A big part of Pathfinder's appeal is their adventure paths. They've managed to create a lot of iconic campaigns that people want to be part of, and their AP subscribers form the foundation of their business model. The question is if Paizo's APs can continue to generate buzz and FOMO in a geeksphere where WotC/5E has come to dominate with live play and streaming?

Quote from: Omega;1061326...

All Paizo had to do was keep Pathfinder chugging along and just wait for WOTC to sadly near inevitably screw the pooch and then present the mutant offspring as 6e. Then pick up the pieces AGAIN. ....

Remember when 5e was first announced? It was supposed to be modular. So, you could start with an Old School basic game and add options as desired. In my opinion, the rules options offered hardly touch a modular style plug-in set. They certainly don't get you back to 3.5 levels of tactical complexity or character options. Let WOTC focus on the crowd that likes lighter games.

There's no reason Paizo can't just OGL in parts of 5e right now. It is OGL. They don't have to wait for anything. The Crunchier D&D market is already theirs.

I believe Paizo should just create Advanced "D&D" (Pathfinder) - modular plug-ins for the world's most popular roleplaying game. Take 5e base and actually create the rules modules that groups can up the complexity of D&D as desired. Paizo is already focusing on a crowd that likes a crunchier game - make the current popular game crunchier!

Then, focus on what made you good in the first place. Adventure Paths! Lots of materials that help GMs pull off amazing games. Awesome monster books! Pawns. Maps.

I agree with everyone here who finds Paizo's doubling down to be self-defeating. Be the market-savvy group of designers you were when you started.

The issue with PF2e is that it isn't doubling down on Pathfinder.

It's a crunch heavy game where Paizo has added tons and tons of useless options on top of pointless mechanics, as though their fans get off on mindless minuet fiddling with bullshit.

A good chunk of 5e abilities are cooler and 5e casters are far more interesting than their PF2e counter parts.

PF2e is a harder to play, less interesting 5e. 3.5 at least gets to claim deeper characters than 5e.

With PF2e as their main competition, WotC has no competition. Pathfinder 1e was better competition than 2e is going to be.

So a 6e is only happening if something goes wrong with 5e or a real competitor steps up.

Quote from: trechriron;1061385Remember when 5e was first announced? It was supposed to be modular. So, you could start with an Old School basic game and add options as desired. In my opinion, the rules options offered hardly touch a modular style plug-in set. They certainly don't get you back to 3.5 levels of tactical complexity or character options. Let WOTC focus on the crowd that likes lighter games.

There's no reason Paizo can't just OGL in parts of 5e right now. It is OGL. They don't have to wait for anything. The Crunchier D&D market is already theirs.

I doubt the people who care primarily about "crunch" are a large market. Pathfinder's main appeal was familiarity and support. 4e was plenty crunchy. But it wasn't familiar-feeling. Today, Pathfinder's main appeal is inertia. If you are happy in your PF game, why switch? Learning new rules is a pain in the butt!

So I think it's a mistake to think there's much money to be had by making a 5e clone with more feats and class options (most customers like the idea of many options, but never actually use them). The truth is, in a market like games, people go with the leading brand and are very unlikely to switch unless the leader is actively making them unhappy. Paizo only has a variety of bad options, all of which will force them to make cuts. I predicted they would try to make an all-new RPG because that's the option that seems like it has the most potential to keep growing, but it won't actually do that.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061425...I predicted they would try to make an all-new RPG because that's the option that seems like it has the most potential to keep growing, but it won't actually do that.

I do not imagine why you think that is the case.

Even WotC does not float on the D&D RPG alone.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061430I do not imagine why you think that is the case.

Are you asking me to explain my reasoning?

QuoteEven WotC does not float on the D&D RPG alone.

What's that have to do with Pathfinder?

As far as I can tell, Paizo is doing fine. Their user base is growing rather than shrinking. It's growing slower than 5e's is growing, but that's not all that relevant to Paizo. A rising tide really does raise all boats, and 5e's popularity is also helping out Paizo sales.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061425I doubt the people who care primarily about "crunch" are a large market. Pathfinder's main appeal was familiarity and support. 4e was plenty crunchy. But it wasn't familiar-feeling. Today, Pathfinder's main appeal is inertia. If you are happy in your PF game, why switch? Learning new rules is a pain in the butt!

I'm gonna have to disagree. A lot of people LIKE crunch and the character creation mini-game.

4e was plenty crunchy - but it actually cut down on a lot of the customization, and much of what there was wasn't real choice - but mostly magician's choice - where all the abilities at most levels were very similar. Plus - they removed a lot of asymmetry in general for the sake of balance. (Which worked - but it's the easiest and most boring way to achieve balance.)

