From the same article:
"Mona said that Pathfinder has sold more core game books each year since they released, which Mona says isn't supposed to happen in roleplaying games. "
No.
In the short term, 'no', I don't think a new edition is needed. But, I would like for Paizo to be looking to the future and keeping notes on things that would make for a better and more balanced game. I'd say, when Pathfinder reaches the 10 year mark, would be a good time for a Pathfinder 2E. I think 'Unchained' is a good measure to bridge the gap.
I'd suspect that P2E would share enough similarities with P1E so adventure paths and such, would not be obsolete, similar to how 3.0 and 3.5 adventures can be used in Pathfinder now.
Put me down as No
is the current system perfect, no but I don't think a completely new edition is needed. adjustments and revisions sure. Lets see what PAthfinder Unchained has to offer next year.
also, as much as I enjoy the current result of the poll, vocal minorities like us are hardly indicative. And folks who want PF2.0 want it for vastly different reasons, see:
Bugley: Beginners Box layout, no splatbooks plz.
Rynjin: Buff monks, decapitated SKR on the cover.
Beckett: Option to play LG Cleric of Jesus Christ who is > other classes.
Kthulhu: Fatal blunder which finally bankrupts Paiozo and leaves Monte Cookie homeless.
Ah, yes, obviously true. Everyone who wants a new edition is eeeeevil and has some overly narrow desire, and doesn't merely wish for blanket improvements to a system that is hurt by the fact that it was shoddily copy-pasta'd from another system on short notice.
It was fine (mostly) on release, but time has went on and people have noticed some huge glaring issues stemming from that, not least because of things in newer books blatantly contradicting or confusedly interacting with things Paizo doesn't even remember are in the rules
I'll take the decapitated SKR on the cover though.
You know what the part that pisses me off about this is though? The devs said, repeatedly, as an excuse during the playtest for not listening to feedback "We don't design stuff based on popular opinion".
WELP.
You ignore the possibility that the game is exactly what I want it to be right now.Honestly, unless you're objection is that you don't want to spend more money (which is completely reasonable), then I don't see a reason to say "no."
I mean, we haven't talked about what the new edition is going to be like yet. For right now, a new edition just means the game becomes exactly what I want it to be. So, since I want the game to be exactly what I want it to be, I'll vote yes.
I guess because I'm the person who wants a new edition, I find it impossible that the current edition could be an exactly, 100% great, everything-is-perfect game in anyones eyes.
But then, I guess the law of averages states that it has to be that way for one person.
Honestly, unless you're objection is that you don't want to spend more money (which is completely reasonable), then I don't see a reason to say "no."
I mean, we haven't talked about what the new edition is going to be like yet. For right now, a new edition just means the game becomes exactly what I want it to be. So, since I want the game to be exactly what I want it to be, I'll vote yes.
Unless you have a crystal ball, I'm not sure that you can definitively say that. It might be something completely and totally the opposite of what you want.
My vote is No, by the by.
It could be, but for now I feel that:
A. I'm not 100% satisfied with the current editionB. It will more than likely require a new edition to make me 100% satisfied with the system
C. Even if I like a new edition less than the current edition, I could still play the current edition, so I lose little from an attempt to fix the game.
So if making me 100% satisfied with the game requires a new edition, my only option is to vote yes
i'm extremely happy with pathfinder as is, their is nothing i would change that i can think of off the top of my head.
Yes and no.
Yes. I am waiting for pathfinder unchained but I doubt it will change my opinion.
no
NO
|
Absolutely Hell Yes.
I have no interest in spending 100$+ on a rehashed edition with new art and little or no significant changes. Why buy the same thing a second time. Those who don't want any change forgot well how will Paizo market a product with little changes. Even Chaosium Call of Cthulhu 7E is different enough this time around from what I hear. That being said I'm in the minority so realize it will not happen.
If they do a playtest
If your going to ask for feedsback use some of it. Don't ask for any if in the end your not going to use it.
Your not going to please everyone so don't approach a new playtest with that in mind as imo Paizo is dooming itself to failure.
Keep a very tight rein on those who are very vocal who attempt to sabotage the playtest. Permabanning them if need. We don't need another core playtest debacle imo.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of a v2 I think I would like to see the core books on some cycle of refresh act as almost encyclopedia. So a core rule book printed in say 2015 might not be the same as the one 2012, but not just because of errata but because of class over hauls like we are seeing in Pathfinder Unchained, or the rewrite of the Stealth rules that was on the blog a few years back.
Essentially refreshing and maintaining the content.
Unfortunately I don't think the revenue stream supports reprinting that material, and the encyclopedia comment isn't that far off either. You would need multiple volumes, and probably have to break it down into: Classes, Spells, Equipment, Rules. Classes is in itself multiple volumes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see a new edition largely because I'd like to have something Pathfinder-related to buy again. The system has gotten so bloated and powercrept that new options are a detriment to the play experience, and the APs haven't been compatible with with the power level of the game since around Ultimate Magic or so.
