

Even D&D has destroyed itself with edition changes and it plays by different rules than other RPGs (by having a marketing budget).

Paizo lives or dies based on word of mouth from fans. As a former fan, I think they handled this about as poorly as possible.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1072526As far as I've witnessed any RPG that proceeds with a non-backwards compatible new edition risks falling apart completely as their niche audience weighs every other RPG against the next edition. Meanwhile backwards compatible editions get to provide new exciting things while being low effort to get into.

Even D&D has destroyed itself with edition changes and it plays by different rules than other RPGs (by having a marketing budget).

I would tend to agree with this.

Even minor changes can have a negative effect on public perception (e.g. Call of Cthulhu 7th edition - the attribute thing is not even a mechanical change, rather one of presentation, and it still led to some kerfuffle). D&D 3E changed a lot from 2E, but still provided a document that allowed players to convert 2E characters with a reasonable amount of effort, showing they were at least mindful of backwards compatibility. WEG Star Wars 2nd edition was a very minor update to 1st, and was generally very well received. Earthdawn basically went from 1st to 3rd with very minimal changes, but 4th edition apparently had more radical changes and basically killed the product (4th editions seem to have that power... :D). GURPS was a masterclass in changing very little, as far as I can remember (not very familiar with 4th edition...).

If Paizo decides to "pull a D&D4E", they are likely going to be met with disaster.

Quote from: Daztur;1072502Think that backwards compatibility is important in terms of ease to learn. Something as crunchy as PF only became as popular as it did because people came in already knowing 3.5ed and then just had to learn a bit more to play PF. Having to learn a whole new crunchy system from scratch if PF2 deviates too much from the 3.5ed baseline is going to make a lot of people nope out.

Given how popular 5E is and not backwards compatible. I don't think it's that much of a requirement or needed as people think it is. It's mot that hard go convert between 3.5 and Pathfinder it is time consuming imo. Given a choice of less complexity and compability vs ease of play most will chose eady of play.

The success of 5E shows that. The same way Savage Rifts is doing better tham Rifts. I'm not againsg backwards compatibility. If I was a rpg designer I would need proof of constant sales of my rpg to be that.

So far what I have seen is less using and converting older material. More just using PF material. With unfortunate brainwashing by some of 3.5. Materiel being broken and unbalanced. The page where Paizo has their version of Vow of Poverty is fit only to be torn out of the book and used as toilet paper. 3.5. Was too good and maybe broken at least it was worth taking as an option for a character.

Quote from: sureshot;1072537Given how popular 5E is and not backwards compatible. I don't think it's that much of a requirement or needed as people think it is. It's mot that hard go convert between 3.5 and Pathfinder it is time consuming imo. Given a choice of less complexity and compability vs ease of play most will chose eady of play.

The success of 5E shows that. The same way Savage Rifts is doing better tham Rifts. I'm not againsg backwards compatibility. If I was a rpg designer I would need proof of constant sales of my rpg to be that.

So far what I have seen is less using and converting older material. More just using PF material. With unfortunate brainwashing by some of 3.5. Materiel being broken and unbalanced. The page where Paizo has their version of Vow of Poverty is fit only to be torn out of the book and used as toilet paper. 3.5. Was too good and maybe broken at least it was worth taking as an option for a character.

Point of order. 5e is very backwards compatible in that many here claim to run various AD&D or older modules with 5e and not needing to spend much effort converting content.

Savage Rifts is pretty great. It's also a Savage Worlds setting and can used to tie a bunch of them together. But really it's just a very solid product that appeals to Savage Worlds fans and Rifts fans.

3.5 Vow of Poverty was actually terrible and way less useful than full WBL. What a lot of 3.5 DMs forgot to do what actually give out enough loot (I did that), which lead to many tables where the VoP character was much much stronger and more badass. Paizo's VoP sucks for SJW reasons, they didn't want to portray poverty in a positive light because people suffer from it without gaining magical super powers.

Making a new edition backwards compatible versus making a new edition evolve into some nifty new features--are both second order goals.  Still important, but if you let one or the other dominate the main goal of making the new edition better than the old one, then there will be problems.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1072540Point of order. 5e is very backwards compatible in that many here claim to run various AD&D or older modules with 5e and not needing to spend much effort converting content.

Good to know as I have never tried to convert any PF material to 5E. Not that 3.5 to PF is hard to do just time consuming. Monsters and minor npcs are easy enough. Higher level mosnters and npcs are imo a pain in the ass. Mind you one good thing about converting older material is seeing how bad some of the Wotcnpcs aredesigned I began working on a Return to the temple of Elemental Evil conversion and they have a Ranger who they try to shoehorn into making the character a Ranged archer. Has little to no Archery feats. Is better at two weapons fighting yet cannot use that as they gave the npc who can be taken as a cohort with leadership a suit of magical chainmail. Making it so he can't use either Ranged or TWF very effectively.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1072540Savage Rifts is pretty great. It's also a Savage Worlds setting and can used to tie a bunch of them together. But really it's just a very solid product that appeals to Savage Worlds fans and Rifts fans.

I agree about the rules and it's too bad we will never see an updated PB set of rules as it's great to see an update. Yet I would like to see an update to the original rules as well.

Quote from: Rhedyn;10725403.5 Vow of Poverty was actually terrible and way less useful than full WBL. What a lot of 3.5 DMs forgot to do what actually give out enough loot (I did that), which lead to many tables where the VoP character was much much stronger and more badass. Paizo's VoP sucks for SJW reasons, they didn't want to portray poverty in a positive light because people suffer from it without gaining magical super powers.

I would still take the 3.5. version. While it's entirely possible that the Paizo version sucked because of SJW reasons. I think it's the devs not only refusing to think outside of the box. They jump back into the box then ask for someone to pour concrete on it. Anecdotally and from what I saw on their site when their version of VOP came out it was almost everyone who panned the Paizo version. They take great options and nerf them or offer great options and do the same. Thinking fluff will always be better than crunch. Take a look at Craft Ooze: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/item-creation-feats/craft-ooze-item-creation/ In terms of fluff looks like a great feat. In terms of Crunch it sucks imo. I can create oozes I can't control them and it requires a feat tax and gold and a tools to create something that could attack me if I used it in combat.

Quote from: kythri;1072489Looks pretty much the same: There's a fair amount of stuff he's done for WotC (and a couple others) there.  Looks like he's been the cover artist for a lot of Eberron stuff.

Wow, that is depressingly similar to the Paizo stuff. But this also makes me wonder as the range of years 2001 - 2011 seemingly overlaps with the start of Paizo, and Pathfinder shipped in 2008.

So I guess that means while Pathfinder was D&D 3.75, the artwork was really 4e.

Quote from: kythri;1072489Looks pretty much the same:

https://www.waynereynolds.com/fantasy-art-gallery-2

There's a fair amount of stuff he's done for WotC (and a couple others) there.  Looks like he's been the cover artist for a lot of Eberron stuff.

I think his Paizo stuff looks much better than his WoTC stuff. I guessed it was better art direction.

Quote from: sureshot;1072544I would still take the 3.5. version. While it's entirely possible that the Paizo version sucked because of SJW reasons. I think it's the devs not only refusing to think outside of the box. They jump back into the box then ask for someone to pour concrete on it. Anecdotally and from what I saw on their site when their version of VOP came out it was almost everyone who panned the Paizo version. They take great options and nerf them or offer great options and do the same. Thinking fluff will always be better than crunch. Take a look at Craft Ooze: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/item-creation-feats/craft-ooze-item-creation/ In terms of fluff looks like a great feat. In terms of Crunch it sucks imo. I can create oozes I can't control them and it requires a feat tax and gold and a tools to create something that could attack me if I used it in combat.

PF2e is basically that, they nerfed everything and think fluff is important in a rules set where fluff has no mechanical meaning because the rules are tight.

I think Craft Ooze is a bad example since you at least make an ooze, which is kind of cool, even if you have to control it via fluid dynamics.

*Throws dart a random mechanic*
This: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/occult-adventures/occult-rules/chakras/

Is overly complicated horseshit that provides almost no useful benefit while not even being fun either. The best ability is 5e advantage on every-roll. The fluff does not line up.

I like the fact that OPF, Original Pathfinder happened.  It put a stop to 4E, and moved WOTC toward 5E.  OPF also has a lot of cool widgets.  I own 11, 12, 13? OPF books myself.  I love to read over them and use stuff I find.  But do I play RAW OPF?  Shit no.  It's cool stuff though.

PF2E lost my interest, which was already on the fence, with the SJW crap in the 2E playtest CRB.

Quote from: sureshot;1072537Given how popular 5E is and not backwards compatible. I don't think it's that much of a requirement or needed as people think it is. It's mot that hard go convert between 3.5 and Pathfinder it is time consuming imo. Given a choice of less complexity and compability vs ease of play most will chose eady of play.

The success of 5E shows that. The same way Savage Rifts is doing better tham Rifts. I'm not againsg backwards compatibility. If I was a rpg designer I would need proof of constant sales of my rpg to be that.

So far what I have seen is less using and converting older material. More just using PF material. With unfortunate brainwashing by some of 3.5. Materiel being broken and unbalanced. The page where Paizo has their version of Vow of Poverty is fit only to be torn out of the book and used as toilet paper. 3.5. Was too good and maybe broken at least it was worth taking as an option for a character.

Backwards compatibility makes a game easier to learn and it is helpful psychologically to tell people "you can still use your old books!" even if most people don't.

Of course having backwards compatibility isn't so important if your game is easy to learn. Just with hard to learn games having them be "like what you already know but MORE" helps grease the wheels a lot.

Also even not completely compatibile editions can be similar enough to help people get the hang of quickly.

For example:
2ed to 3ed: even if things are really different under the hood the body and paint job look a lot like 2ed. A lot of spells are the same damn thing. Weapons do the same damage. HPs work the same way. Once you figure out about just how different thingd can work in practice at higher levels you've already got the hang of the system.

3.5ed to 4ed: I remember reading through the PH  and just not having a clue which widget was good or not. And I kept asking myself "Is it worth the effort to figure out?" Also the simplest things kept on tripping people up like "add half you level and an ability modifier to EVERYTHING" which isn't a hard thing but which confused people so often who weren't used to making attack rolls with spells.

3.5ed to Pathfinder: 3.5ed with more bells a whistles. Easy enough to learn if you know 3.5ed well. But I can't imagine what a nightmare Pathfinder with a stack of splats would be to a  RPG newbie.

Going into 5ed it plays enough like a cleaned ul 3.5ed that I got the hang of it easily even if it isn't compatibile. The DM keeps on deferring to me as the rules expert even though I've never even read the PHB, I just look up shit on wikis.

This also helps drive the success of OSR games. Don't change something unless the replacement is CLEARLY better as being the same makes the game easy to learn is a huge benefit in and of itseld. It also helps that you can add a huge amount of OSR original content in the form of new content, spells, monsters, items, etc. while barely touching the actuak rules. Same goes for AW hacks vs. randkm new hippiegames.

Quote from: Daztur;1072586Backwards compatibility makes a game easier to learn and it is helpful psychologically to tell people "you can still use your old books!" even if most people don't.

Not necessarily imo. It depends on how different the new edition is from the old. If it's similar it's easy if it's different it may hinder rather than help. Speaking for myself the only previous edition that I really looked at when I bought a new one was 1E to 2E D&D. After that I barely looked back. When I invest in a new edition of an rpg I don't bother looking at an old one as I usually commit fully to the new version. I know some gamers like myself who might comment on how a rule is different say as an example for armour class in 2E to 3E D&D with 3E rules on that being easier than Thaco. More often than not anecdotally for myself and those we game with an new edition of an rpg stands on it's own. Comparing an older edition with a new edition makes for a less objective reading and review of the rules.

Quote from: Daztur;1072586Also even not completely compatibile editions can be similar enough to help people get the hang of quickly.

Not necessarily. I barely looked at 1E or 2E when reading and learning 3E. If anything it would have made the process much worse as I would haven been comparing 3E more favorably to the older editions. I started with 1E and 2E and I enjoyed and to a certain extent do. All the later editions just highlight many of their flaws. No one will take humans if we do not impose level limits on Demi-Humans. The 1E Monk class abilities are all over the place and seem to have been developed by monkeys throwing darts at a board. Maybe I'm not too well versed in martial arts movies why woud Monks be able to speak with animals then plants at higher levels. Thaco is not hard to learn but man they could have explained it much better. As well by that point I was an experienced gamer who remembered many of the rules from previous editions of D&D so going back and spending more time which I did not have let alone want to give to learn 3E.

I get the point your trying to make yet as an rpg developer I want proof that making an rpg backwards compatible will guarantee me more sales. Not less and from what I see with my gaming buddies most of them don't. Mainly because it's extra time that takes away from developing the campaign and for the most part Paizo rpg stuff is a good substitute. I have read of some doing a PF conversion of Dragonlance it's few and far between.

As for the OSR Paizo and Wotc rpgs they will never play and im oshould not be a factor in development. Again unless I know for sure that many of them will buy my products I don't see the need to cater to them on maybe they might buy. Then again I would have made the OGL one where one pays a one time fee every year to use the license. So even if the competition does do a better job I'm guaranteed making some money. And why not why should someone make money of my rules for free. When I say that I'm met with gasps of horror and dismay.

Quote from: Rhedyn;10725403.5 Vow of Poverty was actually terrible and way less useful than full WBL. What a lot of 3.5 DMs forgot to do what actually give out enough loot (I did that), which lead to many tables where the VoP character was much much stronger and more badass. Paizo's VoP sucks for SJW reasons, they didn't want to portray poverty in a positive light because people suffer from it without gaining magical super powers.

   Documentation of the last? Because while I hold no brief for Paizo, I have trouble believing that even they lack the ability to see the fundamental moral differences between involuntary and voluntary poverty.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1072593Documentation of the last? Because while I hold no brief for Paizo, I have trouble believing that even they lack the ability to see the fundamental moral differences between involuntary and voluntary poverty.

This is the closest I could find in short order:

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m8j3&page=4?Ultimate-Magic-Monks-Vow-of-Poverty#195

Quote from: Jason Buhlman3. In the case of Vow of Poverty (VoP), we were left with a real quandary. Refusing to take magic items does not mean that your group (and you by default) would not still gain a benefit from that portion of the reward for an encounter. This means that either the GM has to reduce the treasure for everyone to balance out with whatever cool ability we give you (which screws with NPC loot values, published adventures, and a number of other variables, like bad guy challenge ratings), or we could not give you a very good ability in return.

Since VoP is something that has a real world analog, we wanted to include it, but did not (in the case of previous incarnations of this particular concept) want to really make something unbalanced. We went with the weaker option, full well understanding this would make it unattractive to many players.

Jason must have missed the fact that VoP characters still take their loot portion and are expected to donate it.

I'm sure a lot of homeless people liking you isn't that much of an advantage.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1072597I'm sure a lot of homeless people liking you isn't that much of an advantage.

With PC loot rewards being what they are, why are those people still homeless?

Quote from: kythri;1072598With PC loot rewards being what they are, why are those people still homeless?

Because they also took the Vow of Poverty as their human bonus feat? Its pretty swanky if you're a hapless peasant who'll rarely have more than two coppers to rub together anyway.

Alright, so, we've got an entire city who's homeless population has now declared a Vow of Poverty.

Where'd the money go?

:D

Quote from: Rhedyn;1072597Jason must have missed the fact that VoP characters still take their loot portion and are expected to donate it.

I'm sure a lot of homeless people liking you isn't that much of an advantage.

The 3.5 VOP is broken for them. Yet Sacred Geometry is perfectly balanced. https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/sacred-geometry/   Not sure if they even know what is broken or not at this point. Then again in their Strategy guide they bent over backwards to tell us the virtue of Combat Reflexes which is OK as a feat more a feat tax.

Or worse instead of not allowing an option say like a non-LG Paladin. They offer this https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo-paladin-archetypes/gray-paladin-paladin-archetype/ So they can say they offered  it as option. Even if it is worse than the LG version. Either do it right or don't offer a sub-par option in its place.

Quote from: sureshot;1072604The 3.5 VOP is broken for them. Yet Sacred Geometry is perfectly balanced. https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/sacred-geometry/   Not sure if they even know what is broken or not at this point. Then again in their Strategy guide they bent over backwards to tell us the virtue of Combat Reflexes which is OK as a feat more a feat tax.

Or worse instead of not allowing an option say like a non-LG Paladin. They offer this https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo-paladin-archetypes/gray-paladin-paladin-archetype/ So they can say they offered  it as option. Even if it is worse than the LG version. Either do it right or don't offer a sub-par option in its place.

IMO Warpriest are better (thematically and mechanics, not by power) Paladins.

Pathfinder 4e D&D would be everyone playing 3/4th BAB 6th level casters which are the only classes Paizo has ever made well (Magus being a prime example).

For 3.5ed VoP it's good IF (big if) you'd otherwise end up with well below suggested WBL and/or you're good enough at CharOp (or use a build made by someone who is) to make good use of the additional resources that it gives you. In the hands of normal players in average campaigns it's a bit below par in strength.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1072375Most spells that do damage, do half damage when the effect is resisted.  Fireball, Lightning Bolt and Disintegrate being the big examples.  Half-damage is still damage.

Ah I see. I prefer Palladium's system where you can either dodge certain spells or make a saving throw to fully resist their effects. Its an all or nothing proposition. A system where either fighters or spellcasters are always guaranteed some amount of damage (aside from Godbound with it's fray dice) each round strikes me as a bit bland.

I think Pathfinder 2e will do fine.

The way I see it is that Paizo can produce PF2 while at the same time continuing to support the people that want to play PF1 by keeping the original material available.  Chances are that the Adventure Paths will be easy enough to translate back to PF1 so that even PF1 players will continue to buy them.

Seems like a win-win.

Honestly it could go either way. Either the community embraces PF 2E or they turn their backs on it. Gamers especially rpg gamers are notoriously well known for hating change imo. They borrowed many elements from Starfinder which they incorporated into 2E Pf. The fanbase complained that lo and behold their god level doing everything with spells casters were "nerfed" because they removed level 7 to 9 spells. I know my heart shrunk three sizes that day after hearing that, how dare Paizo try to correct a well known flaw in the 3.5 engine. Like many people in and outside gaming people like to complain about the flaws of something they like you better not actually fix them though. We will see.

I was not impressed with what I saw in the playtest book and once they still kept the alignment requirement for Paladins in core they lost me. Sure they might release sourcebook with a Grey Paladin like they did for the current version. As that Archetype imo sucked balls and it really should be something that should be allowed in the core. Worst comes to worst make Paladins Lawful Good and add a optional section on how to create and run non-Lawful Paladins. Mind you I have not kept up to date on the playtest so that may have been revised or updated. I think if they showed more of willingness to make more major changes and if Wotc had never released 5E I might be more interested. If I want to run Pathfinder flaws and all I have it. If I want to get away from Pathfinder I have 5E. I think it's one of those too little too late type of situations.

Quote from: sureshot;1077840Honestly it could go either way. Either the community embraces PF 2E or they turn their backs on it. Gamers especially rpg gamers are notoriously well known for hating change imo. They borrowed many elements from Starfinder which they incorporated into 2E Pf. The fanbase complained that lo and behold their god level doing everything with spells casters were "nerfed" because they removed level 7 to 9 spells. I know my heart shrunk three sizes that day after hearing that, how dare Paizo try to correct a well known flaw in the 3.5 engine. Like many people in and outside gaming people like to complain about the flaws of something they like you better not actually fix them though. We will see.

I was not impressed with what I saw in the playtest book and once they still kept the alignment requirement for Paladins in core they lost me. Sure they might release sourcebook with a Grey Paladin like they did for the current version. As that Archetype imo sucked balls and it really should be something that should be allowed in the core. Worst comes to worst make Paladins Lawful Good and add a optional section on how to create and run non-Lawful Paladins. Mind you I have not kept up to date on the playtest so that may have been revised or updated. I think if they showed more of willingness to make more major changes and if Wotc had never released 5E I might be more interested. If I want to run Pathfinder flaws and all I have it. If I want to get away from Pathfinder I have 5E. I think it's one of those too little too late type of situations.

They needed a backwards compatible Pathfinder that was easier to run but still worked with existing content. I feel like Paizo could have competed with 5e, but when they needed to put in the most effort on PF, they put all their resources in PF2e and let their main game basically die.

A radical change was never going to work unless they made a mid-crunch system that worked drastically different than PF/5e. You just can't ask people to keep re-buying rules heavy systems with minor but significant mechanical changes. 4e is a good system now, but the 4e PH was a poor substitute for the entire 3.5 production line.

PF was already a rehash of 3.5. I just cannot see the same player base buying rehash of a rehash with minor rules changes a second time. It worked for PF because fans were unhappy with 4E and Wotc stopped releasing 3.5. This time around with 5E being more popular and with what I call 3.5 player fatigue. Coupled with the Paizo devs really not listening and not showing a willingness to fix the flaws of PF. Well you have to offer more than the same old house with a new coat of paint and some minor repairs done to it imo.

Brand loyalty at least to rpgs is a myth imo. Players say they will be loyal yet once an edition comes out that fixes the flaws and makes it faster to run they drop the flawed rpg in favor of the one that makes it easier to run and play in heartbeat. Which they did with 5E as Paizo devs sat on their collective asses expecting no one to come out with an rpg that fixed the flaws of Pathfinder. They took their fans for granted. The company also suddenly becoming majorly woke is not helping matters. Wotc is woke as well unlike Paizo they did not include two page SJW manifesto in their core book. You read that section in the PF 2E core and you just want to give the book and the company two middle fingers. Whomever wrote that section needs to learn making your player base feel guilty and like crap is not going to translate in sales. That section and the lack of enthusiasm in the new rules makes me want to for the time being give PF 2E a hard pass.

Anecdotally no one I know goes out of their way to release use their 3.5. material. Backwards compatibility works when a significant and large percentage of your players is willing to convert older material over. More often than not the 3.5 books remain on the bookshelves gathering dust or sold to buy new Pathfinder or other rpgs. Why go through the trouble of converting when your paying for new material and someone else is doing it for you.

Quote from: sureshot;1077847PF was already a rehash of 3.5. I just cannot see the same player base buying rehash of a rehash with minor rules changes a second time. It worked for PF because fans were unhappy with 4E and Wotc stopped releasing 3.5. This time around with 5E being more popular and with what I call 3.5 player fatigue. Coupled with the Paizo devs really not listening and not showing a willingness to fix the flaws of PF. Well you have to offer more than the same old house with a new coat of paint and some minor repairs done to it imo.

