| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I have been thinking more on 2e and... one issue did hit me after reading peoples views from both sides of the arguments and such...
How possible will it be for 2e to gain a foothold if it does indeed lack much/any practical backwards compatibility?
Like, for anyone who's invested a lot of time/money into 1e, will having to reset to just core concepts and scrap the 10 years of books they've collected/read really be a risk they are willing to take?
While having 1e books still for sale will help a little, I worry the sudden content dropoff will prevent enough current players from taking enough of a plunge for 2e to be viable(or that people may favor 3rd party producers more than Paizo.).
I mean, if 2e DOES have enough backwards compatibility for someone to play a skinwalker shifter or an elf psychic or whatnot, huzzah!..
...but I keep hearing people talk about stuff that suggests that really won't be the case, which turns 2e into a very big gamble/downgrade for anyone who isn't fresh to the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ask WotC what ignoring backwards compatibility between 4e and 5e did for them.
Besides, 3PPs will be on the ball right away, just like they always are.
One issue though is... it's sounding more like the 3e dnd to 4e change? Like, a case where converting content from 1e to 2e just won't work without loads of guesswork.
Plus... is people relying on 3PPs really a good outcome for Paizo?
If people end up wanting the non-Paizo 2e(or even 1e) stuff more, it reduces sales profits that could've been retained more easily with a safer backwards(or... forwards? Like, something easy to convert 1e stuff to) compatible system, making funding of 2e more difficult... unless 2e somehow makes a surge in 1e purchases. But at that point, 1e is now beating 2e.
2e being incompatible just seems like a huge risk for Paizo to take, especially given it means people are far less likely to try to swap over mid-campaign.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WotC released 3 core 5e books and managed to win the market back in short order without releasing a single splatbook/bestiary beyond the core 3. Not only that, they took a bite out of Paizo's base, because for many, PF was a band-aid until WotC got their stuff together.
And unlike WotC, Paizo will be pumping out splatbooks and setting books right away.
Paizo's business people witnessed first-hand the 1e-2e and 2e-3e and 3e-3.5e and 3.5e-4e and 3.5e-PF and everything-5e switches and they have more than enough knowledge to calculate how will things pan out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't be so sceptical!
The Paizo guys have a lot of experience in juggling game systems. Many of the systems they've built the PF2.0 Playtest on have been around in one version or another for years, just look at the stuff in PF Unchained that seem to have evolved into what we're just starting to glimpse now.
Of course PF2.0 can "gain a foothold". It's going to have all the weight of the Paizo and the Pathfinder names behind it. Will there be folks unwilling to leave their treasured PF1.0 behind? Sure. Will PF2.0 be a hands-down improvement? To early to say. But IMHO it's important to keep an open mind. Pathfinder was born from the refusal of a new version of our favorite hobby, so it's natural for folks to hesitate or even quail at the thought of change.
A lot of the stuff we're beginning to glimpse look cool. Time will tell.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's enough I want to see gone that backwards compatibility would be a negative for me. I've liked almost everything I've seen so far, so if we sacrifice some of those things for backwards compatibility, I become rapidly less likely to continue buying Pathfinder material.
So for me at least, it definitely can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, just found out they really do plan(or at least have said they plan to do) a real "how to add a thing from 1e to 2e" guide... so yay!.. I just wish I'd found out before worrying.
Given that... yeah. I guess it isn't a gamble. ^_^
If most 1e content can be converted with relatively low effort, it means playing some crazy catfolk rogue who wields whips might be an option still(or maybe even odd classes like vigilante or shifter?)~ :3
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, absolutely. In fact, they'll get a lot of that foothold from people like me who do not want the old 3.x engine. Its flaws are well-documented and many years old now. What it looks like they're doing from the preview stuff we've seen looks very promising. Making things backwards compatible is unnecessary and adds a ton of extra complications for very little gain. The wealth of 1E material out there is insanely vast. Let those who want to produce for it do so.
Trying to make things backwards compatible only hamstrings the design team. I'm glad they're not going that route.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How often do people allow 3.5 content in their games?