So - people don't like crunch for the sake of crunch. They like customization and fun/flavorful crunch where they're making real decisions. 4e had none of those things.

Now - I'm a bit dubious about PF2. What little I've seen of it makes me think they're not putting crunch in the right places - but there is certainly a market for WELL DONE crunch. It's not as big a market as 5e's, but TTRPG sales as a whole are growing, and IF (and that's a big "if") PF2 is very well done, I could certainly see it maintain PF1 level sales numerically - though I would be shocked if it ever let Paizo regain the #1 slot from D&D. But - a smaller % of a bigger pie can be plenty big.

Unless D&D screws up again I don't see anyone else taking the #1 slot any time soon. So - it makes sense to try to slice off parts of the market which 5e doesn't totally match. 5e's middling crunch/customization, so there's room for game's aimed at gamers who prefer substantially lighter or heavier games - not to mention other vibes/genres.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1061457I'm gonna have to disagree. A lot of people LIKE crunch and the character creation mini-game.

Not what I said.  I said the people who care primarily about crunch are a small market. A person might like character customization in Pathfinder without that being the determining factor in why he's playing it. The people who care so much about rules-complexity that it determines their buying habits are expert, enthusiast users. They're the RPG equivalent of audiophiles. In fact, let's be real clear and self-aware here...people who post about D&D on obscure internet forums are the D&D equivalent of audiophiles who believe special volume knob lacquer enhances the sound. In any given market, your expert user, the one who is guided by technicals, is maybe 1% to 5% of the user base (experts are also completely incapable of understanding non-expert users).

There's simply no way the average PF player cares in particular about the complex system of feats & sit mods and all that. I say this confidently because there are far too many PF players for most of them to be that kind of person. If people cared about "crunch" in the abstract, Starfinder would be a big hit. But of course, it's a failure. The problem is not the ship-to-ship combat. The problem is not sci-fi. the problem is not that it lacks full casters. The problem is not that EVERYONE HAS AMNESIA is a dumb premise for a setting. The problem is hardly anybody cares about Paizo or its crunch.

QuoteSo - people don't like crunch for the sake of crunch. They like customization and fun/flavorful crunch where they're making real decisions. 4e had none of those things.

4e did not fail because the options weren't meaningful. Maybe that's why crunch-nerds rejected it, but 95% players aren't crunch-nerds (and 5e is less crunchy than 4e anyway).  More than anything, people like the familiar. They like their jeans to be blue, they like having a "start" menu in Windows, they like their Diet Coke to taste like chemical warfare, and they like their D&D's fireball to mean hurling a fistful of d6s on the table.  They bought Pathfinder primarily because it felt familiar and 4e didn't.  In an alternative universe where D&D 3 was just a cleaned-up AD&D, 4e was what it was, and Lisa Stevens responded to the GSL by printing up the AD&D 3 SRD with fresh art and adventures, Paizo would have been just as successful. Or, in a different alternative universe, where WotC followed up 3.5 with 5e, Pathfinder is as obscure as 13th Age.

QuoteNow - I'm a bit dubious about PF2. What little I've seen of it makes me think they're not putting crunch in the right places - but there is certainly a market for WELL DONE crunch. It's not as big a market as 5e's, but TTRPG sales as a whole are growing, and IF (and that's a big "if") PF2 is very well done, I could certainly see it maintain PF1 level sales numerically - though I would be shocked if it ever let Paizo regain the #1 slot from D&D. But - a smaller % of a bigger pie can be plenty big.

If PF2 is the best damn fantasy heartbreaker ever made, it will still decline over PF1. There's just not a naturally large audience for fantasy heartbreakers, and there's not a wave of people rejecting 5e to sell into. People want to play D&D, and PF2 doesn't look much like D&D. It's just some fantasy RPG that hardly anybody is going to take the time to learn (people actually don't like learning rules). Some portion of PF players will stick with PF1, and some will drop out of RPGs, some will switch to 5e or a different game. They won't have enough new players to offset the attrition.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;10614764e did not fail because the options weren't meaningful. Maybe that's why crunch-nerds rejected it, but 95% players aren't crunch-nerds (and 5e is less crunchy than 4e anyway).  

No - I'm gonna have to disagree with this.

Now - many people who only dabble in this stuff can't put their finger on WHY they didn't like 4e options. But I know a lot of people who aren't into rules nerding who said things along the lines of "The ranger felt too much like the X" or "It felt repetitive" etc. They didn't delve into the crunch enough to know WHY they didn't like 4e, but a large chunk of the reason was that it had all of that crunch without the 3e payoff of real options & asymmetry.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061476If PF2 is the best damn fantasy heartbreaker ever made, it will still decline over PF1.