Brand loyalty at least to rpgs is a myth imo. Players say they will be loyal yet once an edition comes out that fixes the flaws and makes it faster to run they drop the flawed rpg in favor of the one that makes it easier to run and play in heartbeat. Which they did with 5E as Paizo devs sat on their collective asses expecting no one to come out with an rpg that fixed the flaws of Pathfinder. They took their fans for granted. The company also suddenly becoming majorly woke is not helping matters. Wotc is woke as well unlike Paizo they did not include two page SJW manifesto in their core book. You read that section in the PF 2E core and you just want to give the book and the company two middle fingers. Whomever wrote that section needs to learn making your player base feel guilty and like crap is not going to translate in sales. That section and the lack of enthusiasm in the new rules makes me want to for the time being give PF 2E a hard pass.

Anecdotally no one I know goes out of their way to release use their 3.5. material. Backwards compatibility works when a significant and large percentage of your players is willing to convert older material over. More often than not the 3.5 books remain on the bookshelves gathering dust or sold to buy new Pathfinder or other rpgs. Why go through the trouble of converting when your paying for new material and someone else is doing it for you.

"Pathfinder Unchained Core Rulebook" could have been great. There was plenty within PF that could have been streamlined without actually effecting the majority of used content (I know some feats existed to address miscellaneous BS, but pff).

Backward compatibility means you do not have old edition vs new. For example, Savage Worlds' new edition is pretty different (massively so in the details), but it's backwards compatible. There is no "edition wars" in that community and PEG didn't wipe away 15 some years of good content to do it.

Paizo could have done something similar, but they didn't sit on their hands when 5e came out. They did something much worst, they went full steam on PF2e and let the B-team make PF content like the Shifter, when their main game needed great new material to compete and retain fans, they slowed production.

Quote from: sureshot;1077847...
Anecdotally no one I know goes out of their way to release use their 3.5. material. Backwards compatibility works when a significant and large percentage of your players is willing to convert older material over. More often than not the 3.5 books remain on the bookshelves gathering dust or sold to buy new Pathfinder or other rpgs. Why go through the trouble of converting when your paying for new material and someone else is doing it for you.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1077870"Pathfinder Unchained Core Rulebook" could have been great. There was plenty within PF that could have been streamlined without actually effecting the majority of used content (I know some feats existed to address miscellaneous BS, but pff)....

If the "new" edition is more of less what the fans want, all the talk of backwards compatibility is nothing more than a psychological placebo.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1077843They needed a backwards compatible Pathfinder that was easier to run but still worked with existing content. I feel like Paizo could have competed with 5e, but when they needed to put in the most effort on PF, they put all their resources in PF2e and let their main game basically die.

A radical change was never going to work unless they made a mid-crunch system that worked drastically different than PF/5e. You just can't ask people to keep re-buying rules heavy systems with minor but significant mechanical changes. 4e is a good system now, but the 4e PH was a poor substitute for the entire 3.5 production line.

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.

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.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1078182Eh 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.

To be fair not all of it was bad. Yet some like the Geisha Archetype is pretty much WTF territory imo https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo-bard-archetypes/geisha/ . Sure the Tea Ceremony may last long I sure as hell hope the party has ten minutes to waste waiting for the Geisha to brew it. I would have made it cost six round of Bardic Performance and made it last one hour. The Prone Shooter feat before the updated it was the worst. I think it allowed one to ability to fire ranged weapons lying down. Then you have the class benefits that come way too late in level for a class and as usualy one has spells or items that do it better. For example "at 20th level you get Resistance 20 to for example fire". At that level it's a lackluster ability to say the least. They also fixed the Paladin as it's now a class worth taking past level 10. The 3.5. version beyond higher level spells offers nothing to avoid one from multiclassing into something else. If I were to play 3.5, Pathfinder spoiled me that I would never go back.

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. 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.

For the 3.*/PF family, I think the catch 22 is even worse than that.  Some of the design flaws in the structure are so deeply embedded that they are not fixable without radical changes OR massive kludges.  So a "clean, fixed version that retains backwards compatibility" is doomed before it can get off the design table, let alone hit development and testing.  It's barely possible that a brilliant hack could select exactly the right spots for the massive kludges, and paper over them enough, that the resulting Frankenstein game would be perceived by the current fans as a big improvement over the existing one, and backwards compatible "enough".  Whether the designers and developers would still be sane afterwards, is an open question.  It certainly wouldn't appeal to many new gamers.

The new core book is available for pre-order (along with a bestiary, two APs, world books, GM screens, etc). It's 640 pages.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1078190The new core book is available for pre-order (along with a bestiary, two APs, world books, GM screens, etc). It's 640 pages.

Haha wtf...how could you possibly convince a new player to read all that shit?

Quote from: Brad;1078191Haha wtf...how could you possibly convince a new player to read all that shit?

Whenever I bother looking, I find rules in my PF1e corebook that I never knew existed.

People don't actually read these things.

Side Note: GURPS 4e basic set is a combined 576 pages of rules.

Whoever is making these business decisions for #Paizo probably shouldn't be making these business decisions for #Paizo.

Quote from: Shasarak;1077828The way I see it is that Paizo can produce PF2 while at the same time continuing to support the people that want to play PF1 by keeping the original material available.  Chances are that the Adventure Paths will be easy enough to translate back to PF1 so that even PF1 players will continue to buy them.

Sure, because this strategy worked wonders for #WhiteWolf/#OnyxPath, who every Thursday have to explain how their 5 editions of WoD and 2 editions of CoD are different. Now #Paizo needs to do the same, as do the people running their games.

Maintaining multiple incompatible lines increases development costs, raises the chance of introducing errors (which are already endemic in this industry), makes it harder to find qualified freelancers, creates brand confusion, leads to edition warring, and divides the current customer base rather than adding to it. It's an all round bad idea, and especially ironic considering the foundation for their success.

Quote from: Razor 007;1078154I 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......

Especially when they just sold nearly the entire line (except all adventure paths and that last bestiary) for under $20 on Humble Bundle right before announcing the release of 2nd edition. Hell, they even included #Starfinder.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1078190The new core book is available for pre-order (along with a bestiary, two APs, world books, GM screens, etc). It's 640 pages.

I get why they want to have all you need to run and play the game in one book minus the monsters. It ends up being both very heavy to carry and puts extra stress on the binding. Given the had binding issues with the first print run, I hope they have a printer that is adding a good binding to the books. Not to mention apparently the pocket edition of the PF 1E is selling really well. Why would you release a heavier book for the new edition of the rpg. Especially when Wotc  has them split into two. Yes it cost more money as a player to purchase if one wants to run and play the rpg. If not I see no reason to buy or want the section on running the rpg if for the moment I want to be a player.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1078192Whenever I bother looking, I find rules in my PF1e corebook that I never knew existed.

People don't actually read these things.

Seconded I took a break from rpgs and I am getting into it again. I'm noticing art and the occasional rule I missed the first time around.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1078193Whoever is making these business decisions for #Paizo probably shouldn't be making these business decisions for #Paizo.

Even if the player base in decent numbers told them to separate the 2E core into two books they would still completely ignore it. Myself and others told them repeatedly not to publish the gun rules as is during the playtest. At first we were told "we will take your feedback under advisement". A week or two before the book containing them goes to print we are given a polite "too bad so sad were are not changing the gun rules". Fans don't like it when they nerf rules etc because of organized play not only do they nerf something they nuke it from orbit making it useless. So they listen only when it benefits them.

The Humble Bundle is for a good cause I just found the timing of the release for the bundle just timed badly. Already they are giving the rules away for free on the SRD. Releasing much of the core for a very cheap price in PDf while a good feel good public relations move. Not that good of a business move. If I buy the PDfs and use the SRD guess what I'm not going to buy the print version.

As for new editions when it comes to White Wolf I think it was needed. They had painted themselves into a corner with the setting. The world ends, nothing can be done to stop it, nothing the player characters do really matters because the world ends anyway.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1078190The new core book is available for pre-order (along with a bestiary, two APs, world books, GM screens, etc). It's 640 pages.

 No idea if the 2E mechanics are any good (PF is too crunchy for my tastes), but it's a smart move to publish two APs at release.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1078193Whoever is making these business decisions for #Paizo probably shouldn't be making these business decisions for #Paizo.

Sure, because this strategy worked wonders for #WhiteWolf/#OnyxPath, who every Thursday have to explain how their 5 editions of WoD and 2 editions of CoD are different. Now #Paizo needs to do the same, as do the people running their games.

Maintaining multiple incompatible lines increases development costs, raises the chance of introducing errors (which are already endemic in this industry), makes it harder to find qualified freelancers, creates brand confusion, leads to edition warring, and divides the current customer base rather than adding to it. It's an all round bad idea, and especially ironic considering the foundation for their success.

What is so difficult about explaining two different editions?  WotC has three different editions to explain and they seem to be able to explain it all OK.  Where are all these stupid people who can not explain the difference between PF1 and PF2?

Paizo has a huge advantage in its experienced management and staff, just looking at Lisa and Erik alone you would be hard pressed to find anyone else in the industry to match their combined experience.  The facts are that Pathfinder is the third longest running edition of DnD and DnD has survived edition changes before.

Quote from: Shasarak;1078134Gamers 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.

I didn't say all gamers hate change. I am saying that gamers seem to hate change on average more than fans of most other things.

Pathfinder was initially driven by fans not wanting to change editions. It eventually slowly became it's own edition, but it was so slow that you barely knew it was happening.

5e appealed to an awful lot of old school players who wanted something to feel more like the old stuff they used to play, and also a lot of new players who had no expectations to begin with. It did not appeal much to the fans of the prior edition to it.

The OSR movement is statistically meaningless when talking about the average gamer. The average gamer has never even heard of the phrase.  But for those who do know about it, much of it's appeal is a call back to prior editions.

All of these things are indications that "I like what came before more than a drastic change from what came before" is a more meaingful way of thinking for your average gamer than fans of many other things.

Gamers, on average, seem to hate change more than fans of most other things, like sports teams or board games.

Quote from: Mistwell;1078250Gamers, on average, seem to hate change more than fans of most other things, like sports teams or board games.

I have not seen any evidence to support that conclusion.

Quote from: Shasarak;1078264I have not seen any evidence to support that conclusion.

Dude, there isn't going to be a study, or data released by game companies, on this topic. I've made a case for why I think this is so, and it's not a refutation that you have not seen enough evidence ;)

Quote from: Shasarak;1078264I have not seen any evidence to support that conclusion.

Sticking you fingers into your ears and screaming at the top of your lungs, "LA LA LA!" doesn't change that the evidence is all around you.  But let me break it down for you one more time, my Kiwi friend.

First Pathfinder, the main reason it was well received was because it wasn't 4e.  It was another version of 3.5, which they didn't want to leave.  They wanted TO STAY.  And boy did they.  Made up a bunch of lies about 4e LONG before it came out, long before anyone even KNEW what 4e was about.  Because it was going to be DIFFERENT.

D&D 5e itself takes cues from older editions.  It's step back in design, nothing in it is new, NOT A THING.  Because they knew that changing the formula was a bad idea.  Hell, they got PUNDIT, a vocal OSR proponent to make suggestions and he's CLAIMED that he used his older edition knowledge to help define the edition.

And OSR is OLD School Revival/Renaissance (AKA REBIRTH) which is using the OLDER editions and bringing them BACK.

All the evidence you need.  But we all know you, and your kind, will simply ignore this, twist this into something more into your little paradigm, or whatever, so you don't have to accept the truth:  Gamers HATE change.  More than the average human being.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1078193Maintaining multiple incompatible lines increases development costs, raises the chance of introducing errors (which are already endemic in this industry), makes it harder to find qualified freelancers, creates brand confusion, leads to edition warring, and divides the current customer base rather than adding to it. It's an all round bad idea, and especially ironic considering the foundation for their success.

Are they actually going to be managing multiple Pathfinder lines, though?

My understanding, from what they announced, was that they'll maintain PF1 in print format for as long as it's profitable to reprint and sell, but that was going to be in the miniature softcover version only.

I'm pretty sure they made it clear that they wouldn't be continuing any kind of development for the game once PF2 was released.

Quote from: Shasarak;1078248What is so difficult about explaining two different editions?  WotC has three different editions to explain and they seem to be able to explain it all OK.  Where are all these stupid people who can not explain the difference between PF1 and PF2?

#WotC supports one edition, and it's the only one they bother to explain, because they understand that brand confusion and dilution are a thing.

Quote from: Shasarak;1078248Paizo has a huge advantage in its experienced management and staff, just looking at Lisa and Erik alone you would be hard pressed to find anyone else in the industry to match their combined experience.  The facts are that Pathfinder is the third longest running edition of DnD and DnD has survived edition changes before.

And #WotC had even more experience, yet that didn't stop them from handing the market to #Paizo with the release of 4e. And before this White Wolf was the second most successful company in the industry. So whatever their experience may be, it's not reflective of the decisions being made.

Quote from: kythri;1078304Are they actually going to be managing multiple Pathfinder lines, though?

My understanding, from what they announced, was that they'll maintain PF1 in print format for as long as it's profitable to reprint and sell, but that was going to be in the miniature softcover version only.

I'm pretty sure they made it clear that they wouldn't be continuing any kind of development for the game once PF2 was released.

No idea. All I know is discontinuing the PF1 line would mean the death of the company.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1078306No idea. All I know is discontinuing the PF1 line would mean the death of the company.

PF1e will stop having new content.

Now you understand everyone's pessimism.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1078273D&D 5e itself takes cues from older editions.  It's step back in design, nothing in it is new, NOT A THING.  

That's obviously not true. Advantage/Disadvantage is new, and pretty much a Killer App. Bounded Accuracy and the +2 to +6 Proficiency system is new. The Epic Boon advancement with the Level 20 cap is new. Short Rest classes vs Long Rest classes is partly new. Bonus Action system is new. Inspiration is new. I'm sure there's more new stuff too.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1078273Sticking you fingers into your ears and screaming at the top of your lungs, "LA LA LA!" doesn't change that the evidence is all around you.  But let me break it down for you one more time, my Kiwi friend.

First Pathfinder, the main reason it was well received was because it wasn't 4e.  It was another version of 3.5, which they didn't want to leave.  They wanted TO STAY.  And boy did they.  Made up a bunch of lies about 4e LONG before it came out, long before anyone even KNEW what 4e was about.  Because it was going to be DIFFERENT.

D&D 5e itself takes cues from older editions.  It's step back in design, nothing in it is new, NOT A THING.  Because they knew that changing the formula was a bad idea.  Hell, they got PUNDIT, a vocal OSR proponent to make suggestions and he's CLAIMED that he used his older edition knowledge to help define the edition.

And OSR is OLD School Revival/Renaissance (AKA REBIRTH) which is using the OLDER editions and bringing them BACK.

All the evidence you need.  But we all know you, and your kind, will simply ignore this, twist this into something more into your little paradigm, or whatever, so you don't have to accept the truth:  Gamers HATE change.  More than the average human being.

Well luckily for me and my kind we know bullshit when someone tries to serve it up to us.  Like for instance the fact that 4e failed because of some kind of conspiracy against it.  I mean you may as well say that it failed because Flat Earth Gamers conspired with the Reptile People and the Illuminati to bring it down because that is at least more entertaining.

Take your claim that Gamers moved to Pathfinder because they did not want to stop playing 3.5.  How do you square that circle?  These people that are so resistant to change that they conspire to bring down the peoples edition and yet at the same time so fickle that they immediately change when the new hotness appears.  And I am supposed to be the one going Lalala.

Quote from: Mistwell;1078269Dude, there isn't going to be a study, or data released by game companies, on this topic. I've made a case for why I think this is so, and it's not a refutation that you have not seen enough evidence ;)

The average Gamer is far too smart to fall for that kind of argument.  A new edition every eight years and at the same time too stubborn to change?  Sell your bridge in the next town.

Quote from: S'mon;1078314That's obviously not true. Advantage/Disadvantage is new, and pretty much a Killer App. Bounded Accuracy and the +2 to +6 Proficiency system is new. The Epic Boon advancement with the Level 20 cap is new. Short Rest classes vs Long Rest classes is partly new. Bonus Action system is new. Inspiration is new. I'm sure there's more new stuff too.

Facts have no place in this discussion.  The Average Gamer has no need of your facts or your badges!

Quote from: S'mon;1078314That's obviously not true. Advantage/Disadvantage is new, and pretty much a Killer App. Bounded Accuracy and the +2 to +6 Proficiency system is new. The Epic Boon advancement with the Level 20 cap is new. Short Rest classes vs Long Rest classes is partly new. Bonus Action system is new. Inspiration is new. I'm sure there's more new stuff too.

No it's not.  How??  Wow.  No idea that you hadn't played older editions.  Oh well.  Given all the screaming that people do whenever a new edition comes out tells me all I want to know.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1078321No it's not.  How??  Wow.  No idea that you hadn't played older editions.  Oh well.  Given all the screaming that people do whenever a new edition comes out tells me all I want to know.

You seem to be spiralling into insanity...

Quote from: S'mon;1078314That's obviously not true. Advantage/Disadvantage is new, and pretty much a Killer App.

I accept that being the case (though it's basically just a reroll, an old concept). But then again it's another one of those squint-your-eyes-and-keep-them-squinted mechanics that D&D is chock-full of: replacing precise modifiers with a sorta-kinda-fits reroll.

If people want simpler games, alright. I find it only ironic that, while now being a nerd has become more socially acceptable (with Big Bang Theory and all), more people readily call themselves nerds and engage in a supposedly nerdish hobby, they're all the while muddying what makes the hobby nerdish to begin with: numbers and tables. The old divide between nerds and "normal people" isn't gone: it only got more blurry.

As far as I am concerned: if anyone can't solve higher order differential equations in actual play, they've got no business being in my hobby. Get out, you filthy casual. :D

Spoiler

I can't myself, I'm the algebraic type.

Quote from: S'mon;1078314(snip) The Epic Boon advancement with the Level 20 cap is new. (snip)

That reminds me of the Epic rules in 3E's Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting.

Quote from: S'mon;1078314That's obviously not true. Advantage/Disadvantage is new, and pretty much a Killer App. Bounded Accuracy and the +2 to +6 Proficiency system is new. The Epic Boon advancement with the Level 20 cap is new. Short Rest classes vs Long Rest classes is partly new. Bonus Action system is new. Inspiration is new. I'm sure there's more new stuff too.

Best/Worst of two rolls isn't new; even to D&D. It featured in a number 4E feats/powers throughout its run.

The proficiency system is just 4Es 1/2 level bonuses set to 1/4 level. It also "coincidentally" lines up exactly with the gap between good and bad saves in 3e. All bounded accuracy did was remove the "noise" that having everything steadily improve caused.

Check out the initial epic level rules for 3e as they appeared in the 3e FR Campaign Setting for a similar take on epic boons.

Short vs. Long Rest classes also appeared in 4E via the Essentials Line and the more general Spellcaster (Long Rest) vs. Warrior classes (limited only by hit point reserves) has existed since OD&D.

Bonus Actions are just the 3e Swift Action/4E Minor Action with a different name.

Inspiration is a mythical creature I've never seen a single DM actually use, but even if they did it's basically just a GM controlled Action Point system.

5e is a giant mass of "greatest hits" mechanics mixed with renamed/cloaked versions of Mearls understanding of 4E mechanics (see Essentials). It is not new or different and the fact that it isn't is actually one of its chief selling points.

Innovation and Nostalgia rarely integrate well.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1078354I accept that being the case (though it's basically just a reroll, an old concept). But then again it's another one of those squint-your-eyes-and-keep-them-squinted mechanics that D&D is chock-full of: replacing precise modifiers with a sorta-kinda-fits reroll.

That said, there IS a specifically calculable mathematical benefit/penalty to "roll twice, use best/worst" in terms of probabilities. The only thing it removes is the fiddly stacking of multiple static modifiers.

In testing my own system I also found there's a HUGE psychological impact to using an advantage/disadvantage system over static modifiers. That second roll with advantage is like a "saving throw vs. failure" and because people tend to remember outliers rather than the norms, what people remember is the huge endorphin rush when they rolled like crap, then either remembered or were reminded they had advantage and then rolled again and did really well (maybe even a crit). The same goes if you've inflicted disadvantage on an enemy and the GM crits, but you remind them it had disadvantage (because the GM legit forgot) and that crit on you turned into a whiff.

It also makes occasions when a modifier gets forgotten a LOT easier to manage because you don't have to remember the original roll; you just roll again (and you only NEED to do that if re-roll might change the outcome... you don't need to reroll for disadvantage if it's already a miss or for advantage when it's already a hit).

Precision is only useful in a game if it adds to the fun. For most people keeping track of a bunch of +/-1-2 modifiers isn't fun. By contrast the bigger, but more variable, modifier that advantage/disadvantage provides, the tactile engagement of rolling more dice and the "save vs. failure" endorphin rushes and outlier results it canncreate provide a meaningful increase in enjoyment for most people.

Nothing is new under the sun.

Specially, not in D&D, the biggest RPG around. You leave it to smaller games to test the waters (or splatbooks, "Skills & Powers", etc.), and you take what's more successful.

4e was full of innovations, certainly the most innovative so far (with the exception of the originals, of course), and it alienated half the fans or more.

5e is greatest hits, yes, and there is a reason this are the greatest hits.

In fact, most RPGs feature very little innovation over different editions. See GURPS, CoC, etc.

PF2 will not go well IMO.

Well one point for PF2e by that logic is that it doesn't do anything innovative.

Quote from: Chris24601;1078368That said, there IS a specifically calculable mathematical benefit/penalty to "roll twice, use best/worst" in terms of probabilities. The only thing it removes is the fiddly stacking of multiple static modifiers.

That's the problem: it makes modifiers uniform. There isn't a half Advantage or a Double Advantage. And if there were, things would become fiddly again.

Quote from: Chris24601;1078368Precision is only useful in a game if it adds to the fun.

The problem with imprecision is that it robs some of us of all the fun. Precision isn't so much about adding fun but about preventing unfun. That's what I meant by D&D being chock-full of mechanics where you got to squint your eyes and not look too closely. For me, a lot of D&D is like this:

(https://i.redd.it/fyvtc0jujxb21.gif)

Sure, one can respond "Dude, don't overthink it, lmao" and occasionally I don't mind nonsensical Hollywood action either - but generally I go for different experiences in role-playing and film.

Quote from: Chris24601;1078368For most people keeping track of a bunch of +/-1-2 modifiers isn't fun.