If the game is good, yes.
Ok this is what James Jacobs said regarding the compatibility of the Peterson Games Cthulhu for Pathfinder book
I wrote a large portion of this book, so I'm in the unique position of knowing about the book's contents and knowing about 2nd edition Pathfinder, and you are 100% spot on here. Converting monsters will be straightforward, class and feat options will take a little more work, and the LARGE amount of incredible and evocative story and flavor information is pretty much not only edition-neutral, but very inspiring and fun to read.
so converting things like Class Options and Feats is going to be doable if you are willing to put in the effort
How often do people allow 3.5 content in their games?
fair bit actually. our rule at the table is as long as the DM has a copy of it and something newer hasn't replaced it, it's usually fine
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How often do people allow 3.5 content in their games?
I do, but I also came from 3.5 so I understand what I'm doing and how it will effect the game. I don't allow everything, but I allow a lot of it when asked. I even use Tome of Battle characters.
doubt it, personally. a lot of people turned to PF BECAUSE they wanted to play a version of 3.x
If you take that away, why would they stick around? because the art is nice?
How often do people allow 3.5 content in their games?
The groups I was in did for a while at the start. We kinda used Pathfinder as a second source for D&D 3.5e for a while. Later, 3.5 was a second source for Pathfinder, and then finally pritty much retired.
I recently went over my favorite character from the early Pathfinder time. She had so many 3.5e-specific thingies, it was comical.
Anyways, the groups I was a part of typically required DM approval for anything in any splatbook. The reaction they had when anybody mentioned Dragon magazine articles was funny too.
doubt it, personally. a lot of people turned to PF BECAUSE they wanted to play a version of 3.x
If you take that away, why would they stick around? because the art is nice?
For some of them, because they wanted to play 3.X for classes-with-customization, and this is still that, I imagine.
The idea I think is that, yeah, there will be people at first who won't want to switch over due to lack of compatibility, but those will be compensated for by people who left pathfinder due to bloat/not liking the rules system/boredom, plus new players looking for something more complex than 5E.
doubt it, personally. a lot of people turned to PF BECAUSE they wanted to play a version of 3.x
If you take that away, why would they stick around? because the art is nice?
I have the original playtest book, but I didn't actually get into Pathfinder all that deeply at first.
Instead, what I got were the APs. I have every AP volume from the first one to present (though I didn't actually start a subscription until much later...so I do NOT have all the PDF's. I only have the PDF's starting later around MM).
A Lot of people did turn to PF due to 3.x though...I don't know about them, cant' speak for them.
For me, at least at first, it was all about the APs which I actually utilized in 3.5 so I can vouch that they are playable with that version.
I didn't get into the actual PF game until the Beginner Box drew me in. After that I got more into the online and finally started my subscription to be able to get the APs sooner.
With the APs, I don't know if I'll keep my subscription with PF2e, or if I'll go back to what I used to do (which was buying them from the FLGS or elsewhere), that probably will depend on the system and how well I like what I see in regards to whether I want to be able to get the APs sooner (to see how they work with PF2e) or later (as I may be trying to catch up with all the APs I have NOT played yet).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
doubt it, personally. a lot of people turned to PF BECAUSE they wanted to play a version of 3.x
If you take that away, why would they stick around? because the art is nice?
And a lot of people went to 4e, then came back because 4e was bad. That's my case. I went back to PF because 4e felt shallow in the roleplaying side, and APs are better. I played PF despite the system, not because of it. If 4e was as good as 5e is now, maybe PF wpuld not even exist, and Paizo would be creating APs for 5e, who knows.
Thing is: in the last quarter, Pathfinder was the third best selling RPG. Third. Second was Starfinder. First was DnD.
The two games outselling PF have lot of differences, but also have something in common. They are much easier to run, with a lot less «exception based rules» (like: you can draw a weapon as part of a move, except if you have BAB 0). They are easier to prep, smoother to run, and have lower entry barrier. And they are not a clone, so there is room to make a third, different ruleset with NPF, with its own perks. As long as it is easier to play, it will sell better.
