Is anyone else having trouble maintaining group morale now that the playtest has appeared? (Also, I am recruiting)

[Colette Brunel]

Is anyone else having trouble maintaining group morale now that the playtest has appeared?

I was supposed to GM two concurrent groups for the Pathfinder 2e playtest, but morale took an immense hit once everyone had time to look over the playtest book. A few players have since dropped their interest entirely, and even those players who are sticking around are shaky in confidence.

After asking around, it seems that a few other groups, plural, aside from mine had cancelled their own playtest game plans after seeing the playtest documents.

I would like to hold out hope, however. If you are interested in playtesting Pathfinder 2e under me via MapTool 1.4.1.7 (unfortunately, Roll20 is not an option) and are willing to abide by a cutesy anime aesthetic, then send me a Discord friend request at Earth Seraph Edna#1648. We can work out a schedule from there. I will need all the willing playtesters I can get.

[PossibleCabbage]

I'm pretty sure most of the people I play with haven't even downloaded the book yet, let alone formulated an opinion.

[CorvusMask]

It has been one day geez ._.

Anyway, not really. My current impression is that my players are interested in trying out and at least earlier they were positive about changes in 2e

[Doktor Weasel]

Colette Brunel wrote:

Is anyone else having trouble maintaining group morale now that the playtest has appeared?

I was supposed to GM two concurrent groups for the Pathfinder 2e playtest, but morale took an immense hit once everyone had time to look over the playtest book. A few players have since dropped their interest entirely, and even those players who are sticking around are shaky in confidence.

After asking around, it seems that a few other groups, plural, aside from mine had cancelled their own playtest game plans after seeing the playtest documents.

I would like to hold out hope, however. If you are interested in playtesting Pathfinder 2e under me via MapTool 1.4.1.7 (unfortunately, Roll20 is not an option) and are willing to abide by a cutesy anime aesthetic, then send me a Discord friend request at Earth Seraph Edna#1648. We can work out a schedule from there. I will need all the willing playtesters I can get.

I'm not sure yet, I'll probably know more on Saturday when we do our weekly game. But I wouldn't be surprised if this happens to my group too. Of the six of us, there are only three I expected to give it a fair shot, one I know will reject it out of hand, and two others that likely will. Two of them still complain about changes Pathfinder did ten years ago (mostly to spells and magic items but sometimes other things), and which often turn out to not be changes at all but rather that they have been doing things wrong since 3.0. But still, they blame Pathfinder and will be even more skeptical of these rather dramatic changes. And the only guy I've talked to since it's dropped is one of the former, and he was rather upset with changes to casters, magic and magic items.

And the annoying irony, is that by not participating in the playtest, they're abandoning any ability to influence the game, making it less likely they'd like the final result. I personally haven't gotten too far in my reading, but there are some discouraging things, despite a base that seems pretty solid for the most part. So far it does seem a bit less to my liking than I was hoping. And again I'm thinking that the playtest is probably too short considering all the issues people have already found in less than 24 hours.

[Hythlodeus]

Colette Brunel wrote:

Is anyone else having trouble maintaining group morale now that the playtest has appeared?

I was supposed to GM two concurrent groups for the Pathfinder 2e playtest, but morale took an immense hit once everyone had time to look over the playtest book. A few players have since dropped their interest entirely, and even those players who are sticking around are shaky in confidence.

After asking around, it seems that a few other groups, plural, aside from mine had cancelled their own playtest game plans after seeing the playtest documents.

I would like to hold out hope, however. If you are interested in playtesting Pathfinder 2e under me via MapTool 1.4.1.7 (unfortunately, Roll20 is not an option) and are willing to abide by a cutesy anime aesthetic, then send me a Discord friend request at Earth Seraph Edna#1648. We can work out a schedule from there. I will need all the willing playtesters I can get.

I have one player dropping out of the playtest because "it is everything that is wrong with latter D&D editions rolled into one system. They inherited 4e and 5e problems but didn't include the good stuff.'