Entry-level gamers and casuals, LOL! I'm only joking, of course - although these form at least part of that crowd of gamers. For me, personally, that is a part of role-playing as essential as speaking in character or the GM adding color to his narration of a scene. It's a core activity, an important ingredient without which the experience feels incomplete. Part of the reason why PbtA, for example, could never be my go-to system: it falls short on the gaming side.

Quote from: Chris24601;1078368By contrast the bigger, but more variable, modifier that advantage/disadvantage provides, the tactile engagement of rolling more dice and the "save vs. failure" endorphin rushes and outlier results it canncreate provide a meaningful increase in enjoyment for most people.

I think it's pretty bad. Not only is it imprecise - if you know you have Advantage and you succeed on the first roll, you've never had a serious brush with failure. You can circumvent that by rolling both dice at the same time but I'm observing a lot of people on Youtube not doing that - it's completely boring on Critical Role, for example.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1078354If people want simpler games, alright. I find it only ironic that, while now being a nerd has become more socially acceptable (with Big Bang Theory and all), more people readily call themselves nerds and engage in a supposedly nerdish hobby, they're all the while muddying what makes the hobby nerdish to begin with: numbers and tables. The old divide between nerds and "normal people" isn't gone: it only got more blurry.

Not all nerds are into math optimization. When my buddies and I started playing D&D in 1979, none of us were very good at math or interested in numbers and tables. We played because we liked Conan, Lord of the Rings, maps, monsters, and making stories in our minds. I have friends who have been playing D&D for 40 years who don't know what HP bonus a 16 Con gives.

Actually I think the nerds of today are called incels.

LOL, then I shall wear that label with pride.

Quote from: Haffrung;1078421Not all nerds are into math optimization.

But that wasn't my claim. My claim is that it was nerdish because it had complicated rulesets (compared to boardgames of the time) that involved calculations, numbers and tables galore. This would keep a lot of "normal people" from gaming. The nerds wouldn't mind.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1078425But that wasn't my claim. My claim is that it was nerdish because it had complicated rulesets (compared to boardgames of the time) that involved calculations, numbers and tables galore. This would keep a lot of "normal people" from gaming. The nerds wouldn't mind.

I think you're confusing nerds and geeks. :p

Quote from: Shasarak;1078317The average Gamer is far too smart to fall for that kind of argument.  A new edition every eight years and at the same time too stubborn to change?  Sell your bridge in the next town.

Strawman. Second time you've done that in response to me. Guess you know you're wrong, but are not big enough to admit it so you have to make up a false being easily knocked down substitute instead?

I didn't say anyone was too stubborn to change. This isn't an on or off type issue. I said they are MORE resistant to change, ON AVERAGE, than your AVERAGE fan of other fandoms, like sports.

That doesn't mean nobody handles change in this field. It means they're simply worse about it than many others. Your average sports team for example changes every few years - from top to bottom their personnel often change. Sports fans might bitch about it for a few months, and then they deal. Meanwhole RPG gamer fans will bitch about it for a decade, and claim 8 year cycles is changing too fast. EIGHT YEARS IS A LONG TIME, in terms of fandom issues like this. That's making my point. And the fact you think 8 years is somehow a short period of time tells me you're one of the very people I am referring to. Even you seem reluctant to embrace change if 8 years seems like an "every" type issue. I am a fan of a sports team which changes most of it's players EVERY YEAR. And that's not that unusual. Change doesn't normally happen on a generational basis like 8 years for fandom, it usually happens a lot more rapidly than that in other fandom fields. This field, however, is more reluctant to embrace change that frequently.

Quote from: Chris24601;1078363Inspiration is a mythical creature I've never seen a single DM actually use, but even if they did it's basically just a GM controlled Action Point system.

I've seen this said before. And every time it makes me think, "Dude, WT actual F?"

Every game of 5e I've played has involved inspiration. With 5 different DMs, several who don't even know each other. It's not an optional rule it's a core rule. There is an entire friggen chapter on things which feed into inspiration. Why are people not playing with it? This isn't weapon speed type stuff, this is an ordinary aspect of the core game! Heck I know two DMs who bought special oversized dice JUST for inspiration use (they hand the a big die to a player with inspiration, and that die gets rolled when used and handed back to the DM).

Quote from: Mistwell;1078437I've seen this said before. And every time it makes me think, "Dude, WT actual F?"

Every game of 5e I've played has involved inspiration. With 5 different DMs, several who don't even know each other. It's not an optional rule it's a core rule. There is an entire friggen chapter on things which feed into inspiration. Why are people not playing with it? This isn't weapon speed type stuff, this is an ordinary aspect of the core game! Heck I know two DMs who bought special oversized dice JUST for inspiration use (they hand the a big die to a player with inspiration, and that die gets rolled when used and handed back to the DM).

From my observations... the problem is it requires too much "crosstalk." The DM already has a lot to track themselves and having to remember every PCs traits, flaws and bonds to reward it is just one more thing to keep track of.

I've experienced the same thing with GMs running Mutants & Masterminds and Hero Points (which are also core to that game). It's a lot of work remembering every PCs Complications and when you've only got an hour or so to prep before game, the last thing you're worried about is remembering that one of the hero's has a coworker who is suspicious about all their absences when trouble strikes in the city.

Anything without a schedule to reward (both Inspiration and Hero Points are awarded when the GM feels it's appropriate) is something that's an easy candidate for GMs to skip entirely from their long list of things to keep track of.

It's why 4E's action points are generally superior in implementation to 5e's Inspiration. You start after each long rest with one and gain one more after every two encounters (but can only spend one per encounter, so you're encouraged not to horde them too much... not spending your first action point in the first two encounters (getting you a second one) would let you spend one each on your 3rd, 4th (when you get a third) and 5th encounters, but the system is designed around only 4-5 per day. And the GM doesn't have to track or award them, so the PCs have and use them on a regular basis.

It's also why I've generally found 5e's traits, bonds and flaws to be a waste of design space. I've never seen a DM bring them up in play because the DM is too busy running the NPCs the PCs are actually interacting with and there's no real benefit to the PC bringing them up because the DM won't even remember to hand out Inspiration for doing so.

The only PC backstory elements that ever come up are from the same players who bring them up even in games without rewards for doing so. Basically, the only people who seem inclined to use traits/bonds/flaws are the people who don't actually need those things to develop an interesting backstory.

Everything Chris said, plus inspiration does not scale well.  I gave it a fair shake when we started our first 5E game.  At 5-6 players, I could sort of make it work, but not enough to justify the attention.  At 7+, forget it.

We do use the various traits, but not as intended. They are simply notes to the player to remind them of how they intend to play the character.  The player can do that any way they want, but the traits seem to be a reasonable way to bring in a new player to the idea gradually.  But that's purely something between the player and the sheet.  Any effect in game is filtered through that player role playing the character.

Quote from: Chris24601;1078465The only PC backstory elements that ever come up are from the same players who bring them up even in games without rewards for doing so. Basically, the only people who seem inclined to use traits/bonds/flaws are the people who don't actually need those things to develop an interesting backstory.

This fits my experience.

Quote from: Mistwell;1078435Strawman. Second time you've done that in response to me. Guess you know you're wrong, but are not big enough to admit it so you have to make up a false being easily knocked down substitute instead?

I didn't say anyone was too stubborn to change. This isn't an on or off type issue. I said they are MORE resistant to change, ON AVERAGE, than your AVERAGE fan of other fandoms, like sports.

That doesn't mean nobody handles change in this field. It means they're simply worse about it than many others. Your average sports team for example changes every few years - from top to bottom their personnel often change. Sports fans might bitch about it for a few months, and then they deal. Meanwhole RPG gamer fans will bitch about it for a decade, and claim 8 year cycles is changing too fast. EIGHT YEARS IS A LONG TIME, in terms of fandom issues like this. That's making my point. And the fact you think 8 years is somehow a short period of time tells me you're one of the very people I am referring to. Even you seem reluctant to embrace change if 8 years seems like an "every" type issue. I am a fan of a sports team which changes most of it's players EVERY YEAR. And that's not that unusual. Change doesn't normally happen on a generational basis like 8 years for fandom, it usually happens a lot more rapidly than that in other fandom fields. This field, however, is more reluctant to embrace change that frequently.

Lets do a scientific experiment with Sports Fans then.  Science has proven that American Football causes brain damage so lets see how long it takes for the AVERAGE Sports fan to stop resisting changes that will prevent players getting brain damage.

Maybe we can compare that time with the AVERAGE DnD edition length?

Quote from: Chris24601;1078465and there's no real benefit to the PC bringing them up because the DM won't even remember to hand out Inspiration for doing so.

Now I am far from being an expert on anything D&D but that doesn't sound right. Why doesn't the player say: "Hold on, GM! I'm playing to my flaw X here, shouldn't that give me inspiration?"

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



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!



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!



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.



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

I'll add to this while we are at it.

It is not so much that gamers hate change. As the fact that they hate either the wrong sort of change. or too much change. If they hated change every game on earth and any to come in the future would not have a bazillion house rules and fan tweaks the second the game hits the shelves.

AD&D worked because it was mostly an extension of OD&D. Though B then BX are more apt. 2e changed some things. But overall the changes were not too messy.
3e was right on the threshold. It changed alot of things. Yet at its core was still D&D. Some were ok with that. Some were not.
4e is the poster child for what happens when you change too much. And in the wrong ways. 4e D&D GW and from what I have heard, Essentials, showed how the system could work right.
5e is all over the place with alot of new ideas and new takes on old ideas. Which is why it took off despite being still very different from AD&D.

Also what players actually hate is edition treadmills and being forced to re-buy the damn game. And some just dont want to have to relearn a new system, especially when the old one was working just fine. Only the cattle players will happily walk into the edition treadmill slaughterhouse. The rest are going to resist. A little, or alot.

Back on topic. I think Paizo may learn the hard way just how resistant players can be to edition treadmills. Which is hilarious because their fame is built up on attracting fans who hated the 3 to 4e edition treadmill.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1078555Now I am far from being an expert on anything D&D but that doesn't sound right. Why doesn't the player say: "Hold on, GM! I'm playing to my flaw X here, shouldn't that give me inspiration?"

Because the initial assumption is that the GM is in charge and there's a general bias against "nagging" them when they're the one providing the bulk of the work in keeping the game entertaining. By the time the player's realize the GM just isn't handing out Inspiration at all, they'll probably have also figured out that their traits and bonds don't make a lick of difference either and they just do what they think the character should do (if they care at all about the RP) or just what's best for the character in terms of game mechanics and maybe general heroism (if they're mostly there to hang with friends and play a game).

Inspiration is a crap system because it's one more thing for a DM to have to keep track of and the entire rest of 5e's engine is predicated on "Rulings Not Rules" so there's nothing solid to appeal to as a player if they don't think they're getting enough Inspiration (the DMG makes a point that if you think awarding Inspiration runs against the situation you shouldn't give it out... it is entirely the GM's call).

"You get one use of Inspiration per session (or per long rest or however you want to assign it)" would be infinitely preferable because then at least you'd see it used.

I think it will do well if it can show that it fixes some of the flaws of the previous edition, speeds up gameplay at the table, with less math. I thought Pathfinder 1E was the final version of D&D for me. I will still play older editions for sure just easier to find new players in my area. I bought the 5E PHB fully intending to return it and instead it is now my primary version of D&D. I'm still playing PF 1E as it is my group main choice for it. I'm firmly a 5E convert. Paizo is firmly facing a Catch 22 situation. Make it too different and fans will not purchase it. Make it too much the same and fans will not purchase it.

Quote from: Omega;1078560Back on topic. I think Paizo may learn the hard way just how resistant players can be to edition treadmills. Which is hilarious because their fame is built up on attracting fans who hated the 3 to 4e edition treadmill.

That is what people who played Pathfinder and other editions of D&D said about 5E and look how wrong that proved out to be. Most fans will complain about the purchase of new books. If the new edition actually fixes the flaws of the previous edition while being easier to run most will switch over at the drop of dime. It's only grongnards or those who hate change who complain about the new version. 5E proved so much of a threat to Pathfinder that Paizo was saw the need to make a new edition. Brand loyalty to rpgs gets thrown out the windows as soon as someone can get a better, faster, easier version of the rpg to run imo. It happened with Gurps an the Hero System with Fate and Savage Worlds. The major complaint I can see is the purchase and spending money on a new edition. If PF 2E is better in all respects to run, play and easier to learn than PF 1E most players will switch over. For myself it's too little too late. With 5E I have an easier version of D&D to play and run. If I want more complexity I have PF 1E. So I am definitely not the target market for it.

Everyone who said Inspiration barely ever gets used is right. I go out of my way to use it in my games and it still barely gets used, because the DM can't keep track of it with all the other stuff that's going on, or the situations are limited so it doesn't come up from the players often.

The other problem is how ambiguous it is; it's like alignment. Let's say someone's trait is "I do risky things for my friends." Well, how risky is risky? Is just participating in combat risky? Is fighting the main encounter's damage dealer risky enough? Or do they have to do something like jump off a cliff to grab an item that they're about to lose? This kind of stuff turns into an endless back and forth, and in my experience the players will then not rely on it or even bother bringing it up because it's so uncertain, except in truly desperate situations where they have literally nothing to lose, and then at that point it's not so much using it to play their character but fishing around for any bonus they can get for this one roll they need.

That said, I've rotated between multiple different implementations of it and they've improved with time, so I think it can be done right eventually.

Quote from: Chris24601;1078566"You get one use of Inspiration per session (or per long rest or however you want to assign it)" would be infinitely preferable because then at least you'd see it used.

For some groups, that would be an improvement.  For others, it would be no different.  That's the thing with these vague systems that don't do much.  To get any use out of them at all, the GM has to customize to whatever works for a particular table.  In the case of inspiration, it's easy to customize.  However, there is so little to it, there isn't much incentive to bother.  

Inspiration is to 5E what crafting is to 3E:  A named mechanic that is a sop to players that want something in the game to call out what they are doing, but without much weight in the game.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1078575Inspiration is to 5E what crafting is to 3E:  A named mechanic that is a sop to players that want something in the game to call out what they are doing, but without much weight in the game.

I'm definitely not a fan of sop mechanics. They're a waste of pages that could be better used for other things.

At least 3e crafting could be initiated entirely from the player side and had edge case use if you had the leadership feat. Inspiration also inflicted traits/bonds/flaws lists that doubled the space requirements for every background instead of a couple of paragraphs about thinking about who and what is important to your character.

Quote from: Omega;1078560Also what players actually hate is edition treadmills and being forced to re-buy the damn game. And some just dont want to have to relearn a new system, especially when the old one was working just fine. Only the cattle players will happily walk into the edition treadmill slaughterhouse. The rest are going to resist. A little, or alot.

Back on topic. I think Paizo may learn the hard way just how resistant players can be to edition treadmills. Which is hilarious because their fame is built up on attracting fans who hated the 3 to 4e edition treadmill.

So if releasing a new edition of a game after 10 years is an "edition treadmill", what rate of moving to a new edition wouldn't be a treadmill? Every 15 years? 25?

The theory that gamers hate change is shaky. The gaming genre that has seen its popularity grow the most in the last 10 years is hobby boardgaming, and at the hobby level it involves buying and learning 10+ new games a year. Most keen boardgame hobbyists rarely play a game older than two years, with many spending half their table time learning and playing new games.

RPGers are different, owing to the complexity of the games and to the fact that system is often subordinated to other appeals of the game. Nostalgia also plays a bigger part of the appeal of RPGs than with other tabletop hobbies. But RPGers  are not radically different from other gamers. If they can get a better experience for a newer edition with a system that is streamlined or more engaging, they'll make the transition.

As for the cost, most hobby gamers spend hundreds of dollars a year on their hobby. Replacing $150 worth of core books and maybe another $150 of support books every 8 or 9 years is hardly a show-stopping expense (and that's for the GM - players are only in for $50 each edition). RPGs may have a larger player-base of economically vulnerable players than the videogame, boardgame, or CCG hobbies do. But I'd guess that's still only a small fraction of the market. And it's pretty bad business to aim any hobby product at people who can't afford to spend even $150 every few years on their hobby.

The real resistance to change in RPGs is down to classic nerdfury. Some nerds form such an intense personal association with the object of their obsession that any alternative is seen as a personal attack on their identity. These sad folks have always been with us, but their numbers in the real world aren't anywhere near as large as their activity in social media would suggest. As is always the case with social media, the angriest 20 per cent of people account for 80 per cent of dialogue. And emerging channels to connect with the broader customer-base have given RPG publishers more confidence to discount the complaints of the loudest bleaters.

Quote from: Haffrung;1078581RPGs may have a larger player-base of economically vulnerable players than the videogame, boardgame, or CCG hobbies do. But I'd guess that's still only a small fraction of the market.

I really doubt it. Videogamers are basically "everybody" by now. Everybody under 60, anyway, and a good number of 60-70 year olds. That includes a lot of poor people. There are high IQ, low-income RPGers, but not that many I guess - income and IQ correlate positively, and really there are almost no low IQ tabletop RPGers these days, the games are too complex, and videogames offer too good an alternative.

(cue the pointing & sputtering) :D

Quote from: Chris24601;1078368That said, there IS a specifically calculable mathematical benefit/penalty to "roll twice, use best/worst" in terms of probabilities. The only thing it removes is the fiddly stacking of multiple static modifiers.

In testing my own system I also found there's a HUGE psychological impact to using an advantage/disadvantage system over static modifiers. That second roll with advantage is like a "saving throw vs. failure" and because people tend to remember outliers rather than the norms, what people remember is the huge endorphin rush when they rolled like crap, then either remembered or were reminded they had advantage and then rolled again and did really well (maybe even a crit). The same goes if you've inflicted disadvantage on an enemy and the GM crits, but you remind them it had disadvantage (because the GM legit forgot) and that crit on you turned into a whiff.

It also makes occasions when a modifier gets forgotten a LOT easier to manage because you don't have to remember the original roll; you just roll again (and you only NEED to do that if re-roll might change the outcome... you don't need to reroll for disadvantage if it's already a miss or for advantage when it's already a hit).

Precision is only useful in a game if it adds to the fun. For most people keeping track of a bunch of +/-1-2 modifiers isn't fun. By contrast the bigger, but more variable, modifier that advantage/disadvantage provides, the tactile engagement of rolling more dice and the "save vs. failure" endorphin rushes and outlier results it canncreate provide a meaningful increase in enjoyment for most people.

Quote from: Chris24601;1078465the problem is it requires too much "crosstalk." The DM already has a lot to track themselves and having to remember every PCs traits, flaws and bonds to reward it is just one more thing to keep track of.

I've experienced the same thing with GMs running Mutants & Masterminds and Hero Points (which are also core to that game). It's a lot of work remembering every PCs Complications and when you've only got an hour or so to prep before game, the last thing you're worried about is remembering that one of the hero's has a coworker who is suspicious about all their absences when trouble strikes in the city.

Anything without a schedule to reward (both Inspiration and Hero Points are awarded when the GM feels it's appropriate) is something that's an easy candidate for GMs to skip entirely from their long list of things to keep track of.

It's why 4E's action points are generally superior in implementation to 5e's Inspiration. You start after each long rest with one and gain one more after every two encounters (but can only spend one per encounter, so you're encouraged not to horde them too much... not spending your first action point in the first two encounters (getting you a second one) would let you spend one each on your 3rd, 4th (when you get a third) and 5th encounters, but the system is designed around only 4-5 per day. And the GM doesn't have to track or award them, so the PCs have and use them on a regular basis.

It's also why I've generally found 5e's traits, bonds and flaws to be a waste of design space. I've never seen a DM bring them up in play because the DM is too busy running the NPCs the PCs are actually interacting with and there's no real benefit to the PC bringing them up because the DM won't even remember to hand out Inspiration for doing so.

The only PC backstory elements that ever come up are from the same players who bring them up even in games without rewards for doing so. Basically, the only people who seem inclined to use traits/bonds/flaws are the people who don't actually need those things to develop an interesting backstory.

Quote from: Chris24601;1078566Inspiration is a crap system because it's one more thing for a DM to have to keep track of and the entire rest of 5e's engine is predicated on "Rulings Not Rules" so there's nothing solid to appeal to as a player if they don't think they're getting enough Inspiration (the DMG makes a point that if you think awarding Inspiration runs against the situation you shouldn't give it out... it is entirely the GM's call).

Excellent breakdown of the mechanic.

Quote from: Shasarak;1078550Lets do a scientific experiment with Sports Fans then.  Science has proven that American Football causes brain damage so lets see how long it takes for the AVERAGE Sports fan to stop resisting changes that will prevent players getting brain damage.

Maybe we can compare that time with the AVERAGE DnD edition length?

It sounds like you're trying to use a humorous analogy to make some kind of point, but I have no idea what that is, so I'll just assume we're still talking about sports fans and how change adverse they are, in which case you might want to look at the history of the FoxTrax Puck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FoxTrax) and XFL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFL).

Quote from: S'mon;1078583I really doubt it. Videogamers are basically "everybody" by now. Everybody under 60, anyway, and a good number of 60-70 year olds. That includes a lot of poor people. There are high IQ, low-income RPGers, but not that many I guess - income and IQ correlate positively, and really there are almost no low IQ tabletop RPGers these days, the games are too complex, and videogames offer too good an alternative.

I meant proportionally.

As for high IQ, low-income RPGers, I subscribe to the theory that the tabletop RPG dialogue has such a contentious and bitter tone (at least online) in part because it has a disproportionate number of highly intelligent but socially and economically marginalized participants. People who have an abiding resentment that their smarts haven't earned them a higher station in the world. These are presumably the sorts of gamers who express seething anger at needing to replace a $50 book every few years.

Quote from: Haffrung;1078586I meant proportionally.

As for high IQ, low-income RPGers, I subscribe to the theory that the tabletop RPG dialogue has such a contentious and bitter tone (at least online) in part because it has a disproportionate number of highly intelligent but socially and economically marginalized participants. People who have an abiding resentment that their smarts haven't earned them a higher station in the world. These are presumably the sorts of gamers who express seething anger at needing to replace a $50 book every few years.

   You may be right, but I think the nasty tone of TTRPG dialogue is more likely the fruit of the generally nasty tone of online discourse coupled with the high verbal intelligence of many participants and the growing need to bring everything into alignment with increasingly strident philosophies.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1078588You may be right, but I think the nasty tone of TTRPG dialogue is more likely the fruit of the generally nasty tone of online discourse in general coupled with the high verbal intelligence of many participants and the growing need to bring everything into alignment with increasingly strident philosophies.

That too.

I still don't quite get it.