It would also be nice to see a departure from certain outdated mechanics, like Challenge Rating's single-monster combat assumption and the four combats/day assumption. It would also be nice to see a well-functioning and well-supported higher-level game. But now I digress; we each have a laundry list of desired changes.
-Matt
I'd like to see a new edition largely because I'd like to have something Pathfinder-related to buy again. The system has gotten so bloated and powercrept that new options are a detriment to the play experience, and the APs haven't been compatible with with the power level of the game since around Ultimate Magic or so.
It would also be nice to see a departure from certain outdated mechanics, like Challenge Rating's single-monster combat assumption and the four combats/day assumption. It would also be nice to see a well-functioning and well-supported higher-level game. But now I digress; we all have our laundry list of desired changes.
-Matt
PREACH ON BROTHER! I second everything you said!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Keep a very tight rein on those who are very vocal who attempt to sabotage the playtest. Permabanning them if need. We don't need another core playtest debacle imo.
So those who diasgree with you are "sabotaging" the playtests and should be permabanned?
Posted a thread on rpg.net with link to get more exposure.
Exposure to what?
Yes and no.
My answer also.
No, I do not want a completely new edition that changes the fundamentals of the game.
Yes, I would like a "lite" / "simpler" edition that clears up the rules and is easier to play, and many, many less options.
Not that options are bad, but I have kind of had it with the plethora of options and with attitudes of some that if you don't allow every option that you are not playing the game right.
-- david
|
|
So those who diasgree with you are "sabotaging" the playtests and should be permabanned?
There politely disagreeing and then there shouting people down so they don't get heard while telling them to go elsewhere. Which happened during the playtest of the core. Which I don't want to see happen again. In a playtest everyone should be heard. Not a very select few very vocal posters. I'm surprised that you would think it was a bad thing.
Exposure to what?
Letting other people on other forums besides this one know about the poll.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely Hell Yes.
I have no interest in spending 100$+ on a rehashed edition with new art and little or no significant changes. Why buy the same thing a second time. Those who don't want any change forgot well how will Paizo market a product with little changes. Even Chaosium Call of Cthulhu 7E is different enough this time around from what I hear. That being said I'm in the minority so realize it will not happen.
If they do a playtest
If your going to ask for feedsback use some of it. Don't ask for any if in the end your not going to use it.
Your not going to please everyone so don't approach a new playtest with that in mind as imo Paizo is dooming itself to failure.
Keep a very tight rein on those who are very vocal who attempt to sabotage the playtest. Permabanning them if need. We don't need another core playtest debacle imo.
this comment...is all over the map.
It sounds like what you are really saying is "Take feedback seriously, but not only ignore playtest comments that disagree with me, but ban those people entirely from the process".
Conversion would be easy as long as they maintain Golarion. It'd just be either a conversion guide away or just use the new entry in the new Bestiary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. Absolutely not.
Pathfinder does not need a new edition as yet.
Conversion would be easy as long as they maintain Golarion. It'd just be either a conversion guide away or just use the new entry in the new Bestiary.
People who already own Bestiary 1-4 may not like to be told they need to buy new volumes of Bestiaries 1-4 again...
Although to be honest, I don't think you actually need to do much about the monsters. They don't seem to be the most commonly pointed out problems (at least, there are not dozens of threads about how X monster is broken, unlike monk/rogue/fighter/9th level spellcasting)
|
|
this comment...is all over the map.It sounds like what you are really saying is "Take feedback seriously, but not only ignore playtest comments that disagree with me, but ban those people entirely from the process".
And here we go with people misunderstundaing what I said.
I want a playtest where everyone is heard. Not just myself. Where no set of vocal posters drown out everyone else. I came late to the core playtest and stayed away because a very vocal group kept chasing away anyone who wanted significant changes. I don't want to see the same thing happen again. If it's a serious playtest then everyone pro change and not should be given a fair chance to be heard. Hopefully this clears up everything.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There politely disagreeing and then there shouting people down so they don't get heard while telling them to go elsewhere. Which happened during the playtest of the core. Which I don't want to see happen again. In a playtest everyone should be heard. Not a very select few very vocal posters. I'm surprised that you would think it was a bad thing.
I think that the problem with that idea that they are sort hinting at is that everyone is going to have a different idea on who "those people" are. So it sounds great in theory, but in practice it's basically just using a different method to over shout other people whose ideas one might not agree with.
|
|
So those who diasgree with you are "sabotaging" the playtests and should be permabanned?
There politely disagreeing and then there shouting people down so they don't get heard while telling them to go elsewhere. Which happened during the playtest of the core. Which I don't want to see happen again. In a playtest everyone should be heard. Not a very select few very vocal posters. I'm surprised that you would think it was a bad thing.