2e can succeed two ways.
1. Backwards compatibility all the way back to 3.5
2. Design mechanics that wow the reader.
2e has a strength few RPGs will ever get. People will look at it. It doesn't need to be 1e compatible, but if it's not, the new edition needs to look cooler and better than the current edition not just OK improvements.
Thing is: in the last quarter, Pathfinder was the third best selling RPG. Third. Second was Starfinder.
the brandnew sci-fantasy RPG from the people that brought you Pathfinder is currently outselling PF? I'm shocked!
There are a lot of reasons why, thougha) it is new
b) it is from the the people that brought us Pathfinder, so we can expect it to be good
c) it is sci-fantasy and there is a void of good RPGs in that genre, which, with GotG and SW, is currently extremely popular again
the ruleset is not very high on the list of things that made people buy the game. A lot of people bought the book, because it is what it is, took a look at the rules and went "Eh, maybe not"
I know of a group that decided to play the first SF AP and after two sessions had a crisis meeting only to decide they will play the AP with PF rules and houserules if necessary
a) it is new
b) it is from the the people that brought us Pathfinder, so we can expect it to be good
c) it is sci-fantasy and there is a void of good RPGs in that genre, which, with GotG and SW, is currently extremely popular again
Do you realize that a) and b) will also affect New Pathfinder, right? And that c) is a bit misleading, because the game that holds the number 1 spot by a freaking huge margin is a fantasy game? That Game of Thrones is by far the most popular show, and people is trying to create "lord of the rings" show and "the witcher" show and others, because everybody want to capitalize the void that Game of Thrones is going to leave?
doubt it, personally. a lot of people turned to PF BECAUSE they wanted to play a version of 3.x
If you take that away, why would they stick around? because the art is nice?
It wasn't really so much that it had to be another version of 3.x for a lot of us. We wanted the customization and 4E felt "samey" to a lot of us. As long as PF2 two can fix some of the problems from PF1, and allow me to have a high level of freedom when making characters it won't be an issue.
If they dont do enough to make me feel like I have options there's enough PF1 material to keep me busy for a long time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ask WotC what ignoring backwards compatibility between 4e and 5e did for them.
Nothing. The relative failure and success of 4e and 5e have pretty much nothing to do with backwards compatibility and a lot to do with make a bad superpowers board game and not doing that the second time.
And also getting a lot of positive marketing rather than informing people they were terrible for liking 'backwards 3e concepts' like gnomes and roleplaying.
Personally, I'd rather PF2 goes light on the backwards compatibility, except when it lines up with functional design. One of the biggest weights PF carried was the illusion of backwards compatibility, which mostly carried systemic problems forward for a decade.
Hmmm.. I still use Magic Item Compendium on a regular basis. At least every ten sessions or so.
And three 1/2 years ago I built a campaign around elements in Stormwreck set in Varisia that sadly died after 6 sessions but would still be ongoing if it weren't for changes in te personal lives of the players at that time.
First of all Novelty always has value. People will buy the new core rules because they are new, and they will play them because they bought them. As long as the game is good enough to get people to want more stuff, and there is more stuff to get this is going to work out.
Also, presumably one of the ancillary benefits of giving everyone the playtest rules is that anybody who is interested will get an extended preview of 2nd edition and whatever parts of it people really enjoy will become the selling point for 2nd edition.
But backwards compatibility is something people think they want more than they actually will use, in my experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as they fix the flaws of PF. If not then no. I see some here that if they want to play 5E they will play that and don't want to see anything from 5E. For me PF2 as to have minimum 50% or more new material or I will remain with PF1. I'm not buying the same core book a second time with the same flaws a second time.
But backwards compatibility is something people think they want more than they actually will use, in my experience.
That has been my experience as well. Less actually converting anything from 3.5. to PF and more that they can yet never really do imo.
I disagree, naturally. Since I don't intent to switch to the new system, backwards compatibility is the only thing that would make me keep buying their APs. If I can't play them in PF, they are of no use to me.