First of all, if you're playing with strangers I can see why you might be shy asking for Inspiration as a player. But my group would very likely ask for it when playing to character. Perhaps not consistently but frequently enough.
Secondly, where's the difference between asking for Inspiration in D&D 5E and invoking an Aspect in FATE? I can't see one be a design failure and the other be a raving success, since they operate so similarly.

Quote from: Haffrung;1078586I meant proportionally.

As for high IQ, low-income RPGers, I subscribe to the theory that the tabletop RPG dialogue has such a contentious and bitter tone (at least online) in part because it has a disproportionate number of highly intelligent but socially and economically marginalized participants. People who have an abiding resentment that their smarts haven't earned them a higher station in the world. These are presumably the sorts of gamers who express seething anger at needing to replace a $50 book every few years.

That is a reasonable point. :)

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1078584Excellent breakdown of the mechanic.

No problem. As I said, I've been designing a system of my own for a couple years now and I'll admit, going from discrete static modifiers to an advantage/disadvantage like system was not something I ever expected to be doing.

It was originally going to just an optional rule in my "changing the rules" section for the GM alongside "simple AoEs/diagonals" and "rolling more/less/no damage dice." But when I was play-testing that particular optional rule the response was so overwhelmingly positive that I actually ended up spending a couple of test sessions trying to figure out why.

My conclusion was the aforementioned "save vs. failure" effect (and the resultant endorphin rush and memory for outliers cementing it). I even tested advantage against static modifiers larger than than advantage would provide (a +6 on a d20 at one point) and advantage still won out.

The reason was because every time you rolled a 1-3 (outlier) you still missed if the normal attack needed a 10+ on the die even with the +6 bonus. Conversely, any result from 4-9 on the die just got lost in the general "hit" result.

But if you rolled a 1-3 with advantage your re-roll could not only be a hit, but a natural 20 (outlier) while failing to get a 10+ on the re-roll was lost in the general "miss" condition.

Thus, even though I recorded the results of each attack and the +6 clearly won out mechanically, all the players reported on was the outliers they remembered each time which clearly favored the advantage mechanic.

Which is why my system uses a "re-roll; use best/worst/new*"mechanic instead of static conditional modifiers. The players spoke and found it universally more fun.

The underlying psychology associated with various mechanics is really fascinating to me. It's led me down a number of design paths I never would have considered before seeing the results side-by-side in tests. Things like "tactile engagement" (i.e. rolling dice), "option paralysis", "outlier recollection" and "endorphins" are all things I've found myself learning about as my system has traded "mathematical elegance" for "fun" the more it's been developed.

* "Use new" is for riskier/more random outcomes... you're only going to try to trigger it if you do really poorly (or the other guy does really good), but you absolutely lose the roll you had and the new one might be worse (the opponent might have hit you with a 16 on the die, but the re-roll could be a natural 20). I mostly use it in relation to skill checks where I have grades of success/failure... sure you failed your "first impressions" check by 3 so the guard remains neutral to you (instead of becoming friendly with a success), but your reroll could fail by 5 and now the guard is wary of you.

I've found it especially useful for magical luck-based mechanics (i.e. something a spellcaster or creature chooses to invoke) vs. situational advantages or disadvantages to a situation (where choosing to invoke it would be a bit dissociated as its contingent on knowing the results before you choose to use it to affect the outcome... whereas a momentary magical rewind allowing you to try again or an external element intervening; a gust of wind knocks the arrow back on target; can both plausibly be called upon after the outcome is known or at least all-but-certain).

Quote from: sureshot;1078570I think it will do well if it can show that it fixes some of the flaws of the previous edition, speeds up gameplay at the table, with less math. I thought Pathfinder 1E was the final version of D&D for me. I will still play older editions for sure just easier to find new players in my area. I bought the 5E PHB fully intending to return it and instead it is now my primary version of D&D. I'm still playing PF 1E as it is my group main choice for it. I'm firmly a 5E convert. Paizo is firmly facing a Catch 22 situation. Make it too different and fans will not purchase it. Make it too much the same and fans will not purchase it.



That is what people who played Pathfinder and other editions of D&D said about 5E and look how wrong that proved out to be. Most fans will complain about the purchase of new books. If the new edition actually fixes the flaws of the previous edition while being easier to run most will switch over at the drop of dime. It's only grongnards or those who hate change who complain about the new version. 5E proved so much of a threat to Pathfinder that Paizo was saw the need to make a new edition. Brand loyalty to rpgs gets thrown out the windows as soon as someone can get a better, faster, easier version of the rpg to run imo. It happened with Gurps an the Hero System with Fate and Savage Worlds. The major complaint I can see is the purchase and spending money on a new edition. If PF 2E is better in all respects to run, play and easier to learn than PF 1E most players will switch over. For myself it's too little too late. With 5E I have an easier version of D&D to play and run. If I want more complexity I have PF 1E. So I am definitely not the target market for it.

" If the new edition actually fixes the flaws of the previous edition while being easier to run most will switch over at the drop of dime."

That's a big if. From what I saw of the playtest, they didn't fix anything.


"It happened with Gurps an the Hero System with Fate and Savage Worlds."

Idk what this is suppose to mean. GURPS and Hero seem equally popular. Fate seems to be bigger than Savage Worlds, but Fate isn't a traditional RPG like Savage Worlds. Fate is basically THE storyteller system and goes more head to head with PbtA.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1078592I still don't quite get it.

First of all, if you're playing with strangers I can see why you might be shy asking for Inspiration as a player. But my group would very likely ask for it when playing to character. Perhaps not consistently but frequently enough.
Secondly, where's the difference between asking for Inspiration in D&D 5E and invoking an Aspect in FATE? I can't see one be a design failure and the other be a raving success, since they operate so similarly.

Fate is not D&D and D&D is not Fate.

The underlying assumption of Fate is shared story where players are able to influence the outcome external to their character (I invoke a flaw now so that I can swing a narrative element in my favor later). The players are, in essence, encouraged by the rules to be "junior GMs."

The underlying assumption of D&D, to the point that abandoning "gamist" elements like fighters having abilities usable only once/encounter or once/day after the experiment that was 4E; is one where the GM is essentially God (or at least Judge in the Court of Last Resort) and players have little means of influencing the world outside of their own actions. Having any input on when Inspiration might be granted is seen as a player overstepping his bounds because the entire 5e ruleset hammers home that GM rulings override all rules.

You are free to argue that's a bad system, but that doesn't negate that if you're playing that system, "GM rulings trump everything" is the expectation unless the GM rules otherwise... and that when to award Inspiration (or if to award it at all) is entirely the perview of their whims.

This is probably one of the reasons you're having such a difficult time selling your heroes luck mechanic within the confines of D&D as well. It's a fine suggestion for a system like Fate or a brand new system, but there's four decades of interia you're pushing against with D&D. 4E didn't go a quarter as far and had all manner of problems as a result.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1078597That's a big if. From what I saw of the playtest, they didn't fix anything.

We can only see in actual play test yet if they pull it off properly I can see many fans switching over.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1078597Idk what this is suppose to mean. GURPS and Hero seem equally popular. Fate seems to be bigger than Savage Worlds, but Fate isn't a traditional RPG like Savage Worlds. Fate is basically THE storyteller system and goes more head to head with PbtA.

Gurps is not doing so well and SJGames while not dropping the line is cutting back on the big releases. Hero Games survives on 3PP support and is pretty much on life support. So sure popular within their fanabase. Compared to other rpgs they are not doing well. Savage Worlds and Fate is cutting into their market share. Big difference between surviving and thriving. Both imo are surviving.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1078592...
Secondly, where's the difference between asking for Inspiration in D&D 5E and invoking an Aspect in FATE? I can't see one be a design failure and the other be a raving success, since they operate so similarly.

I would chalk it up to Different expectations from the players.

D&D has very different core assumptions of how the game is played by people in general than Fate.

I can easily see "inspiration" being totally glossed over/ignored by most D&D groups and players.

Quote from: Haffrung;1078581The theory that gamers hate change is shaky. The gaming genre that has seen its popularity grow the most in the last 10 years is hobby boardgaming, and at the hobby level it involves buying and learning 10+ new games a year. Most keen boardgame hobbyists rarely play a game older than two years, with many spending half their table time learning and playing new games.

RPGers are different, owing to the complexity of the games and to the fact that system is often subordinated to other appeals of the game. Nostalgia also plays a bigger part of the appeal of RPGs than with other tabletop hobbies. But RPGers  are not radically different from other gamers. If they can get a better experience for a newer edition with a system that is streamlined or more engaging, they'll make the transition.

As for the cost, most hobby gamers spend hundreds of dollars a year on their hobby. Replacing $150 worth of core books and maybe another $150 of support books every 8 or 9 years is hardly a show-stopping expense (and that's for the GM - players are only in for $50 each edition). RPGs may have a larger player-base of economically vulnerable players than the videogame, boardgame, or CCG hobbies do. But I'd guess that's still only a small fraction of the market. And it's pretty bad business to aim any hobby product at people who can't afford to spend even $150 every few years on their hobby.

The real resistance to change in RPGs is down to classic nerdfury. Some nerds form such an intense personal association with the object of their obsession that any alternative is seen as a personal attack on their identity. These sad folks have always been with us, but their numbers in the real world aren't anywhere near as large as their activity in social media would suggest. As is always the case with social media, the angriest 20 per cent of people account for 80 per cent of dialogue. And emerging channels to connect with the broader customer-base have given RPG publishers more confidence to discount the complaints of the loudest bleaters.

I think some aspect of the "real resistance" to change by RPG players is that, in general, RPGs are more likely to have the kinds of changes that people will be resistant to.  When you see quasi-professional output from other markets, you also get a similar, angry resistance to change.  When you see ill-considered changes, and lots of product churn, same thing.  There is still in RPGs a significant amount of running with an idea that is only half-understood, slapdash designed, and frequently only barely tested, if that. Do that in any field, you'll see a lot of resistance to change.  Moreover, since RPGs have been that way forever, players have learned to expect it.  So when you say "new edition", a lot of them hear "pull some more bad ideas out of my ass and try to sell it.  Again."

As a separate reasons, RPGs are also just a little bit like writing as a field.  That is, anyone that is sufficiently interested suspects, if only unconsciously, that they can do better, if they put the time in.  (This is one reason why book criticism is a little different than other arts.)  The nature of my earlier point reinforces this one.

Quote from: Shasarak;1078550Lets do a scientific experiment with Sports Fans then.  Science has proven that American Football causes brain damage so lets see how long it takes for the AVERAGE Sports fan to stop resisting changes that will prevent players getting brain damage.

Maybe we can compare that time with the AVERAGE DnD edition length?

Except in sports, being are fans of teams and players. That's the factor which is of most concern to them, and the factor that is the focus of their fandom.

However yeah, if you want to change the helmets for Football for example to reduce cuncussions, people will bitch that year, and then be done with it. Nobody will be so furious about it they start their own football league just because of the change. Nobody will still be raging about it 5 years later. Nobody will be saying, "That's it, this isn't real football anymore! No more football for me, I am switching to Basketball!" over it.

Quote from: Haffrung;1078580So if releasing a new edition of a game after 10 years is an "edition treadmill", what rate of moving to a new edition wouldn't be a treadmill? Every 15 years? 25?

Never.  Ever.  Otherwise it's a treadmill.

Quote from: Jaeger;1078612I would chalk it up to Different expectations from the players.

That's the explanation that makes most sense to me. FATE players probably come to the table wanting to play around with Aspects. But the GM has of course to remember many more Aspects to throw into play here.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1078701Never.  Ever.  Otherwise it's a treadmill.

I think it depends on how much the edition changes. If it's basically the same game and all your current material still works, then I wouldn't call an update every 10 years a treadmill.

D&D editions are a little crazy though in the WotC era.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1078709I think it depends on how much the edition changes. If it's basically the same game and all your current material still works, then I wouldn't call an update every 10 years a treadmill.

D&D editions are a little crazy though in the WotC era.

If a company puts out a new edition "too soon" (whatever that works out to be) that changes "too much" (ditto), then the tolerance for the next edition after that goes down, no matter how well executed.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1078701Never.  Ever.  Otherwise it's a treadmill.

I mean, I know every journey begins with a single step, but a single step does not really count as walking you know. Much less excersising on a treadmill :)

Quote from: Rhedyn;1078709I think it depends on how much the edition changes. If it's basically the same game and all your current material still works, then I wouldn't call an update every 10 years a treadmill.

D&D editions are a little crazy though in the WotC era.

  I don't know if it's the frequency (aside from the 3.5 transition) so much as it is the whole "fire the fans of the immediately preceding edition (often with sneering and mockery), while holding up 1E AD&D as the Golden Age" approach of their design and marketing every time an edition change comes around.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1078745I don't know if it's the frequency (aside from the 3.5 transition) so much as it is the whole "fire the fans of the immediately preceding edition (often with sneering and mockery), while holding up 1E AD&D as the Golden Age" approach of their design and marketing every time an edition change comes around.

Every claim of all the fans of the prior edition being fired with mockery has been false exageratted butthurt from snowflake RPGers who once again prove how much they hate change.

That silly kerfluffle over the gnome for example was recockulous. Some gamers have a really hard time taking a joke about their edition, and think "joke = mockery" even if they joke entirely lacks any contempt and is genuinely intended as light hearted fun.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1078709I think it depends on how much the edition changes. If it's basically the same game and all your current material still works, then I wouldn't call an update every 10 years a treadmill.

D&D editions are a little crazy though in the WotC era.

Think people would be fine with an unambitious 6ed that mostly tweaked stuff if it came out a decade after 5ed. D&D needs a bit of a breather before another big change and 5ed basically works even if it is bland.

Just mostly stick with things that there is a consensus about like nerfing the stupid lucky feat, presenting things more clearly, change/erase hit dice, spruce up the spell list, simple stuff like that...

That sounds more like a 5.5 than a 6.

Quote from: Shasarak;1078149I 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.

Actually we have now and then. Just not often. Few board games have tried to gouge the fans with edition treadmills. FFG recently got on that kick and Privateer has as well and both have met with resistance. Alot of resistance.

Why?

Because the game was changed too much and in MonPoc's case, partially incompatible minis that are no longer pre-painted and assembled. Now its a "hobby game". And the rules dumbed down while jacking the price tag to absurd levels for what you get.

In other cases another contributor is a new edition comes out too soon after the first. And there may be more resistance if it leaves the prior edition unfinished in some manner.

As noted before. It is not that gamers dont like change. They dont like too much change and they sure as hell dont like too soon change.

Quote from: Haffrung;1078580So if releasing a new edition of a game after 10 years is an "edition treadmill", what rate of moving to a new edition wouldn't be a treadmill? Every 15 years? 25?

In this case it may be the momentum of that 10 years. It kinda puts the lie to any claims that the game "needs" to see a new edition when its been chugging along just fine for a decade. Here is where you get the type 2 edition treadmill resistance. Why change something that has been working for so long.

Part of that is by this time you have a well established fanbase who are probably very used to the system.

Dragon Storm ran into this full tilt when they tried to do a 2nd Ed that shared very little with the original. Which had up till then been going for close to twenty years. It was not that fans hated change. They just did not want this sort of drastic change after the game had been going for so long.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1078823That sounds more like a 5.5 than a 6.

It sounds like an edition, rather than a different game with the same name. How TSR D&D stayed loosely compatible from one edition to the next worked fine. I remember having a Rules Cyclopedia, a 1ed DMG, and a 2ed PHB and running things with no real issues.

Quote from: Daztur;1078837It sounds like an edition, rather than a different game with the same name. How TSR D&D stayed loosely compatible from one edition to the next worked fine. I remember having a Rules Cyclopedia, a 1ed DMG, and a 2ed PHB and running things with no real issues.

Yeah D&D really set a weird standard for "what an edition is". Like Savage Worlds has been out for 16 years and is arguably on it's 4th or 5th edition, but it's still all compatible with one another.

It's weird how few "long" running RPGs are still around that didn't radically change their game several times like WotC D&D. Fate, Savage Worlds, and idk if I count GURPS 4e (somehow both alive and dead).

Quote from: Rhedyn;1078845Yeah D&D really set a weird standard for "what an edition is". Like Savage Worlds has been out for 16 years and is arguably on it's 4th or 5th edition, but it's still all compatible with one another.

   3rd Edition set a weird standard, really, although I think there may be predecessors. None had the kind of scope or impact of 3E's 'rebuild the game from base premises', though.

QuoteIt's weird how few "long" running RPGs are still around that didn't radically change their game several times like WotC D&D. Fate, Savage Worlds, and idk if I count GURPS 4e (somehow both alive and dead).

   BRP has seen a renaissance in the past few years, and though tweaked in various directions, it's recognizably the same game.

Quote from: Omega;1078560Also what players actually hate is edition treadmills and being forced to re-buy the damn game. And some just dont want to have to relearn a new system, especially when the old one was working just fine. Only the cattle players will happily walk into the edition treadmill slaughterhouse. The rest are going to resist. A little, or alot.

Our 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).

It is not to the benefit of game companies to treat new editions as separate games, because they want you to buy the new system, the new versions of books, and the next wave of official accessories. What we've seen though is that in many cases, older edition games get 'third party support' more.

But parallel to these edition releases, we have market changes where the big companies that were entirely reliant on retail before (and that's a huge, huge investment risk) have so many more ways to sell that are lower risk (some of which are still in a state of change). The changes in methodologies could also have a huge impact on how edition releases are treated into the future.

Quote from: Omega;1078826Actually we have now and then. Just not often. Few board games have tried to gouge the fans with edition treadmills. FFG recently got on that kick and Privateer has as well and both have met with resistance. Alot of resistance.

Why?

Because the game was changed too much and in MonPoc's case, partially incompatible minis that are no longer pre-painted and assembled. Now its a "hobby game". And the rules dumbed down while jacking the price tag to absurd levels for what you get.

Now 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.

QuoteIn other cases another contributor is a new edition comes out too soon after the first. And there may be more resistance if it leaves the prior edition unfinished in some manner.

As noted before. It is not that gamers dont like change. They dont like too much change and they sure as hell dont like too soon change.

My problem with that statement is that you are not describing "gamers" you are describing "people".

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).

It seems to me that the edition releases by TSR can be explained by something happening within the company.  Gary wanted to cut Dave out of the rules so came up with ADnD, Williams wanted to cut Gary out of the rules so came up with 2e.

The WotC era is a little different though, definitely more bean counter focused.

Quote from: Shasarak;1078902It seems to me that the edition releases by TSR can be explained by something happening within the company.  Gary wanted to cut Dave out of the rules so came up with ADnD, Williams wanted to cut Gary out of the rules so came up with 2e. The WotC era is a little different though, definitely more bean counter focused.

I wouldn't discount those being reasons, but there could be marketing reasons as well.

Early on, they had to keep scaling up to fulfill demand, but it could also be that they were finding new sales to be quite expensive and harder to convert new customers. The cartoon seemed like a good move to rectify that, but my understanding was that was costly (and perceived as risky).

I will give Paizo credit that they really sold the hell out of the base book. They moved a lot of it initially, then getting it on Amazon for really low price, then coming out with those cheapo softback versions. The cost of entry for the quality of goods was really low. They also converted a lot of people to their direct sales of 'subscription' adventures. And yet, comparatively, they've maintained a higher entry price for Starfinder.

Well I do see one mistake and it just reinforces my perception that the Devs do not listen is sticking with the large one core instead of doing the smart business decision and splitting the core into two parts like Wotc. The first print run of their core PF 1E had binding issues and unless the printers they use this time know what they are doing I think it will be more of the same. Recently since I decided to stick with PF 1E I began buying replacement hardcover copies for the core. Two replacements as the softcover is more portable and light just prefer the hardcover. Three copies all but one had binding issues. One the back cover was torn completely from the binding. The second the binding was starting to tear along the spine both on the front and back cover. The third unlike the first two instead of having regular paper binding had glossy paper and held up real well. Yes they will replace defective copies to be sure but why go through that again. Considering that gamers are willing to buy into PF 2E would their been that much of a backlash towards two separate books . all i have to say is thank good for maptack.

Quote from: Lynn;1079007I will give Paizo credit that they really sold the hell out of the base book. They moved a lot of it initially, then getting it on Amazon for really low price, then coming out with those cheapo softback versions. The cost of entry for the quality of goods was really low. They also converted a lot of people to their direct sales of 'subscription' adventures. And yet, comparatively, they've maintained a higher entry price for Starfinder.

Agreed 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$.

Quote from: Lynn;1079007I will give Paizo credit that they really sold the hell out of the base book. They moved a lot of it initially, then getting it on Amazon for really low price, then coming out with those cheapo softback versions. The cost of entry for the quality of goods was really low. They also converted a lot of people to their direct sales of 'subscription' adventures. And yet, comparatively, they've maintained a higher entry price for Starfinder.

Oh, Paizo's Patherfinder 1e was a stroke of genius, and I'm serious.  Note only did they leverage the OGL to their favour, meaning they had very little work to do (and thus people to pay) they had an in-house artist work on the design exclusively, (Again, less overhead) and then put the core book out, with all the fixings and trimmings of colour, glossy pages for the incredibly cheap price of abut 50CDN.  That's a freakin' STEAL!  But the real genius was not the book, but their storefront, which STILL SOLD THEIR COMPETITORS PRODUCTS AT THE SAME TIME!

They were making money TWO WAYS, on top of all the other side merch.  They were getting money from the 3e grognards who HATED 4e's attempt at changing the game, and they were catering to those who wanted to give 4e a chance.

That's excellent business sense.

And I am dead serious.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079020Oh, Paizo's Patherfinder 1e was a stroke of genius, and I'm serious.  Note only did they leverage the OGL to their favour, meaning they had very little work to do (and thus people to pay) they had an in-house artist work on the design exclusively, (Again, less overhead) and then put the core book out, with all the fixings and trimmings of colour, glossy pages for the incredibly cheap price of abut 50CDN.  That's a freakin' STEAL!  But the real genius was not the book, but their storefront, which STILL SOLD THEIR COMPETITORS PRODUCTS AT THE SAME TIME!

They were making money TWO WAYS, on top of all the other side merch.  They were getting money from the 3e grognards who HATED 4e's attempt at changing the game, and they were catering to those who wanted to give 4e a chance.

That's excellent business sense.

And I am dead serious.