Letting other people on other forums besides this one know about the poll.
Exposure to what?
I think its a bad thing because I dont agree with you. I think things turned out a way you dont like and you feel that forum posters somehow got to make that choice by being vocal. If posters are driving people off I trust the moderators here to do something about that. Though permabanning people just because they dont agree with you is thankfully not going to happen. Folks enjoy the 3E/PF system and like a more conservative approach to evolving the system and they are going to voice that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think its a bad thing because I dont agree with you. I think things turned out a way you dont like and you feel that forum posters somehow got to make that choice by being vocal. If posters are driving people off I trust the moderators here to do something about that. Though permabanning people just because they dont agree with you is thankfully not going to happen. Folks enjoy the 3E/PF system and like a more conservative approach to evolving the system and they are going to voice that.
There fans who refuse to come to the forums because of the core playtest. Some in the hobby consider the core playtest a sham because a very vocal subset of fans chased them away. I'm not one of them because I own a lot of material.
Why is my asking for a fair and unbiased playtest bother you so much. Is it because of a fear that they might change something. That's the risk of a playtest.
I think its a bad thing because I dont agree with you. I think things turned out a way you dont like and you feel that forum posters somehow got to make that choice by being vocal. If posters are driving people off I trust the moderators here to do something about that. Though permabanning people just because they dont agree with you is thankfully not going to happen. Folks enjoy the 3E/PF system and like a more conservative approach to evolving the system and they are going to voice that.
So those who diasgree with you are "sabotaging" the playtests and should be permabanned?
There politely disagreeing and then there shouting people down so they don't get heard while telling them to go elsewhere. Which happened during the playtest of the core. Which I don't want to see happen again. In a playtest everyone should be heard. Not a very select few very vocal posters. I'm surprised that you would think it was a bad thing.
Letting other people on other forums besides this one know about the poll.
Exposure to what?
Indeed...the poll results in this thread would suggest that the "vocal" minority may not actually be a minority (although I would also argue that Paizo.com threads are not necessarily reflect of Pathfinder players in general)
While my experience with the playtests is that they do often generate some rather harsh opinions and posts, I am skeptical that Paizo allowed more vocal negatively voiced opinions to influence them unduly over "positive" (whatever that means in this context) playtesters. If anything, they are probably more likely to discard the opinions of those people.
I'd like to see a new edition largely because I'd like to have something Pathfinder-related to buy again. The system has gotten so bloated and powercrept that new options are a detriment to the play experience, and the APs haven't been compatible with with the power level of the game since around Ultimate Magic or so.
It would also be nice to see a departure from certain outdated mechanics, like Challenge Rating's single-monster combat assumption and the four combats/day assumption. It would also be nice to see a well-functioning and well-supported higher-level game. But now I digress; we each have a laundry list of desired changes.
-Matt
All this does is restart the cycle and the bloat will come back in 3-4 years as it has done now. A better options is to restrict what products you want used in your games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want a new edition. I want good, playtested fixes to the problems in the current one.
Treat it the way science text books do. Keep the same chassis, but release a new version when new information is discovered. It wouldn't be a new rules set, it would just large scale errata-ing of problems and printing them in an updated volume.
Can we have that?
|
|
I think its a bad thing because I dont agree with you. I think things turned out a way you dont like and you feel that forum posters somehow got to make that choice by being vocal. If posters are driving people off I trust the moderators here to do something about that. Though permabanning people just because they dont agree with you is thankfully not going to happen. Folks enjoy the 3E/PF system and like a more conservative approach to evolving the system and they are going to voice that.There fans who refuse to come to the forums because of the core playtest. Some in the hobby consider the core playtest a sham because a very vocal subset of fans chased them away. I'm not one of them because I own a lot of material.
Why is my asking for a fair and unbiased playtest bother you so much. Is it because of a fear that they might change something. That's the risk of a playtest.
I just dont believe you. I do think some people probably got pushed away and that is a shame. Though I think these forums are pretty well moderated and have fair discussions. The forums are welcoming to anyone who likes PF and even those who dont. There are trolls but what site doesnt have them? I also dont think you have a basis for a biased playtest. The goal was to make a backwards compatibale system so having a lot of changes was never in cards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
its not rules bloating its rules expansion
no
the game is fine as it is
its not rules bloating its rules expansion*Optional rules expansion .
Arent they all optional?
:)| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
NO, I don't think that Pathfinder needs another edition of Fantasy.
I would like to see them apply their efforts to making A "STARFINDER" type game set in the distant future of some far flung galaxy with Alien instead of Demi-Human races and Psionics instead of magic...and of course advanced technology.
Same type of Mechanics(tweaked) with all new futuristic classes.Like WH40K only without Space orks.
I'd buy that.
Forums and their voting polls aren't trustworthy places even if the vast majority of the fans posted here. The concept of multiple accounts throws any aggregate feedback you get out of the window.