As a % of the market - I definitely agree. However - the TTRPG market has been expanding a lot lately for a variety of reasons. (Stranger Things / 5e being easier to pick up / Boardgame Renaissance acting as a gateway drug etc.)  If they can get 15% of a market of 10 million gamers, that'll get them the same sales as 40% of 3.75 million gamers. (Note: I just pulled those #s out of thin air - just an example of how it might work out for them despite losing market share so long as the market itself grows.)

Quote from: Mistwell;1061450As far as I can tell, Paizo is doing fine. Their user base is growing rather than shrinking. It's growing slower than 5e's is growing, but that's not all that relevant to Paizo. A rising tide really does raise all boats, and 5e's popularity is also helping out Paizo sales.

Checking amazon.co.uk:
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Core Rulebook 32,725 in Books
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Core Rulebook (Pocket Edition)  211,874 in Books
Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook 331,726 in Books

Compare:
Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game 3rd Edition 183,089 in Books
Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook 888 in Books

So I'm not seeing any evidence of Pathfinder growth in the UK, at least. Whereas there is plenty of indication that 5e D&D is doing very well.


I'm sure Pathfinder will get a significant sales bump when the real 2nd edition books release; but I don't think there is any indication it will be within an order of magnitude of 5e D&D's ongoing sales.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;10614764e did not fail because the options weren't meaningful. Maybe that's why crunch-nerds rejected it, but 95% players aren't crunch-nerds (and 5e is less crunchy than 4e anyway).  More than anything, people like the familiar. They like their jeans to be blue, they like having a "start" menu in Windows, they like their Diet Coke to taste like chemical warfare, and they like their D&D's fireball to mean hurling a fistful of d6s on the table.  They bought Pathfinder primarily because it felt familiar and 4e didn't.  In an alternative universe where D&D 3 was just a cleaned-up AD&D, 4e was what it was, and Lisa Stevens responded to the GSL by printing up the AD&D 3 SRD with fresh art and adventures, Paizo would have been just as successful. Or, in a different alternative universe, where WotC followed up 3.5 with 5e, Pathfinder is as obscure as 13th Age.

I think this is right. Most people didn't like 4e D&D because it didn't feel like D&D - which includes the 4e classes feeling similar in play. They didn't reject it for lack of crunch. At the point of creating a new 1st level PC, 4e is actually MORE crunchy than 3e/PF. 3e/PF has a relatively easy on-ramp; the piled-up insane crunch comes later. 4e has a much shallower curve - starts crunchier and only piles it up at a relatively slower rate, with spikes at the tier breaks.

I do think an 'AD&D 3e' would not have been nearly as successful as the WotC 3e D&D we got, which would likely mean a Paizo continuity version would have been less successful too.

Quote from: S'mon;1061484I think this is right. Most people didn't like 4e D&D because it didn't feel like D&D - which includes the 4e classes feeling similar in play. They didn't reject it for lack of crunch. At the point of creating a new 1st level PC, 4e is actually MORE crunchy than 3e/PF. 3e/PF has a relatively easy on-ramp; the piled-up insane crunch comes later. 4e has a much shallower curve - starts crunchier and only piles it up at a relatively slower rate, with spikes at the tier breaks.

I do think an 'AD&D 3e' would not have been nearly as successful as the WotC 3e D&D we got, which would likely mean a Paizo continuity version would have been less successful too.

Hard to judge in retrospect. 2ed had so many supplements that a back to basics approach might've backfired. Also the main flaws of 3ed take a while to become apparent. 3ed having the worst balance of any edition only becomes apparent once you stop using the sort of tactics that people mostly used for AD&D and the borked scaling inly becomes apparent after level six and only becomes really bad at higher levels (hence the popularity of E6).

At low levels it holds together decently and appears to be better thought out than it is. At low levels the main flaws are the busy work of assigning skill points and stupid little shit like skill synergies.

However, in 3ed the headaches accumulate pretty fast and can lead to burnout whixh might be why 3ed and 3.5 had fairly short life cycles.

Quote from: Daztur;1061508...At low levels it holds together decently and appears to be better thought out than it is...

You could say the same about 5e.

All 5e did is make sure the game didn't radically change into "Wizard Chess" at high levels, it still breaks into little pieces. Mainly because your wizard is playing "Wizard Checkers" and the MM enemies are playing "Tic Tac Toe"

I personally want PF to succeed. WotC could use the competition.