Agreed and seconded and unlike too many grognard who sell rpg products had enough common sense to not shit on your competitors products. If your selling both it cuts into profits more importantly as a customer I want any salesperson who sells me something to be objective as possible. If your too damn stupid and stubborn not to do so I am not purchasing from the store or recommending the store ever again.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079020Oh, Paizo's Patherfinder 1e was a stroke of genius, and I'm serious.  Note only did they leverage the OGL to their favour, meaning they had very little work to do (and thus people to pay) they had an in-house artist work on the design exclusively, (Again, less overhead) and then put the core book out, with all the fixings and trimmings of colour, glossy pages for the incredibly cheap price of abut 50CDN.  That's a freakin' STEAL!  But the real genius was not the book, but their storefront, which STILL SOLD THEIR COMPETITORS PRODUCTS AT THE SAME TIME! They were making money TWO WAYS, on top of all the other side merch.  They were getting money from the 3e grognards who HATED 4e's attempt at changing the game, and they were catering to those who wanted to give 4e a chance. That's excellent business sense. And I am dead serious.

Yes, and they were clear that their own direct store was it. DriveThruRPG doesn't have them because Paizo seemed dead set against them.

Pathfinder 2E is going to sink like the Lusitania.

As a fan of Pathfinder 1E, I was amazed at how successful it was.

In a lot of ways, the success and momentum of D&D 5E probably would not have gotten as big as it has if it weren't for Pathfinder being popular both among grognards who disliked 4E and new gamers trying to get into the hobby for the first time.

Plus, D&D was at its lowest point in years during Pathfinder's heyday.

Pathfinder's success largely was helped by D&D 4E's failure.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1079209Plus, D&D was at its lowest point in years during Pathfinder's heyday.

Yeah, great years for Paizo were not necessarily great years for the hobby.

But idk if things like Fate, PbtA, or Savage Worlds would be as big as they are if D&D 5th edition released in 2008 instead of D&D 4th edition. Or if OSR would be as big of a thing as it is now if Pathfinder didn't squash the much easier to play 4e and make one of the most complicated RPGs ever the dominant market holder.

I know plenty of these games release before PF, but RPGs tend to take awhile to build up steam (it's normally years before a consistent group finishes up planned campaigns and can start playing a system they were "sold" on).

Here's a data point of one D&D DM who will be trying PF2 because it seems to fix a lot of things that turned me off PF1. If the first PF2 adventure path is any good, I'll be in for at least one campaign and several books.

If 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.

I think Paizo will do fine with PF2. However, the one big concern I'd have if I were them is the legacy subscriptions to the Pathfinder adventure paths from people who were getting it out of laziness at this point. People who had drifted away from the game, tell themselves they get it for reading material and just in case they some day get back to that campaign in their mind. Some of those people may take this opportunity of a shift to a new edition to finally cancel their subscription.

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.

Paizo will eventually be remembered as basically an opportunistic parasite on a weakened hobby.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1080373Paizo will eventually be remembered as basically an opportunistic parasite on a weakened hobby.

That's a funny way of saying "the only reason D&D 4e wasn't the dominant game".

A lot had to go wrong for 4e to fail, Paizo making Pathfinder was an essential element.

Some argument could be made that OSR would have been bigger if 4e was the only other option for 3e players who like new books, but it can also be said that OSR really benefited from Paizo's dominance as "real D&D" so that OSR could fill the niche of "playable real D&D".

Because 4e wasn't actually bad and it's pretty easy to learn and play. I suspect most of the 3e diehards would have converted over eventually without something like Pathfinder. And then you do not get a 5e D&D that looks like this.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1080373Paizo will eventually be remembered as basically an opportunistic parasite on a weakened hobby.

So you hope.  But evidence suggests otherwise.  But I don't disagree with your premise that PFRPG2 will not be as 'good' or as popular as the first edition.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080425So you hope.  But evidence suggests otherwise.  But I don't disagree with your premise that PFRPG2 will not be as 'good' or as popular as the first edition.

What evidence?

Quote from: S'mon;1080433What evidence?

The fact that their storefront is still going strong?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080449The fact that their storefront is still going strong?

So their retail business is not an 'opportunistic parasite on a weakened hobby'?  I agree, but I'm sure Pundit was referring specifically to their Pathfinder RPG.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1080375That's a funny way of saying "the only reason D&D 4e wasn't the dominant game".

A lot had to go wrong for 4e to fail, Paizo making Pathfinder was an essential element.

Some argument could be made that OSR would have been bigger if 4e was the only other option for 3e players who like new books, but it can also be said that OSR really benefited from Paizo's dominance as "real D&D" so that OSR could fill the niche of "playable real D&D".

Because 4e wasn't actually bad and it's pretty easy to learn and play. I suspect most of the 3e diehards would have converted over eventually without something like Pathfinder. And then you do not get a 5e D&D that looks like this.

Well there would've been something like Pathfinder. There was a pretty obvious market for 3.75ed that wasn't beeing filled so SOMEONE would've filled PF's shoes. Maybe the PF substitute wouldn't have been as popular or the market would be fragmented into a bunch of 3ed clones kind of like the OSR but 3ed clones were inevitable.

Quote from: S'mon;1080454So their retail business is not an 'opportunistic parasite on a weakened hobby'?  I agree, but I'm sure Pundit was referring specifically to their Pathfinder RPG.

He said Paizo, I assumed he believes that the company would burn if PFRPG fails.

He is incorrect.  Paizo have good business sense.  After all, while PFRPG was their baby, they STILL sold 4e stuff JUST IN CASE the bottom dropped out of their RPG business.  Personally, 2e is not gonna fly, it's clear that Paizo has no idea how to make RPGs, but them even taking a financial hit on this?  No.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080478He said Paizo, I assumed he believes that the company would burn if PFRPG fails.

He is incorrect.  Paizo have good business sense.  After all, while PFRPG was their baby, they STILL sold 4e stuff JUST IN CASE the bottom dropped out of their RPG business.  Personally, 2e is not gonna fly, it's clear that Paizo has no idea how to make RPGs, but them even taking a financial hit on this?  No.

You're kidding, right?

Paizo's marketplace of 3rd-party products isn't anywhere near the income that their sales of their Pathfinder products are.

Unlikely PF2 will be as popular as PF1. But I'm pretty confident it will still be the second most popular fantasy RPG in the hobby. There's space in the market for a more crunchy D&D variant, and PF2 will certainly be more accessible for new players than the frankenstein system of PF1. The pissing and moaning about it on forums is the usual grognard response to any new edition.

Quote from: kythri;1080480You're kidding, right?

Paizo's marketplace of 3rd-party products isn't anywhere near the income that their sales of their Pathfinder products are.

Citation needed.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080546Citation needed.

Nah, not this time.  Anyone who has paid attention to anything Paizo has said since the Dragon/Dungeon transition is aware of this.

The Adventure Path was, and now the RPG is, their bread and butter.

I'm not saying they make an inconsequential amount of money from the webstore, but the majority of that is from subscribers to their various PF products who use it for convenience.

The only reason Paizo's PDF marketplace is a viable market for 3rd-parties is because it's the only place to legally acquire Paizo's PF content.  That's specifically what it was created for, and they opened it up later to 3rd-party products.  If it had to compete with DTRPG on it's own merits, and not be the exclusive source for the Paizo content, it wouldn't survive.

If Paizo stops publishing, their webstore really won't be something that keeps them afloat.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1080373Paizo will eventually be remembered as basically an opportunistic parasite on a weakened hobby.

Gawd they saved us from Cthulhu, what do you want a gold plated PHB?

If they'd made this a bit more like Starfinder (with the fixed hit points and building-block steps of character generation) combined with some of the 4E/5E concepts (like proficiency bonus independent of class and bounded accuracy) they could have gotten somewhere.  As it is you have all the crunch of PF/3.5 (that turns some people off) without the straightforward system that makes the crunch work.

JG

Quote from: RPGPundit;1080373Paizo will eventually be remembered as basically an opportunistic parasite on a weakened hobby.

The whole of the OSR may end up remembered as that too. Parasites.

Quote from: kythri;1080561Nah, not this time.  Anyone who has paid attention to anything Paizo has said since the Dragon/Dungeon transition is aware of this.

The Adventure Path was, and now the RPG is, their bread and butter.

I'm not saying they make an inconsequential amount of money from the webstore, but the majority of that is from subscribers to their various PF products who use it for convenience.

The only reason Paizo's PDF marketplace is a viable market for 3rd-parties is because it's the only place to legally acquire Paizo's PF content.  That's specifically what it was created for, and they opened it up later to 3rd-party products.  If it had to compete with DTRPG on it's own merits, and not be the exclusive source for the Paizo content, it wouldn't survive.

If Paizo stops publishing, their webstore really won't be something that keeps them afloat.

What they say and what the reality is are often two separate things.  So until you come up with numbers proving your point, I am going sit here and grumble that Paizo lives yet another day.  I don't like the company.  Pathfinder was effective theft, despite being legally allowed to happen because of the OGL.  But I can't deny that doing so was business genius, which pretty much what got them on the RPG map with the first edition.

I think Paizo APs only sell well because Pathfinder is so time consuming to prep for. You need to do 2-3 hours of prep for every hour of session.

When PF stops being a main game, and even if PF2e is a wild success, Paizo is still likely to lose revenue because the only way PF2e is going to get players is if the GMs don't feel like they need APs.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1080718I think Paizo APs only sell well because Pathfinder is so time consuming to prep for. You need to do 2-3 hours of prep for every hour of session.

I agree that Pathfinder being a crunchy game makes their AP line attractive to DMs. But Paizo's APs were very popular before they even designed the Pathfinder game. Whatever else you may think of of Paizo, they know what the market wants when it comes adventure content, from the artwork and design to worldbuilding, NPCs etc. WotC is still playing catch up with their adventure books.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1080718When PF stops being a main game, and even if PF2e is a wild success, Paizo is still likely to lose revenue because the only way PF2e is going to get players is if the GMs don't feel like they need APs.

Not sure what you mean. Why would 2F2e GMs be less likely to want APs?

Quote from: Haffrung;1080723I agree that Pathfinder being a crunchy game makes their AP line attractive to DMs. But Paizo's APs were very popular before they even designed the Pathfinder game. Whatever else you may think of of Paizo, they know what the market wants when it comes adventure content, from the artwork and design to worldbuilding, NPCs etc. WotC is still playing catch up with their adventure books.



Not sure what you mean. Why would 2F2e GMs be less likely to want APs?

Before Pathfinder, Paizo made APs for 3.5 which is basically the same game.

The only way PF2e can possibly be a success is if it cuts down on the GM prep-time required, which is main reason APs sell.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1080727Before Pathfinder, Paizo made APs for 3.5 which is basically the same game.

The only way PF2e can possibly be a success is if it cuts down on the GM prep-time required,

Disagree. The barrier to PF1 that Paizo is trying to overcome is how daunting it is to new players. PF2e can be a success if it provides a more crunchy alternative to 5E with more choice for PC customization, while being more accessible to new players than PF1. From the playtest rules, it seems they've found that sweet spot system-wise (whether the market takes to it is another matter).

Quote from: Rhedyn;1080727which is main reason APs sell.

They sell for the same reason WotC's campaign books sell - a lot of GMs like full campaigns they can run from a book. Does that mean they have zero prep time? No. WotC's campaign books require shitloads of prep time to run too. In fact, I've found WotC's campaign books can require even more prep time, because they're so wordy and poorly organized. The more structured nature of both the Pathfinder system and Paizo's APs mean they're can be easier to prep for. You typically know exactly what's coming up in the next session.

APs also sell because Paizo is good at developing community buzz around them. Running APs is a shared experience. And they have top-notch production values. I don't see why that would change with PF2e.

Quote from: Haffrung;1080728They sell for the same reason WotC's campaign books sell - a lot of GMs like full campaigns they can run from a book. Does that mean they have zero prep time? No. WotC's campaign books require shitloads of prep time to run too. In fact, I've found WotC's campaign books can require even more prep time, because they're so wordy and poorly organized. The more structured nature of both the Pathfinder system and Paizo's APs mean they're can be easier to prep for. You typically know exactly what's coming up in the next session.

I think this is right. I'm currently running Paizo AP Shattered Star - Into the Nightmare Rift converted to 5e, with 17th-20th level PCs, and WoTC/Sasquatch 5e campaign adventure Princes of the Apocalypse, with 3rd level PCs. PoTA definitely takes more prep time! The organisation is incredible, and not in a good way - I just spent a couple hours this morning cross indexing info from several chapters - it has most of the intro material in Chapter 6, whereas the rest of the adventure is in chapters 2-5. It did take more prep time running Curse of the Crimson Throne in Pathfinder rules than Shattered Star in 5e, 5e definitely cuts down on prep.

Quote from: Haffrung;1080728PF2e can be a success if it provides a more crunchy alternative to 5E with more choice for PC customization, while being more accessible to new players than PF1. From the playtest rules, it seems they've found that sweet spot system-wise (whether the market takes to it is another matter).

WHAT

Have you actually tried it? It plays like ass! I hope for their sake they won't release that POS as the 2e. It's embarassingly bad.

I've taken a look at the PF Beginner's Box, but it was some time ago. It seemed pretty legit to me. It's too bad that they didn't go in that direction and simplify things and stick with nice boxed sets, rather than doubling-down on complexity and "character builds," assuming that's actually the case here.

I still clamor for WOTC to make a full "B/X" version of 5E that's not a starter set. The free basic rules are pretty close, but still just a tad bit too fiddly for me. I am a 5E fan though. OD&D, B/X, and 5E are more favorites in that order. I grew up on 2E and the RC, but after rereading them, I'm less enamored.

I can't seem to get into 1E at all, outside of the monsters, spells, and magic items, which are all classics.

But, for those that like crunchier systems, I imagine PF 2E will garner quite a few fans indeed.

Quote from: S'mon;1080734I think this is right. I'm currently running Paizo AP Shattered Star - Into the Nightmare Rift converted to 5e,

Funny, just this weekend I was considering picking up the Shattered Star AP to either run when PF2e comes out or convert to 5E. Does it play well with 5E?

Quote from: S'mon;1080734The organisation is incredible, and not in a good way - I just spent a couple hours this morning cross indexing info from several chapters - it has most of the intro material in Chapter 6, whereas the rest of the adventure is in chapters 2-5.

My DM had a hell of a time prepping Princes of the Apocalypse. I bought Out of the Abyss, and when I read it's epic sprawl, with dozens of locations and dozens of NPCs woven together in a baffling plot presented in blocks and blocks of natural language text, I came to the sad conclusion it would be easier just to make up an Underdark campaign than to wrangle that monster into usable form.  

Quote from: S'mon;1080734It did take more prep time running Curse of the Crimson Throne in Pathfinder rules than Shattered Star in 5e, 5e definitely cuts down on prep.

So it sounds like the ideal AP would be Paizo format with 5E rules.

Quote from: Haffrung;1080777So it sounds like the ideal AP would be Paizo format with 5E rules.

  What I've been wondering for the past few years is how many people are buying Paizo APs and using them with 5E. That could have more of an impact on the success or failure of Pathfinder 2E than anything, depending on how closely compatible the two systems are.

  Purely academic curiosity on my part; I've been tired of Paizo's approach to the game since they were still running the magazines. :)

Quote from: Kael;1080756I've taken a look at the PF Beginner's Box, but it was some time ago. It seemed pretty legit to me. It's too bad that they didn't go in that direction /QUOTE]

PBB is an amazing product, by far the best Paizo have put out. But I don't think it made them much money.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080692What they say and what the reality is are often two separate things.  So until you come up with numbers proving your point, I am going sit here and grumble that Paizo lives yet another day.  I don't like the company.  Pathfinder was effective theft, despite being legally allowed to happen because of the OGL.  But I can't deny that doing so was business genius, which pretty much what got them on the RPG map with the first edition.

One day I would really like to know how you can steal something that was given away for free?

o_O

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1080782What I've been wondering for the past few years is how many people are buying Paizo APs and using them with 5E. That could have more of an impact on the success or failure of Pathfinder 2E than anything, depending on how closely compatible the two systems are.

I've wondered that as well. And then the next natural thought is if Paizo could survive as a company dedicated to publishing 5E adventures and supplements if PF2E fails to meet expectations. Golarian has its issues, but it's better than the shlock pablum of the Realms.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1080782Purely academic curiosity on my part; I've been tired of Paizo's approach to the game since they were still running the magazines. :)

And to be clear, by "ideal" I mean "marginally better than the awful format both Paizo and WotC use for adventures today."

Quote from: S'mon;1080785PBB is an amazing product, by far the best Paizo have put out. But I don't think it made them much money.

It baffles me that products that use clear and modern design principles to teach RPG systems don't seem to have much success in the market.

Is it possible that relying on one uber-invested gamer to memorize a couple hundred pages of rules written in rambling walls of text and then verbally explain them ad hoc to a table of players really is the best way to teach a complex RPG?

Quote from: Kael;1080756I've taken a look at the PF Beginner's Box, but it was some time ago. It seemed pretty legit to me. It's too bad that they didn't go in that direction

Quote from: S'mon;1080785PBB is an amazing product, by far the best Paizo have put out. But I don't think it made them much money.

Quote from: Haffrung;1080796It baffles me that products that use clear and modern design principles to teach RPG systems don't seem to have much success in the market.

Is it possible that relying on one uber-invested gamer to memorize a couple hundred pages of rules written in rambling walls of text and then verbally explain them ad hoc to a table of players really is the best way to teach a complex RPG?

The reason the PATHFINDER BEGINNER BOX! didn't sell 'well' for Pazio, was because it was nerf-ware.

Only levels 1-5, with no expansions.

It was a marketing gateway drug for the big PF books.

TSR had 2 lines: Basic/Advanced. But nowadays I think WOTC and Pazio would see doing such a thing as competing against themselves.

From what Paizo has stated over the years, the PBB sold pretty well - they've reprinted it at least a couple of times.

The problem with it has already been stated - no follow-up, no support, and poor guidance/segue into the CRB.

PBB should have been guided into a "Pathfinder Basic Edition" which had a couple of support products for it (module, 2-part or 3-part AP, etc.) and that then should have been guided into the CRB.

They missed a big step.

Quote from: Kael;1080756But, for those that like crunchier systems, I imagine PF 2E will garner quite a few fans indeed.

The problem is PF has always been bad at crunch. When they could just hang more tinsel on the basically functional if rickety 3.5ed tree then it holds together. If they have to make up more core rules themselves then their weaknesses really shine through...

Quote from: Shasarak;1080793One day I would really like to know how you can steal something that was given away for free?

o_O

Socialism! :D

Quote from: Shasarak;1080793One day I would really like to know how you can steal something that was given away for free?

o_O

Quote from: James Gillen;1080830Socialism! :D

You think you're kidding but that principle is the same.  But instead of a government stealing the work of it's own people and redistributing the wealth gained for themselves, Paizo took the work by several employees at a rival company and repurposed with some minor changes to the wording and resold it under their own branding as their own work.

This would be considered theft if it wasn't for the OGL.  What Paizo did is why IP laws exist, so that some rando can reword someone else's document/product in an afternoon and and make money off of it.  But Paizo did, with the help of a legal contract that gave them that loop hole.  But most of the work for PFRPG was already done for them, all the balancing, all the math, done.  All they needed to do was change a few words, but they also added a few houserules, gussied it up with some pretty art from an in-house artist and brilliantly sold it as the second coming of D&D with a devastatingly low price.

HURR DURRRRRR, PAIZO BAAAAD.

It's not a loophole when it's explicitly designed to allow that.
A lot of Paizo's Pathfinder staff were the very people who worked on 3E/3.5 for WotC.
Wayne Reynolds is not an "in-house artist", considering that he does a ton of work for WotC as well.

Seriously, fuck off with this bullshit.

Quote from: kythri;1080949HURR DURRRRRR, PAIZO BAAAAD.

We get it, you're a Paizo fanboy.

Quote from: kythri;1080949It's not a loophole when it's explicitly designed to allow that.

Just because it's not completely illegal, doesn't make it RIGHT.

Quote from: kythri;1080949A lot of Paizo's Pathfinder staff were the very people who worked on 3E/3.5 for WotC.

So?  Most employees don't keep the rights to their own contributions.  But instead of making a new system, they were allowed to more or less copy it.  Which in any other situation would have been illegal.

Quote from: kythri;1080949Wayne Reynolds is not an "in-house artist", considering that he does a ton of work for WotC as well.

He worked almost exclusively for Paize during the 1e days, just because he did side work doesn't change that.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  Please don't mistaken that.

Quote from: kythri;1080949Seriously, fuck off with this bullshit.

Just cuz the facts hurts your feelings, doesn't change them.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080948But most of the work for PFRPG was already done for them, all the balancing, all the math, done.  All they needed to do was change a few words, but they also added a few houserules, gussied it up with some pretty art from an in-house artist and brilliantly sold it as the second coming of D&D with a devastatingly low price.

I'm no expert on Pathfinder (nor on D&D) but wasn't the actual value to Pathfinder for gamers the additional content that they published? People wanted primarily more material for 3.x and Paizo gave it to them? Wasn't it possible to play PF adventure paths with 3.x only also?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080959We get it, you're a Paizo fanboy.

I'm not so much a fan of Baizuo as much as I am less a fan of your bullshit.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080959Just because it's not completely illegal, doesn't make it RIGHT.

It's not even remotely illegal.  It is 100% legal, and specifically allowed for in the license, which most assuredly DOES make it right.  Fuck off with your "oh my stars, they exploited a loophole!" lies.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080959So?  Most employees don't keep the rights to their own contributions.  But instead of making a new system, they were allowed to more or less copy it.  Which in any other situation would have been illegal.

This isn't "any other situation" but, since we're talking game rules here, well, as they can't be copyrighted in the first place, yeah, they could have done what they did without the license, the license just made it easier/quicker.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080959He worked almost exclusively for Paize during the 1e days, just because he did side work doesn't change that.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  Please don't mistaken that.

Well, that's bullshit too, because he did about as much work for WotC during the same time - a lot of cover work among that.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080959Just cuz the facts hurts your feelings, doesn't change them.

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1080961I'm no expert on Pathfinder (nor on D&D) but wasn't the actual value to Pathfinder for gamers the additional content that they published? People wanted primarily more material for 3.x and Paizo gave it to them? Wasn't it possible to play PF adventure paths with 3.x only also?

I think the original adventure paths were written specifically for 3.5 as they predate PFRPG. It likely is possible to play even the later ones with 3.5 rules, assuming they don't reference their rule additions which have no parallel in 3.5 (e.g. haunts). 3.5 characters are less powerful than PF ones, though,so that may cause issues.

As for the actual value, in my then-group's case it was simply the fact that we needed a PHB for a new player but couldn't buy one as they were out of print. We then decided to switch to PF, whose core rulebook was and is available. Martials being less boring and simpler grapple rules didn't hurt either. I'm sure there were other reasons too, but I forget.