So if the APs and modules can't be used anymore and the rulebooks and crunch heavy books can't be used anymore, there wouldn't be much left for me to purchase.
The new campaign setting book would be the only book of interest for me. And since Paizo is not WotC and releases a campaign setting book every other month, it basically means that they would lose me as a costumer without backwards compatibility. And I'm very likely not the only one with those thoughts
I don think backwards compability is that a big of a thing for many rpg fans imo. It needs to be in enough numbers to hurt the sales of PF2.
I don't think it well because in my neck of the woods I rarely see it done. I'm in a Forgotten Realsm campaign and the only changes the DM did to the setting is allowing the Golarion gods to exist in the FR Pantheon and using the books as setting information. NPCs, Items, onsters etc is all taken from the PF1 books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Backwards compatibility is a non-issue for me. I didn't use my OD&D stuff when I switched to AD&D. I did''t use my 1e stuff when I switched to 2e. I didn't use my 2e stuff when I switched to 3e and I didn't use my 3e stuff when I switched to Pathfinder.
I don't allow character options or rules from previous editions in my game, but I certainly used adventures from past editions in each succeeding edition with very little trouble. An orc is an orc.
I think when most people talk about "Backwards-Compatibility" they're talking about still using their favorite rules from the old edition in the new. To me, the more important carryover from older editions is getting the "feel" right. 4e was a perfectly playable game. I enjoyed it when I played it. But it never "felt" like D&D to me. It felt like a surrogate for a video game. I'll play PF2 if it feels right. End of story (for me).
2e has a problem 1e didn't. 3.5 was not mechanically sound. People have quibbles about 1e's high level balance and many classes get poo poo'd but 1e is not dysfunctionally unbalanced the way 3.5 was. 2e won't have the selling point of "like 3.5 but playable with your veteran group of optimizers".
The only reason our group stopped with PF is that it was hard to run and we needed a break. We stopped 3.5 because our campaigns were failing as the system became solved.
2e could clean up high levels, but few campaigns ever get there. 2e really has to "wow" readers and cover some really interesting concepts. It won't have 1e's draw, but it does have a bigger brand behind it than what 1e had when it started.
I don't allow character options or rules from previous editions in my game, but I certainly used adventures from past editions in each succeeding edition with very little trouble. An orc is an orc.
I couldn't agree more with that statement. So much of the GM stuff I purchased for Pathfinder served me very well, even though I switched systems about 2 years ago.
I'm still subscribed to the APs, because the art, maps, NPCs, encounter designs and plot hooks still serve as great inspiration. I even purchased the Inner Sea Taverns book, because it's always useful to be able to whip a fully fleshed out tavern, no matter what system you are playing in.
So even though I don't care about the mechanics of the recent releases, I still have great use for them and I think many other GMs out there feel the same, but more often I get the feeling that some players might feel betrayed, because they can't use the mechanics anymore, at least that's the impression I get.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
2e has a problem 1e didn't. 3.5 was not mechanically sound. People have quibbles about 1e's high level balance and many classes get poo poo'd but 1e is not dysfunctionally unbalanced the way 3.5 was. 2e won't have the selling point of "like 3.5 but playable with your veteran group of optimizers".
The only reason our group stopped with PF is that it was hard to run and we needed a break. We stopped 3.5 because our campaigns were failing as the system became solved.
2e could clean up high levels, but few campaigns ever get there. 2e really has to "wow" readers and cover some really interesting concepts. It won't have 1e's draw, but it does have a bigger brand behind it than what 1e had when it started.
Could I suggest PF1 and PF2 for the two editions of pathfinder?
1E and 2E are pretty well established abbreviations for AD&D, so there’s a pretty significant risk of people misunderstanding that terminology if it’s applied to pathfinder. PF1 and PF2 are unambiguous.
|
There's enough I want to see gone that backwards compatibility would be a negative for me. I've liked almost everything I've seen so far, so if we sacrifice some of those things for backwards compatibility, I become rapidly less likely to continue buying Pathfinder material.
So for me at least, it definitely can.