(I have since bought many more books but, apart from the APG, they mainly gather dust. Paizo's writing or rules for stuff aren't that exciting. They somehow managed to make even called shots lame; we techically use them in my game, but no-one ever attempts them.)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080948You think you're kidding but that principle is the same.  But instead of a government stealing the work of it's own people and redistributing the wealth gained for themselves, Paizo took the work by several employees at a rival company and repurposed with some minor changes to the wording and resold it under their own branding as their own work.

This would be considered theft if it wasn't for the OGL.  What Paizo did is why IP laws exist, so that some rando can reword someone else's document/product in an afternoon and and make money off of it.  But Paizo did, with the help of a legal contract that gave them that loop hole.  But most of the work for PFRPG was already done for them, all the balancing, all the math, done.  All they needed to do was change a few words, but they also added a few houserules, gussied it up with some pretty art from an in-house artist and brilliantly sold it as the second coming of D&D with a devastatingly low price.

Yeah, it would be theft if it was not for the fact that it was given away for free, so again how do you steal something that was given away?

Legal Loophole my hairy white ass that is the OGL working exactly as designed.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080959Just because it's completely legal, doesn't make it RIGHT.

If it is completely legal then it does make it RIGHT.  That is why it is completely legal.

QuoteJust cuz the facts hurts your feelings, doesn't change them.

You are right that facts dont care about your feelings.

So how do you feel about the OSR works that are not retro clones?  I mean like games such as Stars Without Number and Godbound.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1080961I'm no expert on Pathfinder (nor on D&D) but wasn't the actual value to Pathfinder for gamers the additional content that they published? People wanted primarily more material for 3.x and Paizo gave it to them? Wasn't it possible to play PF adventure paths with 3.x only also?

If all they wanted was more 3.x content, they didn't need to remake 3.x, they just needed to keep the pipeline flowing.  But because a 'dead system' loses consumers, Paizo needed to make an evergreen product to keep the fanbase engaged.  And at the time, there was a significantly vocal group who hated the idea of another edition, remember no one knew what 4e was going to be like except a select few in the playtests, and that had changed radically with each progression.  And so Paizo smelt an opportunity and being very smart business people, they capitalized on the fan backlash and made bank.

If nothing else, Paizo are great business men.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081008If nothing else, Paizo are great business men.

Well, they were.

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;1081029Well, they were.

JG

Until the business burns down, I reserve judgement.  But again, I think that PFRGP 2e is going flop, but not do much damage.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081008If all they wanted was more 3.x content, they didn't need to remake 3.x, they just needed to keep the pipeline flowing.  But because a 'dead system' loses consumers, Paizo needed to make an evergreen product to keep the fanbase engaged.  And at the time, there was a significantly vocal group who hated the idea of another edition, remember no one knew what 4e was going to be like except a select few in the playtests, and that had changed radically with each progression.  And so Paizo smelt an opportunity and being very smart business people, they capitalized on the fan backlash and made bank.

If nothing else, Paizo are great business men.

IIRC people were mostly fine with another edition as a lot of 3.5ed flaws were getting publically griped about a lot, they just weren't fine with a "burn it all down and start over from scratch" edition.

Quote from: Daztur;1081045IIRC people were mostly fine with another edition as a lot of 3.5ed flaws were getting publically griped about a lot, they just weren't fine with a "burn it all down and start over from scratch" edition.

No one knew what 4e was about other than some random blurbs here or there, or hearsay from the interwebs.  They ASSUMED that 4e was a slash and burn, and because gamers HATE change, that contingent went to Pathfinder, with most of them hating 4e sight unseen.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081052No one knew what 4e was about other than some random blurbs here or there, or hearsay from the interwebs.  They ASSUMED that 4e was a slash and burn, and because gamers HATE change, that contingent went to Pathfinder, with most of them hating 4e sight unseen.

Agreed and seconded. Not only that to be fair Wotc were upfront about how different 4E was going to be and some gamers who predicatively hated changed acted angry and outraged at how different 4E was from previous editions. If I'm told something is going to be different from the start being angry about it later just makes me look like a petty whiny  idiot especially if I was warned ahead of time. Now if Wotc had advertised a Pathfinder edition and gave the fans 4E then I could understand the anger and outrage as I would have been feeling both right along with them.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081034Until the business burns down, I reserve judgement.  But again, I think that PFRGP 2e is going flop, but not do much damage.

Again seconded though I think we maybe pleasantly surprised. Then again given as how too much influence Pathfinder society play has on the development of rules post core release that group could always ruin what was a good thing imo.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081052No one knew what 4e was about other than some random blurbs here or there, or hearsay from the interwebs.  They ASSUMED that 4e was a slash and burn, and because gamers HATE change, that contingent went to Pathfinder, with most of them hating 4e sight unseen.

4e released June 2008, Pathfinder released August 2009

People had more than a year to develop an opinion about 4e before buying Pathfinder.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081052No one knew what 4e was about other than some random blurbs here or there, or hearsay from the interwebs.  They ASSUMED that 4e was a slash and burn, and because gamers HATE change, that contingent went to Pathfinder, with most of them hating 4e sight unseen.

Bullshit.  Another lie.

Quote from: Rhedyn;10810754e released June 2008, Pathfinder released August 2009

People had more than a year to develop an opinion about 4e before buying Pathfinder.

Yup.

Also, before any 4E rules had been released, we had been informed that 4E would have no OGL, instead having the GSL.

Additionally, when Paizo made their decision to develop Pathfinder, the GSL still contained the poison-pill clause.

The original or advertised version of this non-compete clause was that, if you published under the GSL, you couldn't publish under the OGL any more.

It got later revised to "product lines" rather than entire publishers - i.e. Paizo, publishing "Pathfinder Adventure Path" under the OGL would have to rename the product (ostensibly, naming it something other than Pathfinder) to publish it under the GSL.

Further, the GSL was neutered, as it only provided for fantasy products - a non-fantasy GSL, allowing sci-fi, modern or superheroes, was promised, but I'm unsure if that was ever delivered.

Finally, the license was subject to mandatory updates, unlike the OGL, meaning that it could be changed at any point, and if your current product no longer complies with the license, you'd be forced to pull it from market.

Many prominent 3rd-party publishers realized they were being served a shit-sandwich - or, more appropriately, being promised a shit-sandwich, since WotC's inept bungling of the GSL kept delaying the release of the license, thereby delaying any development of products for 4E by those folks who still remained interested in doing so - and publicly stated that they wouldn't be using the GSL, therefore, not developing anything for 4E.

Hell, the GSL itself didn't get released until June of 2008, despite nearly a year of speculation about it, preventing any 3rd-party launch product (probably WotC's intention), and seriously delaying development.  What business can commit to a development lull like that?

One can't help but think that this may have affected a lot of folks' decision to migrate to 4E.  Quite frankly, had WotC kept the OGL for 4E, it's entirely possible, if not probable, that Paizo wouldn't have developed their RPG, and instead, published dual-stat material for 3.5 and 4E.

Quote from: kythri;1081077Bullshit.  Another lie.



Yup.

Also, before any 4E rules had been released, we had been informed that 4E would have no OGL, instead having the GSL.

Additionally, when Paizo made their decision to develop Pathfinder, the GSL still contained the poison-pill clause.

The original or advertised version of this non-compete clause was that, if you published under the GSL, you couldn't publish under the OGL any more.

It got later revised to "product lines" rather than entire publishers - i.e. Paizo, publishing "Pathfinder Adventure Path" under the OGL would have to rename the product (ostensibly, naming it something other than Pathfinder) to publish it under the GSL.

Further, the GSL was neutered, as it only provided for fantasy products - a non-fantasy GSL, allowing sci-fi, modern or superheroes, was promised, but I'm unsure if that was ever delivered.

Finally, the license was subject to mandatory updates, unlike the OGL, meaning that it could be changed at any point, and if your current product no longer complies with the license, you'd be forced to pull it from market.

Many prominent 3rd-party publishers realized they were being served a shit-sandwich - or, more appropriately, being promised a shit-sandwich, since WotC's inept bungling of the GSL kept delaying the release of the license, thereby delaying any development of products for 4E by those folks who still remained interested in doing so - and publicly stated that they wouldn't be using the GSL, therefore, not developing anything for 4E.

Hell, the GSL itself didn't get released until June of 2008, despite nearly a year of speculation about it, preventing any 3rd-party launch product (probably WotC's intention), and seriously delaying development.  What business can commit to a development lull like that?

One can't help but think that this may have affected a lot of folks' decision to migrate to 4E.  Quite frankly, had WotC kept the OGL for 4E, it's entirely possible, if not probable, that Paizo wouldn't have developed their RPG, and instead, published dual-stat material for 3.5 and 4E.

Well Goodman Game's DCC did actually switch to 4e and nearly collapsed until they managed to create their own game for the DCC product line. Now-a-days they have been making 5e classic conversions but they are not part of the DCC line anymore.

Quote from: Rhedyn;10810754e released June 2008, Pathfinder released August 2009

People had more than a year to develop an opinion about 4e before buying Pathfinder.

What does what to do with anything?  This is a major logical fallacy to prop up an incorrect statement as it deliberately omits actual information that we could EASILY find.  Are you THAT desperate to make me look wrong?

Let me explain:  By ONLY using the release date it implies that 4e magically dropped with 0 announcements.  No one ever knew it was coming until 2008 when it popped onto store shelves, before then not a SINGLE person knew.  That Paizo losing the Dungeon and Dragon magazine contract in 2007 happened with no reason given.  But that's incorrect, distributor's knew, Paizo DID know, the information was out there, hell WoTC released a preview book that very few actually bought stating the intention, but had no examples, EVERYONE AT GENCON 2007 KNEW!

PEOPLE KNEW OF 4e SINCE 2007 ONE YEAR BEFORE IT CAME OUT.  Also, Pathfinder had been out in 'beta' since 2008, the OFFICIAL release was 2009.

So please stop trying to obfuscate the facts.  It makes you look foolish, and we all know you're not.  My statement stands, as I WAS THERE in the thick of it.  Gamers were losing their minds at the idea that 4e MIGHT be different and a good chunk of them claimed that Pathfinder was going to be to the 'second coming' of D&D.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081103What does what to do with anything?  This is a major logical fallacy to prop up an incorrect statement as it deliberately omits actual information that we could EASILY find.  Are you THAT desperate to make me look wrong?

Let me explain:  By ONLY using the release date it implies that 4e magically dropped with 0 announcements.  No one ever knew it was coming until 2008 when it popped onto store shelves, before then not a SINGLE person knew.  That Paizo losing the Dungeon and Dragon magazine contract in 2007 happened with no reason given.  But that's incorrect, distributor's knew, Paizo DID know, the information was out there, hell WoTC released a preview book that very few actually bought stating the intention, but had no examples, EVERYONE AT GENCON 2007 KNEW!

PEOPLE KNEW OF 4e SINCE 2007 ONE YEAR BEFORE IT CAME OUT.  Also, Pathfinder had been out in 'beta' since 2008, the OFFICIAL release was 2009.

So please stop trying to obfuscate the facts.  It makes you look foolish, and we all know you're not.  My statement stands, as I WAS THERE in the thick of it.  Gamers were losing their minds at the idea that 4e MIGHT be different and a good chunk of them claimed that Pathfinder was going to be to the 'second coming' of D&D.

How stupid are you? You said people bought into Pathfinder when they didn't even know what 4e was like. 4e was out a year before Pathfinder. Literally no one could buy into Pathfinder before 4e for one whole year.

The only ones who didn't know exactly what 4e was like before buying Pathfinder were those who never bothered to check the existing 4e product or reviews before buying PF.

Quote from: kythri;1081077...
One can't help but think that this may have affected a lot of folks' decision to migrate to 4E.  Quite frankly, had WotC kept the OGL for 4E, it's entirely possible, if not probable, that Paizo wouldn't have developed their RPG, and instead, published dual-stat material for 3.5 and 4E.

Buried in the thread, is a link to Pazio's blog where they admit they absolutely would not have done a pathfinder RPG, had WOTC just been a little more on the ball with rolling out the GSL.

When you look at the series of missteps WOTC made that led to PF success, is really is quite impressive how they could do so many own goals in a row like that.

Is there any data, anything at all, which might tend to indicate Pathfinder 2e is not being well received by Pathfinder fans? Or that their sales are down? Or presales are down? Or Layoffs are happening at Paizo?

Quote from: Jaeger;1081125When you look at the series of missteps WOTC made that led to PF success, is really is quite impressive how they could do so many own goals in a row like that.

Even bigger and more profitable companies can make mistakes. Look at Apple and their insistence on closed source vs pc open source. In the end Microsoft had to bail them out. Palladium Books was in the top ten of rpg companies at one time and is now begging for cash to publish a book. To the point they are willing to offer the consumer a chance to pay to publish a deceased family members name in their upcoming Insider product.

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to be annoyed if "edition" means "a new game built from the ground up that happens to have the same name as the old game you liked." For most RPGs an edition change keeps the core of that game, just because WotC has rewritten D&D in ways that make it a new game each time three separate times doesn't make that less annoying for a lot of people.

As far as 4ed goes getting sold a whole new game when most people wanted a 3.5ed fix rather than a rewrite that has a lot of issues and is introduced by a horrible grindy adventure path that highlists all of the worst aspects of 4ed and a lot of business end murder/suicide (literally!) you'd get plenty of backlash even without PF.

Quote from: Mistwell;1081146Is there any data, anything at all, which might tend to indicate Pathfinder 2e is not being well received by Pathfinder fans? Or that their sales are down? Or presales are down? Or Layoffs are happening at Paizo?

If Pathfinder 2e does flop, it will take 2-3 years after release to see any fallout visible to us.

It should have at least decent sales on release, just by being the new hotness. How fast that hot mess gets pushed into the old and busted pile - no one can give hard numbers for that.

Quote from: sureshot;1081147Even bigger and more profitable companies can make mistakes. Look at Apple and their insistence on closed source vs pc open source. In the end Microsoft had to bail them out. Palladium Books was in the top ten of rpg companies at one time and is now begging for cash to publish a book. To the point they are willing to offer the consumer a chance to pay to publish a deceased family members name in their upcoming Insider product.

Truth. Own goals are done by businesses of all sizes all the time!

D&D as a brand has really benefited in that it never really had a true "competitor" rpg out there. (PF was a fluke of WOTC's own creation.)

And in spite of the IP/business mishandling someone was always able to $$$ bail D&D out. Ironically it was WOTC both times. Once from TSR misrule, and a second time from itself!

Games that rarely change from edition tend to be small one or two man shows. Or properties that change hands from small publisher to small publisher.

For a company the size of Paizo, the status quo is slow death. All RPGs relentlessly shed players, and Pathfinder isn't replacing those players at a rate to keep up. I'm guessing all their book lines are selling less than they were two years ago, which was less than they were two years before that. They had to make a move unless they want to shrink into a tiny outfit like Chaosium.

Grognards can still play the old game. Or they can make the switch to the new. But expecting the game to remain essentially unchanged, while Paizo continues to release a dozen APs chapters and a half dozen support books a year, is naive delusion.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081117How stupid are you? You said people bought into Pathfinder when they didn't even know what 4e was like.

Yes, they BOUGHT INTO PFRPG because they KNEW It was going to try and continue 3.5, maybe make it 3.75.  The amount of vitriol that 4e got was both incredible and unreasonable, because no one got the full picture, and no wanted it.  They wanted more of the same, because it was a known quantity, and Pathfinder OFFERED it, their entire marketing, from the paid 'Beta' (which was more of a demo, as it didn't really change much on release) from letting their forums evangelize for them, Pathfinder was a stroke of genius.

I have no idea what you're trying to do by trying to obscure the facts.  Pathfinder lost the Dungeon and Dragon Magazine's license in 2007, as WoTC said that their direction for the next version of D&D was going to be more 'in-house'.  Fans began to hate WoTC more than usual (You shoulda seen the vitriol from 3e to 3.5) and began accusing the next edition as a 'home wrecker', immediately hating on it.  Paizo shortly after that started making noise about how their main market had been their adventure books, and claimed that they were going to see about continuing 3.x in some fashion, as they changed the Dungeons and Dragons magazines under the name PATHFINDER IN 2007, one YEAR before 4e came out.

Their fans began asking for some changes and then the term 'Second Coming of D&D' was bandied about.  The 'Open Playtest' for Pathfinder came out in March of 2008, FOUR MONTHS before 4e's core books came out in June.

So players had their hands on a mostly complete version of Pathfinder for at least one quarter of a year BEFORE 4e ever came out.

I'm honestly confused here.  These are the facts.  This is THE timeline as to what happened.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1080375That's a funny way of saying "the only reason D&D 4e wasn't the dominant game".

A lot had to go wrong for 4e to fail, Paizo making Pathfinder was an essential element.

You're not entirely wrong, but the REASON paizo (and if it hadn't been them, it would have been someone else) made Pathfinder was because of huge missteps in the design and marketing of 4e.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1080425So you hope.  But evidence suggests otherwise.  But I don't disagree with your premise that PFRPG2 will not be as 'good' or as popular as the first edition.

(evidence not found)

Quote from: S'mon;1080454So their retail business is not an 'opportunistic parasite on a weakened hobby'?  I agree, but I'm sure Pundit was referring specifically to their Pathfinder RPG.

I was.

Quote from: Omega;1080618The whole of the OSR may end up remembered as that too. Parasites.

Except while undoubtedly the argument can be made that the OSR benefited from 4e's weakness, it wasn't originally set up just to be a competitor to 4e nor was that ever it's mission goal.

The OSR has a reason for being completely separate from 4e D&D. Pathfinder doesn't.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1081192I was.

I thought you meant the entire company.  My apologies then.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1081193Except while undoubtedly the argument can be made that the OSR benefited from 4e's weakness, it wasn't originally set up just to be a competitor to 4e nor was that ever it's mission goal.

I'd argue that the OSR benefited by 3e's IP mismanagement due to the OGL allowing 3rd parties to effectively reuse/steal chunks of their work...

Quote from: RPGPundit;1081193The OSR has a reason for being completely separate from 4e D&D. Pathfinder doesn't.

What IS that reason?  Honest question.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081197What IS that reason?  Honest question.

OSR was separate from 4E because the games it retooled were all out of print at the time.  Those earlier unavailable games were still being played, so the WOTC switch from 3(.5)E to 4E had no direct effect on them.

If WOTC would have stayed with 3(.5)E then Paizo would have simply kept publishing adventure paths, with their own 'houserules' inserted in them.  Just like Rise of the Runelords, Curse of the Crimson Throne, etc. had already done.  They may have done a larger book with their houserules in it later, but they wouldn't have published their own complete system.  So 4E did have a direct effect on Pathfinder.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081177I'm honestly confused here.

We get it, you're a Paizo fanboy.

Quote from: kythri;1081241We get it, you're a Paizo fanboy.

Me?  Ok.  Not sure how you go there, but...  OK.  I don't see the point of 'loving' an organization whose sole job is to take money, but sure.  OK.  You are entitled to your opinion.

I HATE 3.x in all it's forms except Mongoose's Conan, won't touch it ever.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081283I HATE 3.x in all it's forms except Mongoose's Conan, won't touch it ever.

I can appreciate how 3.x advanced with the capabilities of nerds so that only tech savvy nerds could play/enjoy it. Both 4e and 5e were playable by non-cyborgs or "normies" and diluted our sacred hobby into a collection of regular people who enjoy it because it's fun.

3.x was able to maintain the stigma in a world where liking nerdy stuff became normal. It could only achieve that through overly complicated design entirely at odds with a class based system.

3.x purist are the funniest kind of RPGers to talk to. By all rights they should be perfectly happy playing GURPS, but instead they will only play class based games that are complicated enough to make the character concept they want. Heaven forbid you give them a point buy and they start playing their concept at session 1 rather than level 7.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081288Both 4e and 5e were playable by non-cyborgs or "normies"

I don't really think that's true of 4e. I've had people play it for 6 years and still have no idea what they're doing. It was a great system for crunch-loving gearhead lesbians, though.

Quote from: Rhedyn;10812883.x purist are the funniest kind of RPGers to talk to. By all rights they should be perfectly happy playing GURPS, but instead they will only play class based games that are complicated enough to make the character concept they want. Heaven forbid you give them a point buy and they start playing their concept at session 1 rather than level 7.

I dont think that you can blame that on 3e purists.  Most DnD gamers that I have talked to about point buy just assume that it is only for min-maxing your character.

I am probably as close to a 3e purist that I know and I loved the DnD point buy system in 2e.  Never played GURPS though.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1081190You're not entirely wrong, but the REASON paizo (and if it hadn't been them, it would have been someone else) made Pathfinder was because of huge missteps in the design and marketing of 4e.

Looking back, who else was in position to?

Pazio benefited from one of the great blunders WOTC ever made: Allowing Pazio to keep the subscriber lists from dungeon and dragon magazines after they were pulled.

Those subscribers who carried their subscriptions over into the Adventure Path era, formed the backbone of the Pazio RPG audience.

Which had a big knock on effect when the PF RPG hit. It had a built in player base. Who then evangelized it online and in their local RPG scenes.
(Pazio publicly stated they hated the "edition wars" between 4e and PF, but they privately reaped the rewards...)

I'm not sure any other company was poised to take it to WOTC in at that level.

Or that anyone was even thinking about it.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081288...
3.x purist are the funniest kind of RPGers to talk to. By all rights they should be perfectly happy playing GURPS, but instead they will only play class based games that are complicated enough to make the character concept they want. Heaven forbid you give them a point buy and they start playing their concept at session 1 rather than level 7.

This is indicative of the stranglehold the D&D brand/genre has on the RPG hobby as a whole.

I can't hate the hustle, D&D set the tone for the RPG hobby. But, yeah, I've noticed a weird 'D&D or nothing' mentality from more than a few.

Its kind of like car guys - some like all kinds of cars. Some are just Chevy or Ford fans. Period.

That effect is magnified in the RPG hobby due to there not even being two major "manufacturers" in the US to choose from.

It really is an interesting effect.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081288I can appreciate how 3.x advanced with the capabilities of nerds so that only tech savvy nerds could play/enjoy it. Both 4e and 5e were playable by non-cyborgs or "normies" and diluted our sacred hobby into a collection of regular people who enjoy it because it's fun.

3.x was able to maintain the stigma in a world where liking nerdy stuff became normal. It could only achieve that through overly complicated design entirely at odds with a class based system.

3.x purist are the funniest kind of RPGers to talk to. By all rights they should be perfectly happy playing GURPS, but instead they will only play class based games that are complicated enough to make the character concept they want. Heaven forbid you give them a point buy and they start playing their concept at session 1 rather than level 7.

Oh, I know.  I played 3.x since it's inception, I bought 3e and 3.5 and had a campaign.  I've seen and experienced most of the issues it has.  Even Mongoose's game isn't that good, but it avoids a lot of the magical issues.  I am so done with any permutation of 3.x.  I hate the system mastery one needs to know to get the most out of the game.

4e was much more rigid and organized, but still not my bag.

Quote from: Jaeger;1081335Pazio benefited from one of the great blunders WOTC ever made: Allowing Pazio to keep the subscriber lists from dungeon and dragon magazines after they were pulled.

Those subscribers who carried their subscriptions over into the Adventure Path era, formed the backbone of the Pazio RPG audience.

Which had a big knock on effect when the PF RPG hit. It had a built in player base. Who then evangelized it online and in their local RPG scenes.
(Pazio publicly stated they hated the "edition wars" between 4e and PF, but they privately reaped the rewards...)

I'm not sure any other company was poised to take it to WOTC in at that level.

Not just the subscriber lists. Paizo had an excellent reputation with fans as a publisher of epic adventures that had top-notch production values. It may baffle a lot of hardcores and grognards, but for a lot of of gamers published adventures are the primary way of connecting with the game and with other hobbyists. The more popular the adventure, the broader the shared experience, the more people want to be part of that shared experience. As the foremost publishers of adventurers in the 3.5 era, Paizo probably had stronger market loyalty and than WotC itself.

But yes, I agree Paizo was uniquely placed to scoop up much of the D&D market. I honestly can't think of another publisher who could have published an alternative with anything close to Pathfinder's reach and appeal.

Quote from: Jaeger;1081335This is indicative of the stranglehold the D&D brand/genre has on the RPG hobby as a whole.

I can't hate the hustle, D&D set the tone for the RPG hobby. But, yeah, I've noticed a weird 'D&D or nothing' mentality from more than a few.

Nothing weird about it. Most RPGs are indistinguishable from one another to a new player. The reasons why someone might want to play WFRP instead of D&D seem like arcane minutiae to someone who isn't already well-versed in the hobby. And since it's difficult enough to find compatible people to play even D&D with, why would someone getting into the hobby choose to limit their options further by choosing a game 1/5th or 1/20th as popular as D&D?

Quote from: Haffrung;1081395Nothing weird about it. Most RPGs are indistinguishable from one another to a new player. The reasons why someone might want to play WFRP instead of D&D seem like arcane minutiae to someone who isn't already well-versed in the hobby. And since it's difficult enough to find compatible people to play even D&D with, why would someone getting into the hobby choose to limit their options further by choosing a game 1/5th or 1/20th as popular as D&D?

Few new players choose what system they play. It's chosen for them by whoever invited them into a group.

Quote from: Haffrung;1081395...Nothing weird about it. Most RPGs are indistinguishable from one another to a new player. ...

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081405Few new players choose what system they play. It's chosen for them by whoever invited them into a group.

I should have been more clear, I was referring to long time members of the Hobby.

Like I said, it is an interesting effect similar to what I've seen elsewhere, they know of other RPG's - just adamantly Zero Interest.

Quote from: Jaeger;1081432I should have been more clear, I was referring to long time members of the Hobby.

Like I said, it is an interesting effect similar to what I've seen elsewhere, they know of other RPG's - just adamantly Zero Interest.

No that's fair, once I got my group on Savage Worlds, they aren't really interested in trying out new RPGs.

And they weren't interested in Savage Worlds at all until we beat PF and 5e in the ground and I ran them though a campaign.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081288I can appreciate how 3.x advanced with the capabilities of nerds so that only tech savvy nerds could play/enjoy it. Both 4e and 5e were playable by non-cyborgs or "normies" and diluted our sacred hobby into a collection of regular people who enjoy it because it's fun.

3.x was able to maintain the stigma in a world where liking nerdy stuff became normal. It could only achieve that through overly complicated design entirely at odds with a class based system.

3.x purist are the funniest kind of RPGers to talk to. By all rights they should be perfectly happy playing GURPS, but instead they will only play class based games that are complicated enough to make the character concept they want. Heaven forbid you give them a point buy and they start playing their concept at session 1 rather than level 7.

Well, as a nerd that's why I like Pathfinder (1st Edition) and Hero System.  GURPS is too much even for me.

jg

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081288I can appreciate how 3.x advanced with the capabilities of nerds so that only tech savvy nerds could play/enjoy it. Both 4e and 5e were playable by non-cyborgs or "normies" and diluted our sacred hobby into a collection of regular people who enjoy it because it's fun.

3.x was able to maintain the stigma in a world where liking nerdy stuff became normal. It could only achieve that through overly complicated design entirely at odds with a class based system.

3.x purist are the funniest kind of RPGers to talk to. By all rights they should be perfectly happy playing GURPS, but instead they will only play class based games that are complicated enough to make the character concept they want. Heaven forbid you give them a point buy and they start playing their concept at session 1 rather than level 7.

I can't speak for every 3.x/PF player out there, but exploring the complex puzzle of character building in those systems can be fun.  Not for being able to perfectly approximate some ideal that exists in the mind's eye, but for figuring out ways to put together all those moving parts into a functional whole.

Quote from: James Gillen;1081516Well, as a nerd that's why I like Pathfinder (1st Edition) and Hero System.  GURPS is too much even for me.

jg

In no realm is GURPS (4e) more complicated than PF.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081542In no realm is GURPS (4e) more complicated than PF.

I have to disagree. I find Gurps more complicated than Pathfinder imo. The only truly annoying part to myself at least about Pathfinder is remembering if modifier A stacks or not with Modifier B. Or does Modifier C stack with everything and so on. Why they did not allow all modifiers to stack with one one another still makes me scratch my head to this day. Otherwise everything is pretty much done for a player character. Roll dice pick class and start playing. Gurps requires a player to build everything from the ground up. Yes they are templates that speed up the process one still has to pick and choose does one want too many options to complete the character imo. Not for myself as I [played both Hero and Gurps someone coming say from D&D more often than not goes back to D&D because of the extra work required to make the character. Once you get the process down it's not that much imo too many especially news people to Gurps and Hero it's simply too much work and math. Even Pathfinder has math it seems to be well hidden in the system if that is the right way to describe it vs very in your face with Gurps.

Quote from: sureshot;1081567I have to disagree. I find Gurps more complicated than Pathfinder imo. The only truly annoying part to myself at least about Pathfinder is remembering if modifier A stacks or not with Modifier B. Or does Modifier C stack with everything and so on. Why they did not allow all modifiers to stack with one one another still makes me scratch my head to this day. Otherwise everything is pretty much done for a player character. Roll dice pick class and start playing. Gurps requires a player to build everything from the ground up. Yes they are templates that speed up the process one still has to pick and choose does one want too many options to complete the character imo. Not for myself as I [played both Hero and Gurps someone coming say from D&D more often than not goes back to D&D because of the extra work required to make the character. Once you get the process down it's not that much imo too many especially news people to Gurps and Hero it's simply too much work and math. Even Pathfinder has math it seems to be well hidden in the system if that is the right way to describe it vs very in your face with Gurps.

You are primarily speaking of player crunch and I was making a more holistic claim.

But even then, I must disagree. Plopping a character together and starting is easy enough, but a GURPS character could just put all points into attributes and start as well. Since you know something about GURPS, you know that that is a terrible idea. Well one does not simply just make a PF character. The best experience in PF is when everyone optimizes equally and your options are across dozen of books while even GURPS options stay more limited even with splat book (less trash to sift through, but that is a whole other problem with PF).

For example, a viable Fighter needs to know the core book, advance player guide, ultimate combat, Weapon Masters Handbook, and the Armor Masters Handbook. He then needs to take variants (but not any variant) to replace base class features to remain viable for the whole campaign (I guess if you play PF from 1-7 levels these issues don't become apparent, but PF also kind of sucks at those levels). And even with all that, he is merely OK at his job, provided that he also mastered the magic item system and prioritized the right items.

"Oh just use the core book" that makes GURPS simpler, but worst balanced book in PF is the CRB.

"One does not simply make a Pathfinder character..."
- Boromir

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081570"Oh just use the core book" that makes GURPS simpler, but worst balanced book in PF is the CRB.

The same was true of 3/3.5e. The system was a LOT stronger if you banned most of the core classes and allowed the splatbook classes.

The cleric, druid, sorcerer and wizard on one end and the fighter, monk and paladin at the other end were were the classes at the extreme ends of the PC power curve ranging from "stupidly over-powered" to "can barely do its job." Hells, the NPC Adept class is considered a stronger class than the fighter, monk or paladin.

The best play experience for 3.5e from the groups I've played with and heard stories from were ones where all the PCs were in the "tier 3-4" range. For official 3.5e classes that would include;

Tier 3: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder, Ranger (Wildshape variant), Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psychic Warrior, Incarnate, Totemist - Good at one thing & useful outside that, or moderately useful at most things.

Tier 4: Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, Warmage, Scout, Ranger, Hexblade, Adept, Spellthief, Marshal, Fighter (Zhentarium variant)  - Good at one thing but useless at everything else, or mediocre at many things.

One could say the say to a degree about 4E material as well; the core book material was easily the worst of the lot, but was salvageable in that case because the modular powers approach allowed the addition of abilities that fixed a lot of the glaring early problems (ex. the 4E Paladin really needs the additional options from Divine Power to make its Strength-based build fully functional). The material from the PHB2 on was a LOT stronger both in terms of flavor and mechanically. 5e similarly benefits heavily from the additional material from Xanthar's Guide to Everything.

Basically, both 3e, 4E and 5e show that game design is a process that is rarely complete just because you got a book out the door. Often the earliest classes/monsters/etc. are the weakest examples of what the system can do because the creators themselves are still learning elements of it that can only emerge through actual play by more than just their play-testers. All three were stronger products 2-3 years on than they were at launch.

Pathfinder's biggest problem is that they could only use the elements of 3.5e with the weakest design unless they were willing to do their own design work. Their related problem is that there's a huge difference between the level of design work needed for adventures using a system and for actually building a system from the ground up. Paizo has been pretty good with the former (hence all the praise for their adventure paths), but has proven mediocre at best with the latter.

Maybe releasing new edition of the same game to tackle those problems in the core book is a better approach than just making a new game?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081589Maybe releasing new edition of the same game to tackle those problems in the core book is a better approach than just making a new game?

Takling those problems would certainly change things enough that a "new edition" would have been different enough to justify itself if they went that direction.

Quote from: Chris24601;1081586The same was true of 3/3.5e. The system was a LOT stronger if you banned most of the core classes and allowed the splatbook classes...

...the core book material was easily the worst of the lot, but was salvageable in that case because the modular powers approach allowed the addition of abilities that fixed a lot of the glaring early problems ...

Basically, both 3e, 4E and 5e show that game design is a process that is rarely complete just because you got a book out the door. Often the earliest classes/monsters/etc. are the weakest examples of what the system can do because the creators themselves are still learning elements of it that can only emerge through actual play by more than just their play-testers. All three were stronger products 2-3 years on than they were at launch..

Makes one wonder what 4e would have been like if they used what was learned, applied the 5e design philosophy to simplifying the game a bit, and actually fixing the underlying issues with 3.x.

The hobby could have had that 2-3 years on stronger rules set in the core 4e.

Rather than inducing the same effect all over again, by changing things enough that the underlying system has to be re-learned yet again.

Quote from: Jaeger;1081125When you look at the series of missteps WOTC made that led to PF success, is really is quite impressive how they could do so many own goals in a row like that.

WOTC has a long standing rep for marketing screwups. Usually small but costly, sometimes bit, and very costly. Hasbro eventually tightened WOTC's leash quite a bit and they still did their damndest to fuck things up with various product during the 4e era. And not just the RPG, but board games too. Something was seriously off kilter at WOTC during that span in particular.

Quote from: Alathon;1081538I can't speak for every 3.x/PF player out there, but exploring the complex puzzle of character building in those systems can be fun.  Not for being able to perfectly approximate some ideal that exists in the mind's eye, but for figuring out ways to put together all those moving parts into a functional whole.

It's about as much fun for me as putting together a schedule for a unit with 80+ FTEs while every-other asshole is dropping FMLA paperwork on my desk.

Quote from: Haffrung;1081168Games that rarely change from edition tend to be small one or two man shows. Or properties that change hands from small publisher to small publisher.

For a company the size of Paizo, the status quo is slow death. All RPGs relentlessly shed players, and Pathfinder isn't replacing those players at a rate to keep up. I'm guessing all their book lines are selling less than they were two years ago, which was less than they were two years before that. They had to make a move unless they want to shrink into a tiny outfit like Chaosium.

Grognards can still play the old game. Or they can make the switch to the new. But expecting the game to remain essentially unchanged, while Paizo continues to release a dozen APs chapters and a half dozen support books a year, is naive delusion.

In retrospect the best thing for Paizo to have done would be to take their 4ed-era profits and stick them in an index fund. Paizo's ability to consolidate the "people who liked 3.5ed" market took brains, just look at how fragmented the OSR market is compared to PF's dominance. But the "people who liked 3.5ed" market segment would inevitably wither and it was dependent on WotC continuing to be incompetant as a DnD edition that didn't suck would clearly yank the rug out from under them.

Instead Paizo got way too overconfident. The online game was sheer lunacy for example.

Quote from: Daztur;1081699In retrospect the best thing for Paizo to have done would be to take their 4ed-era profits and stick them in an index fund. Paizo's ability to consolidate the "people who liked 3.5ed" market took brains, just look at how fragmented the OSR market is compared to PF's dominance. But the "people who liked 3.5ed" market segment would inevitably wither and it was dependent on WotC continuing to be incompetant as a DnD edition that didn't suck would clearly yank the rug out from under them.

Instead Paizo got way too overconfident. The online game was sheer lunacy for example.

Have to say I concur 100% with all your points!

Quote from: Daztur;1081699In retrospect the best thing for Paizo to have done would be to take their 4ed-era profits and stick them in an index fund. Paizo's ability to consolidate the "people who liked 3.5ed" market took brains, just look at how fragmented the OSR market is compared to PF's dominance. But the "people who liked 3.5ed" market segment would inevitably wither and it was dependent on WotC continuing to be incompetant as a DnD edition that didn't suck would clearly yank the rug out from under them.

Instead Paizo got way too overconfident. The online game was sheer lunacy for example.

Our group would probably still be playing Pathfinder if they released something like "the Advance Class Guide 2" and at least one person bought every bestiary.

Quote from: Daztur;1081699In retrospect the best thing for Paizo to have done would be to take their 4ed-era profits and stick them in an index fund. Paizo's ability to consolidate the "people who liked 3.5ed" market took brains, just look at how fragmented the OSR market is compared to PF's dominance. But the "people who liked 3.5ed" market segment would inevitably wither and it was dependent on WotC continuing to be incompetant as a DnD edition that didn't suck would clearly yank the rug out from under them.

Instead Paizo got way too overconfident. The online game was sheer lunacy for example.

They also got suckered....drank the Ryan Dancey Kool-Aid as I recall.

Has Paizo Inc. made any investments into Goblinworks Inc. ?

I know that Goblinworks was setup as a wholly separate company than Paizo, and that, at least initially, Paizo wasn't putting much, if any, of their money into the new company.

Goblinworks had a couple of Kickstarters for PFO and raised something like $1.3 million across those.

Doesn't seem "too overconfident" if they're shielding the profitable business (Paizo) from the potentially unprofitable business (Goblinworks).

The Kingmaker computer game is a licensed work, so it's not like Paizo is out of pocket on that one, either.

Quote from: Daztur;1081699In retrospect the best thing for Paizo to have done would be to take their 4ed-era profits and stick them in an index fund. Paizo's ability to consolidate the "people who liked 3.5ed" market took brains, just look at how fragmented the OSR market is compared to PF's dominance. But the "people who liked 3.5ed" market segment would inevitably wither and it was dependent on WotC continuing to be incompetant as a DnD edition that didn't suck would clearly yank the rug out from under them.

Instead Paizo got way too overconfident. The online game was sheer lunacy for example.

S'what I've been saying.  They got the business down, game design?  Not so much.

Quote from: camazotz;1081747They also got suckered....drank the Ryan Dancey Kool-Aid as I recall.

A lot of people do, and somehow whenever he ruins something by just opening his mouth, people still think his opinion is valid...

Quote from: kythri;1081748Has Paizo Inc. made any investments into Goblinworks Inc. ?

I know that Goblinworks was setup as a wholly separate company than Paizo, and that, at least initially, Paizo wasn't putting much, if any, of their money into the new company.

Goblinworks had a couple of Kickstarters for PFO and raised something like $1.3 million across those.

Doesn't seem "too overconfident" if they're shielding the profitable business (Paizo) from the potentially unprofitable business (Goblinworks).

The Kingmaker computer game is a licensed work, so it's not like Paizo is out of pocket on that one, either.

I've had a bit of experience with how this works. Odds are that there was some indirect financial impact on Paizo as a result of Goblinworks....and we know they were commingling staff at some point (at least Lisa seemed to be working for both companies). Keeping them separate was smart, as it pushed the liability of failure on Goblinworks, but I doubt that Paizo got away from it without losing some money.

The real fallout though is name association....PFO amounted to a Kickstarter failure in the eyes of many, followed by being an online game failure that for those with more familiarity with the video game industry was clearly doomed from the start (one of the reasons I did not back the KS).

They are making smarter decisions, though...their deal with the producer of Pathfinder: Kingmaker seems to have been much more successful, and the resulting game is both playable and fun as well as shockingly accurate as a Pathfinder simulator goes. Complete 180 from what PFO failed at.

Quote from: camazotz;1081760I've had a bit of experience with how this works. Odds are that there was some indirect financial impact on Paizo as a result of Goblinworks....and we know they were commingling staff at some point (at least Lisa seemed to be working for both companies). Keeping them separate was smart, as it pushed the liability of failure on Goblinworks, but I doubt that Paizo got away from it without losing some money.

Well, she's the owner of both companies.  I know that Paizo made money on the Kickstarters, because there were Paizo books (including Kickstarter-special books) that were backer rewards.  I'm sure Paizo was paid with Kickstarter funds for all of that jazz.

Quote from: camazotz;1081760The real fallout though is name association....PFO amounted to a Kickstarter failure in the eyes of many, followed by being an online game failure that for those with more familiarity with the video game industry was clearly doomed from the start (one of the reasons I did not back the KS).

Are there really people out there, that due to the lack of success of PFO, were swayed away from Paizo's trad-RPG products?

Quote from: kythri;1081765Are there really people out there, that due to the lack of success of PFO, were swayed away from Paizo's trad-RPG products?

Customers?  Not likely.  Investors?  Hell, YES.

Paizo isn't traded, so what investors are we talking about here?

Quote from: kythri;1081774Paizo isn't traded, so what investors are we talking about here?

They live where all the full-time salary WotC RPG developers do (aside from Mearls and Crawford).

Quote from: camazotz;1081760I've had a bit of experience with how this works. Odds are that there was some indirect financial impact on Paizo as a result of Goblinworks....and we know they were commingling staff at some point (at least Lisa seemed to be working for both companies). Keeping them separate was smart, as it pushed the liability of failure on Goblinworks, but I doubt that Paizo got away from it without losing some money.

The real fallout though is name association....PFO amounted to a Kickstarter failure in the eyes of many, followed by being an online game failure that for those with more familiarity with the video game industry was clearly doomed from the start (one of the reasons I did not back the KS).

They are making smarter decisions, though...their deal with the producer of Pathfinder: Kingmaker seems to have been much more successful, and the resulting game is both playable and fun as well as shockingly accurate as a Pathfinder simulator goes. Complete 180 from what PFO failed at.

I seem to recall that she'd made some financial investment (and maybe some others at Paizo) but there was a lot of Kickstarter money behind it. A lot of Pathfinder fans invested in that Kickstarter, so I was surprised there wasn't much in the way of blow back. If I am recollecting as well, they may have also bought a license for Bigworld (sort of an MMO platform) when it was still rather expensive. I think what happened was that the had a few people that had very little experience in development calling the shots and they blew through it all before they had something resembling an alpha.

Quote from: camazotz;1081760I've had a bit of experience with how this works. Odds are that there was some indirect financial impact on Paizo as a result of Goblinworks....and we know they were commingling staff at some point (at least Lisa seemed to be working for both companies). Keeping them separate was smart, as it pushed the liability of failure on Goblinworks, but I doubt that Paizo got away from it without losing some money.

The real fallout though is name association....PFO amounted to a Kickstarter failure in the eyes of many, followed by being an online game failure that for those with more familiarity with the video game industry was clearly doomed from the start (one of the reasons I did not back the KS).

They are making smarter decisions, though...their deal with the producer of Pathfinder: Kingmaker seems to have been much more successful, and the resulting game is both playable and fun as well as shockingly accurate as a Pathfinder simulator goes. Complete 180 from what PFO failed at.

I supported the PFO kickstarter and I do not feel like it was a failure.  Even though the actual online part of it never worked out for me I still have the Emerald Spire Superdungeon and assorted products that came with it.

I also supported the Kingmaker kickstarter and that worked out a lot better then I expected so honestly Pathfinder kickstarters have been more successful then not in my experience.

Quote from: Shasarak;1081836I supported the PFO kickstarter and I do not feel like it was a failure.  Even though the actual online part of it never worked out for me I still have the Emerald Spire Superdungeon and assorted products that came with it.

I also supported the Kingmaker kickstarter and that worked out a lot better then I expected so honestly Pathfinder kickstarters have been more successful then not in my experience.

Isn't that a $25 item that you bought for way more than $25? That sure seems like denial to me. It was a failure. ONLINE is in the friggen title even. You did not get what you invested in.

Quote from: Mistwell;1081980Isn't that a $25 item that you bought for way more than $25? That sure seems like denial to me. It was a failure. ONLINE is in the friggen title even. You did not get what you invested in.

You know that Pathfinder Online (https://goblinworks.com/pathfinder-online/) is an actual thing, right?

Maybe you can explain to me how running a kickstarter to make a thing and then making that thing means that it was actually a failure.

Quote from: Shasarak;1081990You know that Pathfinder Online (https://goblinworks.com/pathfinder-online/) is an actual thing, right?

Maybe you can explain to me how running a kickstarter to make a thing and then making that thing means that it was actually a failure.

Vaporware is a thing?