I tend to be one of those reserved to shift to a new edition simply "because." I was also one of those folks who invested heavily in 1E and don't feel the drive to re-invest so heavily. So, let's address this point here - "enough I want to see gone that backwards compatibility would be a negative."
For me, yes there are changes I'd like to see, for example, a streamlined and more organized skill list. However, I can see modifications to 1E that would lead to 2E without totally dumping the backwards compatibility model. So, for all of you - what fixes make sense between 1E and 2E and would this lend to backwards compability or not?
Also, does it matter? Is Paizo so entrenched in its new model that all we are doing is helping them tweak 2E or is Paizo open to backward compatibility should the populace so demand? Not saying that I speak for the populace, but just curious.
One issue though is... it's sounding more like the 3e dnd to 4e change? Like, a case where converting content from 1e to 2e just won't work without loads of guesswork.
That doesn't really seem to be the case at all. I mean, the public playtest had Erik Mona converting content on the fly. Even the later, more complex 1E content will become easier to handle as 2E's own content range expands.
That said, undoubtedly they took all this into consideration when they decided to launch 2E. There is always the possibility that it was a bad idea, but it doesn't seem to be poorly handled the way the 3.5 to 4E transition was by WotC. Time will tell, of course.
|
|
I'm sure 2e will get a foothold and I'm sure that majority of gamers will shift to it. However, there will be those that Paizo will lose if the move isn't really to something that enhances their game play - especially with having to learn whole new rule sets.
One option remains for those resistant to the change - take future adventures and replace encounters with 1e encounters.
It didn't stop 3.0/3.5 Progressing over from AD&D 2e
It won't stop PF2 from progressing over from PF1
I think it will. The fact is PF1e is going way, its soon to be a dead system. And yes, some folks will stick to it, we have some tiny number who re still 3.5 or never left AD&D 1e. But once the core drop s PF 1e is dead system.
It my take a while, but many folks will switch over, the hope is it will also bring back some folks and bring in new people. They will lose some, but all the doom and gloom is normal.
|
AD&D --> D&D 3.0 didn't bother with backwards compatibility, it did well enough.
D&D 3.5 --> D&D 4E didn't bother with backwards compatibility, it did OK for a few years, but then fizzled out, with very little support until the next changeover.
D&D 4E --> D&D 5E also didn't bother with backwards compatibility, it also seems to be doing quite well.
A large change do the underlying system doesn't necessarily mean that the new system will be a failure. If it did, Pathfinder wouldn't exist, as 3.0 was a pretty massive change from it's predecessors. However, neither does a massive change necessarily mean that the new system will be a success.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could I suggest PF1 and PF2 for the two editions of pathfinder?
1E and 2E are pretty well established abbreviations for AD&D, so there’s a pretty significant risk of people misunderstanding that terminology if it’s applied to pathfinder. PF1 and PF2 are unambiguous.
I second this. While it's not all that confusing at the moment in the Pathfinder Playtest forum, eventually (and actually pretty quickly) Pathfinder 2.0 will actually release, and both editions will be discussed more in all the different forums. The terms "1E" and "2E" have referred to AD&D 1st edition and AD&D 2nd edition for longer than Paizo has existed, and are still discussed quite a bit in the forums. Using PF1 and PF2 will help to avoid a lot of confusion.
I disagree, naturally. Since I don't intent to switch to the new system, backwards compatibility is the only thing that would make me keep buying their APs. If I can't play them in PF, they are of no use to me.
But if you plan not to buy anything from PF2 except maybe an AP you like IF it has backward compatibility, it is pretty much clear that you won't matter for PF2 success.
PF2 will make or break based on the rulebooks sold. It is the reason to put a new edition out, they could keep doing APs for pf1 forever. They didn't feel that was enough.
I think in the immediate aftermath of PF2 releasing people will play it, then want to go back to PF1 because people want to play oracles and magi and kineticists and hey they've got that one AP they never completed, and oscillate between the two systems until PF2 supports enough of the options that people really want and at that point PF1 is going to be the province of diehards who hate change and the occasional "hey remember..." kinds of games.