I wish they had brought in more artists for PF. I do not hate the art of Wayne Reynolds just tited of it and his style jyst comes off as so much mire of the same.

Mind you the whole SJW puritanical take on Seoni is a good laugh. Oh now the character is showing too much skin. Not really that much and theg came out with a tattoo magic feat which I think the character had at later levels. Her new outfit which covers the character from head to toe is made out of unstable molecules I guess.

Given how they ruined Ogres in PF them suddenly becomung too WOKE  is also as funny as can be.

Quote from: sureshot;1082018I wish they had brought in more artists for PF. I do not hate the art of Wayne Reynolds just tited of it and his style jyst comes off as so much mire of the same.

Mind you the whole SJW puritanical take on Seoni is a good laugh. Oh now the character is showing too much skin. Not really that much and theg came out with a tattoo magic feat which I think the character had at later levels. Her new outfit which covers the character from head to toe is made out of unstable molecules I guess.

Given how they ruined Ogres in PF them suddenly becomung too WOKE  is also as funny as can be.

Greetings!

What did they do to Ogres? Ogres are awesome. You can make them right evil marauding bastards, kind of neutral, barbarian types, or even make them rough, simple, but pretty good too. Ogres are very flexible and cool.

How do you fuck up Ogres? :)

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Easy Shark.

Combine the hillbillies from Deliverance and mix them with the mutants from the Hills have Eyes and you have the Pathfinder Ogres. Complete with the worst behaviors of both combined into one. A case of next time leave well enough alone.

Hearing a Parhfinder Ogre say " squeal like a little Kobold SQUEAL! "...would not be out of character for a Pathfinder Ogre.

Quote from: Daztur;1082006Vaporware is a thing?

What's vaporware?  It's a playable game that has a decent amount of subscribers.

Quote from: sureshot;1082024Easy Shark.

Combine the hillbillies from Deliverance and mix them with the mutants from the Hills have Eyes and you have the Pathfinder Ogres. Complete with the worst behaviors of both combined into one. A case of next time leave well enough alone.

Hearing a Parhfinder Ogre say " squeal like a little Kobold SQUEAL! "...would not be out of character for a Pathfinder Ogre.

Greetings!

SQUEAL!!!! SQUEAL LIKE A LITTE KOBOLD!! LOL. :) Wow. Deliverance Hillbillies and...the The Hills Have Eyes Mutants. Yeah. I see, my friend. That's what all the fuss has been about with PF. You know, I can see why more and more people are deeply bothered by PF *editorial* choices.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: kythri;1082029What's vaporware?  It's a playable game that has a decent amount of subscribers.

It isn't exactly vapor (like the White Wolf Online nonsense), but it has been beta quality (at best) product for quite some time. The first posts about it were in 2011 and "early enrollment" since late 2018.

Early enrollment is described as "The objective is to begin with a "minimum viable product", and then expand the game in a feedback-driven process."

I suspect that they simply cannot call it quits because of the impact it would have on Paizo and Kickstarter supporters. I also suspect they are running on as few people as possible, given the state of the site and how they are unable to update their site copyright since 2015, and they are still using one promotional movie for it...also from 2015. They really jumped into development with no real idea what they were doing.

Pathfinder Hillbilly rapist cannibal ogres seem a lot closer to most of the origin myths for the monster, where they are often basically evil man-sized cannibals ambushing people on lonely roads, than their usual use as 'dumb Gygaxian horde brute'. Not a huge fan of the gore-porn in Hook Mountain Massacre, though.

Quote from: S'mon;1082147Pathfinder Hillbilly rapist cannibal ogres seem a lot closer to most of the origin myths for the monster, where they are often basically evil man-sized cannibals ambushing people on lonely roads, than their usual use as 'dumb Gygaxian horde brute'. Not a huge fan of the gore-porn in Hook Mountain Massacre, though.

Greetings!

LOL! "Gore Porn"? S'mon? :) I'm not familiar with the Hook Mountain Massacre, my friend. What do they have the hillbilly ogres do in that book?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1082154Greetings!

LOL! "Gore Porn"? S'mon? :) I'm not familiar with the Hook Mountain Massacre, my friend. What do they have the hillbilly ogres do in that book?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

You'll need to go read it, but there's lots of "bouquet of severed fingers" type stuff.
However rest assured that only straight white human males were raped mutilated and eaten in the making of this motion picture. The unfortunate Black Arrow Rangers appear to be the only all-male force on Golarion! :D

Quote from: S'mon;1082162You'll need to go read it, but there's lots of "bouquet of severed fingers" type stuff.
However rest assured that only straight white human males were raped mutilated and eaten in the making of this motion picture. The unfortunate Black Arrow Rangers appear to be the only all-male force on Golarion! :D

Greetings!

LOL! ROLLING. :) Oh damn. That's fucking cool, my friend. Interesting. Of course, only white males get raped and eaten by the Hillbilly Ogres. Wow. No wonder PF has been getting barbecued by so many people for such modules.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1082164Greetings!

LOL! ROLLING. :) Oh damn. That's fucking cool, my friend. Interesting. Of course, only white males get raped and eaten by the Hillbilly Ogres. Wow. No wonder PF has been getting barbecued by so many people for such modules.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

What is worse it that apparently they had to tone down what the dev originally submitted before putting that section to print. It was much worse than what you see now in the Hook mountain massacre. They section further suffers for putting the Ogres in fort made for humans putting them at a disadvantage and making it easier for the player characters to wipe them out. I just find it funny that they have a goddess of lust https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Calistria whose Clerics main weapon of choice is a Whip. As well as having umm "sacred" prostitutes in their temples. I'm just wondering how she distracted Rovagug while two gods created that gods prison. Did she sleep (ewwww) with Rovagug?  Yet they are now all of sudden on the fully woke train.

Quote from: sureshot;1082168I just find it funny that they have a goddess of lust https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Calistria whose Clerics main weapon of choice is a Whip. As well as having umm "sacred" prostitutes in their temples. I'm just wondering how she distracted Rovagug while two gods created that gods prison. Did she sleep (ewwww) with Rovagug?  Yet they are now all of sudden on the fully woke train.

Woke and sexual degeneracy go hand in hand... so long as it's "consensual." If they had their way they'd drop age of "consent" to five and declare that "baa" and "moo" means "yes."

If you actually created a fantasy death cult that desires infanticide, pedophilia, bestiality, eugenics and the murder of all those who can no longer benefit the cult's leaders you'd be tarred as going completely over the top... yet every single one of those is touted as a moral good by elements of the Woke.

There is no bottom to their depravity, just another ledge from which to continue the descent.

Quote from: Chris24601;1082181Woke and sexual degeneracy go hand in hand... so long as it's "consensual." If they had their way they'd drop age of "consent" to five and declare that "baa" and "moo" means "yes."

If you actually created a fantasy death cult that desires infanticide, pedophilia, bestiality, eugenics and the murder of all those who can no longer benefit the cult's leaders you'd be tarred as going completely over the top... yet every single one of those is touted as a moral good by elements of the Woke.

There is no bottom to their depravity, just another ledge from which to continue the descent.

I disagree that the "Woke" crowd is that depraved, they're actually quite sex-negative to the point of being secular Puritans, especially when heterosexual sex is involved or if the characters are drawn in an anime style. Even gay male relationships are being looked down on lately.

The only depravity allowed in the "woke" crowd is if it involves lesbians or transgender people.

Quote from: Chris24601;1082181Woke and sexual degeneracy go hand in hand... so long as it's "consensual." If they had their way they'd drop age of "consent" to five and declare that "baa" and "moo" means "yes."

If you actually created a fantasy death cult that desires infanticide, pedophilia, bestiality, eugenics and the murder of all those who can no longer benefit the cult's leaders you'd be tarred as going completely over the top... yet every single one of those is touted as a moral good by elements of the Woke.

There is no bottom to their depravity, just another ledge from which to continue the descent.

Greetings!

Indeed, Chris, the Liberals and SJW's are *Increasing* in their bizarre depravity. I've seen where SJW's have championed various Liberal psychologists that have come out in support of NAMBLA. This clown even wrote a peer-reviewed paper supporting adults having sexual relations with children, and talking about how children are capable of enjoying sex, and social taboos against such are "reactionary and misguided." There's also been several other such fine psychologists, doctors, and authors that apparently have jumped on supporting such a bandwagon. I've read where various academic Liberals have embraced the ideas of continuously lowering the "Age of Consent" to the age of 12, or younger, arguing that children can embrace the "joys of consensual sex." Evidently, as you mentioned, there's also a growing consciousness that bestiality--especially sexual relations with dogs--is growing in popularity, and more are embracing that as a wondrous expression of sexuality. I keep hearing snippets that incest is also *lessening* in its taboo.

Going back years, most of this was entirely unheard of. In recent times, though, it does seem like the Liberals and SJW's are just opening the gates to pursue any kind of sex--like you said, with no limits, and an endless descent.

And all of this debauchery is embraced and promoted by the SJW's. It's a constant river of degeneracy with them.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1082309I disagree that the "Woke" crowd is that depraved, they're actually quite sex-negative to the point of being secular Puritans, especially when heterosexual sex is involved or if the characters are drawn in an anime style. Even gay male relationships are being looked down on lately.

Agreed. The very notion that two people might meet at a gaming convention and decide to pursue sexual relations sends these folks straight to the fainting couch. One of the reasons older feminists are so baffled with today's activists is older feminists wanted to break down barriers to women going out and drinking, having sex, etc. the way men did, and today's feminists find that sort of behaviour scary and gross. Then factor is how socially anxious and cloistered a lot of millennial nerds are, and you've got a very puritanical scene.

The interesting question for me is why nerd hobbies are so disproportionately afflicted by woke dogma. Compare, say, a softball tournament, a music festival, and SF/F con, and how they treat sexual behaviour. Why is the latter so much more Woke and anxious - to the point of near-hysteria - than the others?

Quote from: SHARK;1082315Indeed, Chris, the Liberals and SJW's are *Increasing* in their bizarre depravity. I've seen where SJW's have championed various Liberal psychologists that have come out in support of NAMBLA. This clown even wrote a peer-reviewed paper supporting adults having sexual relations with children, and talking about how children are capable of enjoying sex, and social taboos against such are "reactionary and misguided." There's also been several other such fine psychologists, doctors, and authors that apparently have jumped on supporting such a bandwagon. I've read where various academic Liberals have embraced the ideas of continuously lowering the "Age of Consent" to the age of 12, or younger, arguing that children can embrace the "joys of consensual sex." Evidently, as you mentioned, there's also a growing consciousness that bestiality--especially sexual relations with dogs--is growing in popularity, and more are embracing that as a wondrous expression of sexuality. I keep hearing snippets that incest is also *lessening* in its taboo.

You need to find  better sources for your fear-mongering, because that's a bunch of nonsense. The age of consent has been increased almost everywhere compared with 40 years ago. Teen sex is way down. Society is becoming increasingly anxious about underage sex and disparity in ages, not less.  When you were young, a 29 year old dating a 21 year wouldn't have raised any eyebrows. Today, its regarded as extremely creepy. A college professor having a relationship with a student was not out of the ordinary in the 70s or 80. Today it's likely to end in the professor being fired and publicly denounced and shamed.

Please keep this ON TOPIC to the subject of the RPG hobby, not veering off to general political topics, please. Seriously guys, how many threads do I have to issue this warning for?

So the Pathfinder 2 rules have been locked down ready for printing, less then four months to go now.

Quote from: Shasarak;1082950So the Pathfinder 2 rules have been locked down ready for printing, less then four months to go now.

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/c160219aa9d00dc5d2efff130dc13732/tenor.gif?itemid=3501452)

Didn't realize that PFO had been released in any capacity. So paid alpha access basically? The public forums seem pretty damn dead though with some forums not having any posts this YEAR so I don't think they're going to come close to recouping their costs.

I have a lot of money invested in Pathfinder 1.0 and I have no intention of re-buying everything again.  I did that too many times with D&D.

Quote from: Tinman;1082980I have a lot of money invested in Pathfinder 1.0 and I have no intention of re-buying everything again.  I did that too many times with D&D.

Paizo's core demographic everybody!

Quote from: Shasarak;1082950So the Pathfinder 2 rules have been locked down ready for printing, less then four months to go now.

Will the Chinese printers/government shred Baizuo's latest offering before the Gencon release?  STAY TUNED!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3311[/ATTACH]

Or is this color scheme more appropriate?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3313[/ATTACH]

Or is this color scheme more appropriate?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3314[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Rhedyn;1082983Paizo's core demographic everybody!

A core demographic of people who don't want to buy more books is a suicidal business model. And just hanging on to their current player-base is also death for Paizo. They need to rejuvenate and grow the player-base, or attrition will relentlessly shrink their market down to nothing.

Quote from: Haffrung;1082991A core demographic of people who don't want to buy more books is a suicidal business model. And just hanging on to their current player-base is also death for Paizo. They need to rejuvenate and grow the player-base, or attrition will relentlessly shrink their market down to nothing.

What would you do?

If anything, D&D 4th edition is a great example of change that fizzled. Throwing everything away to chase a new player-base can result in losing existing players and failing to bring in enough new players to "rejuvenate" the brand.

Personally, (I think I put this forward near the beginning of the thread) is slowly iterate. Pathfinder 2.0 should be easily backwards compatible with 1.0, to retain existing customers, and introduce enough new content to encourage them to move to the new version. Starfinder is a pretty good example. While there are differences (KAC and EAC, multiple attacks are changed, crits don't have to be confirmed) it's easily compatible with Pathfinder 1.0.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1082993What would you do?

Keep PF 1E as-is (or sell 'Unchained Update' books) and introduce a PF "lite," (maybe something close to C&C w/specific options for minis & going tactical) justifying a (re)launch of hordes of product while expanding future APs to both systems. (Which acts as a free ad-nag.)

I don't see this current move ending well for Paizo at all.

(Addenda: Beginner Box may do some of this, but expand on that.)

Pathfinder 1E was pretty cool.

Pathfinder 2E is going to be a shipwreck of an RPG, just like D&D 4E and V5.

D&D 4E was like the Titanic of RPG's

V5 was the Lusitania of RPG's

PF 2E will be the Andrea Doria of RPG's

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1083008V5 was the Lusitania of RPG's

V5 was an elaborate trap to give USA an excuse to join the war against Germany?

Quote from: Tinman;1082980I have a lot of money invested in Pathfinder 1.0 and I have no intention of re-buying everything again.  I did that too many times with D&D.

As I understand it Pathfinder 2 is not going to be reprinted Pathfinder 1 books with new mechanics.

But that is of course just a rando internet asshats opinion.

I'm late to the party, but I wanted to share my two cents.

One of the longstanding problems with Pathfinder (and 3e in general) is bloat. Class boat, spell bloat, feat bloat, and general power creep.

Official supplements introduced alternate classes, hybrid classes, archetypes, etc. 3pp introduced a bazillion more, natch. At some point somebody decided that enough was enough and wrote a series called The Genius Guide to the Talented [Insert Class Here]. The basic idea was to consolidate every alternate class and archetype and whatever by changing the class features mechanic to a "talent" mechanic in which the player would choose which talents to get as they leveled up, subject to various restrictions.

The Spheres of Power and Spheres of Might books did something similar, replacing traditional class features and spells with a toolkit mechanic. Unfortunately they didn't go far enough and still used unnecessary mechanics like archetypes and prestige classes rather than go the route of The Genius Guide to the Talented.

For comparison, the Neverwinter Nights games consolidated the 3e class features mechanic into the feats mechanic. Pathfinder should've done something like that a long time ago.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1083675I'm late to the party, but I wanted to share my two cents.

One of the longstanding problems with Pathfinder (and 3e in general) is bloat. Class boat, spell bloat, feat bloat, and general power creep.

Official supplements introduced alternate classes, hybrid classes, archetypes, etc. 3pp introduced a bazillion more, natch. At some point somebody decided that enough was enough and wrote a series called The Genius Guide to the Talented [Insert Class Here]. The basic idea was to consolidate every alternate class and archetype and whatever by changing the class features mechanic to a "talent" mechanic in which the player would choose which talents to get as they leveled up, subject to various restrictions.

The Spheres of Power and Spheres of Might books did something similar, replacing traditional class features and spells with a toolkit mechanic. Unfortunately they didn't go far enough and still used unnecessary mechanics like archetypes and prestige classes rather than go the route of The Genius Guide to the Talented.

For comparison, the Neverwinter Nights games consolidated the 3e class features mechanic into the feats mechanic. Pathfinder should've done something like that a long time ago.

There's always the delicate balance between finding new reasons to make books for sale and making more books than people can absorb.

JG

Quote from: cenmarik;1083004Keep PF 1E as-is (or sell 'Unchained Update' books) and introduce a PF "lite," (maybe something close to C&C w/specific options for minis & going tactical) justifying a (re)launch of hordes of product while expanding future APs to both systems. (Which acts as a free ad-nag.)

I don't see this current move ending well for Paizo at all.

(Addenda: Beginner Box may do some of this, but expand on that.)

Actually, that's a pretty good plan: Launch a compatible PF 1e Lite with tips on module conversion. :)

With Paizo's announcement they are releasing the Bestiary from their Kingmaker adventure path for 5e (https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgmf?Help-Paizo-Celebrate-Kingmakers-10th-Anniversary), it makes me raise my eyebrow.

"Finally, we'll add a hardcover Kingmaker Bestiary for 5E, developed in conjunction with industry leaders in third-party 5E publishing, allowing players of the current edition of the world's oldest RPG the chance to experience the rich and detailed storylines that have made the Kingmaker Adventure Path a fan favorite for a decade."

It is being produced "with industry leaders in third-party 5E publishing"

Immediate reaction on the Paizo boards? 'can't believe they're supporting 5E before their own 1E'

A bunch of people have been asking for Paizo to release their stuff in a 5e version.

So now they are running an experiment to see if it would be worthwhile.

And of course they are not going to release a 1e version because they already have a 1e version.  Come on people, the new hotness you know you want it.

Quote from: Tinman;1082980I have a lot of money invested in Pathfinder 1.0 and I have no intention of re-buying everything again.  I did that too many times with D&D.

Preach it brother!!!

Quote from: Mistwell;1086076With Paizo's announcement they are releasing the Bestiary from their Kingmaker adventure path for 5e (https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgmf?Help-Paizo-Celebrate-Kingmakers-10th-Anniversary), it makes me raise my eyebrow.

"Finally, we'll add a hardcover Kingmaker Bestiary for 5E, developed in conjunction with industry leaders in third-party 5E publishing, allowing players of the current edition of the world's oldest RPG the chance to experience the rich and detailed storylines that have made the Kingmaker Adventure Path a fan favorite for a decade."

It is being produced "with industry leaders in third-party 5E publishing"

Immediate reaction on the Paizo boards? 'can't believe they're supporting 5E before their own 1E'

Short of reprinting a bunch of monsters from the 5e SRD I don't see how they can fill a hardback. Should be a 16 page free download I'd think. Or better yet an appendix in the pf 2e version.

Quote from: Mistwell;1086076With Paizo's announcement they are releasing the Bestiary from their Kingmaker adventure path for 5e (https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sgmf?Help-Paizo-Celebrate-Kingmakers-10th-Anniversary), it makes me raise my eyebrow.

"Finally, we'll add a hardcover Kingmaker Bestiary for 5E, developed in conjunction with industry leaders in third-party 5E publishing, allowing players of the current edition of the world's oldest RPG the chance to experience the rich and detailed storylines that have made the Kingmaker Adventure Path a fan favorite for a decade."

It is being produced "with industry leaders in third-party 5E publishing"

Immediate reaction on the Paizo boards? 'can't believe they're supporting 5E before their own 1E'

Quote from: Shasarak;1086078A bunch of people have been asking for Paizo to release their stuff in a 5e version.

So now they are running an experiment to see if it would be worthwhile....

Well, someone at Pazio is not a complete idiot then.

Quote from: S'mon;1086120Short of reprinting a bunch of monsters from the 5e SRD I don't see how they can fill a hardback. Should be a 16 page free download I'd think. Or better yet an appendix in the pf 2e version.

But here's a thought...

They can fill a hardback if they make all the monsters that have appeared in their Adventure Paths etc, available!

That way if this whole 5e AP thing works out they already have the necessary 5e compatible bits in place to quickly turn out more 5e 'compatible' stuff.

A hardback of all creatures from the first eg 50 or 100 APs would be a good idea yup.

I find it odd how few people have considered that, rather than "expose 5e players to PF2" that the other risk is also present. This exposes PF1 players who are considering whether to transition to PF2 or 5e to the possibility they can have the best of both worlds by going to 5e, as they may be able to run PF adventures using 5e easier than they thought they could before.  This may well be the deciding factor for some PF1 fans who were on the fence to choose 5e over PF2.

Quote from: S'mon;1086152A hardback of all creatures from the first eg 50 or 100 APs would be a good idea yup.

If they've never been reprinted in a 1E Bestiary, I think a 1E version of this book would sell well, too.

PF2E may see some good sales numbers upon the initial release of the Rulebook, and Bestiary; but what will those numbers look like 18 months later?

Kingmaker I've always wanted to run. A hardback version sounds good. And the 5e bestiary of KM is great news, since I'd much rather run 5e than PF1 or PF2.

Quote from: Mistwell;1086153I find it odd how few people have considered that, rather than "expose 5e players to PF2" that the other risk is also present. This exposes PF1 players who are considering whether to transition to PF2 or 5e to the possibility they can have the best of both worlds by going to 5e, as they may be able to run PF adventures using 5e easier than they thought they could before.  This may well be the deciding factor for some PF1 fans who were on the fence to choose 5e over PF2.

That is an obvious risk.

But also I think someone at Pazio is covering their bets under the guise of catering to demand for 5e compatible product - and the move to PF2 gives them a plausible excuse to "test the waters" with converted PF1 material.

Quote from: Razor 007;1086172PF2E may see some good sales numbers upon the initial release of the Rulebook, and Bestiary; but what will those numbers look like 18 months later?

I think it will take about 3 years to see the fallout of the switch to PF2. Pazio will be reluctant to admit failure, even though I think it is safe to say that someone is putting the pieces for transition to 5e support in place already. Because of popular demand for PF1 adventure paths. ;)

Pazio as a company has survived some very turbulent transitions. So despite trying to embrace the 'woke', and believing their own hype when it comes to the reasons why PF1 was so successful; there is an underlying competence for business by some of the people involved in the company.

I don't think it is coincidence that 5e support is suddenly being "tested" on the eve of the PF2 roll out. Even if only subconsciously, some people are hedging their bets over there.