And it is hard to disagree here. Even though we are playtesting to see how salvageable - and therefore buyable - future Paizo products will be for PF1 players, it doesn't look like the playtesting sessions itself will be much fun.

Doktor Weasel wrote:

And the annoying irony, is that by not participating in the playtest, they're abandoning any ability to influence the game

and the little influence on the game the playtest have, will save this edition how? as it is, the rules are contrary to most of what I personally like in a RPG and with only 6-8 months or so playtesting at best, there's not nearly enough time to change PF2 completely to make a goodg game out of it

[Vic Ferrari]

Doktor Weasel wrote:

So far it does seem a bit less to my liking than I was hoping.

Yes, I am most disappointed in not being as excited as I had hoped, it is simply not doing it for me, so far. I certainly do not like it, aesthetically, which is a big one for me, the 4th Ed aesthetic was another turnoff for me (the icons/symbols must go).

[CorvusMask]

In a way you could argue that if the players who leave the game without joining playtest wouldn't have liked game at release anyway, it is good they left because folks who stay through playtest until release probably liked playtest version already so everyone gets what they want. Folks who like playtest version will probably like release version, folks who didn't like either have something better to do and folks who stayed despite not liking playtest have chance of affecting stuff they didn't like.(assuming they out number folks who like the stuff)

[magnuskn]

People expressing their disappointment with what were the released playtest rules is also very important, because it gives Paizo an indication that they might have chosen the wrong direction. So far what I've seen from the disappointed people are 80% informed complaints about specific issues and 20% "screw this, I'm outta here!" posts, so the constructive feedback (even if negative) is clearly outweighing the feet stomping and so on.

Which is good, because if only the "love it, don't listen to negative opinions" crowd is left, Paizo will be left holding the bag and losing their jobs if their final product underperforms, because they built it for a too limited audience.

[CorvusMask]

Seriously though, I do agree that we need all sorts of feedback. Still I can't help if you are bit biased about 80% being informed complaints :D I mean, I've seen at least 10 threads made on day 1 about random issues way before anyone had time to read the rules in one of the forum sections.

[Doktor Weasel]

magnuskn wrote:

People expressing their disappointment with what were the released playtest rules is also very important, because it gives Paizo an indication that they might have chosen the wrong direction. So far what I've seen from the disappointed people are 80% informed complaints about specific issues and 20% "screw this, I'm outta here!" posts, so the constructive feedback (even if negative) is clearly outweighing the feet stomping and so on.

Which is good, because if only the "love it, don't listen to negative opinions" crowd is left, Paizo will be left holding the bag and losing their jobs if their final product underperforms, because they built it for a too limited audience.

They did say they went with more extreme versions of things with the intent they might dial them back given the feedback. They're getting that feedback. Not only were they expecting criticism, they were looking for it. And I totally agree that out of hand rejection and unquestioning acceptance are both completely useless in perfecting a system. What helps is "This works, I like this, here's why. That doesn't work, I don't like that, here's why."

I'm still way behind in my reading, ironically I just keep getting distracted by the forums here and haven't gotten far in a full read-through, although have done lots of skimming. I think the foundations are sound, but there is still a lot of work to be done with basically all the details. So far my issues: Casters may have been cut back a bit too hard, we'll have to see in practice, there needs to be more and better feats for a system that's all about the feats, ancestries are too backloaded, resonance is... well it's resonance, crossbows still suck, and I'm not a fan of the somewhat arbitrary way monsters are handled, lacking a common basis for them seems like it's more restrictive for customization instead of less. Of course these are all opinions I had from the previews, but they're reinforced now.

[magnuskn]

CorvusMask wrote:

Seriously though, I do agree that we need all sorts of feedback. Still I can't help if you are bit biased about 80% being informed complaints :D I mean, I've seen at least 10 threads made on day 1 about random issues way before anyone had time to read the rules in one of the forum sections.

Yes, because you need to read the entire rules before finding something you don't like? I of course went immediately to the sections I was most concerned about in the previews and found them just as lacking as I had feared. So did many others. I am quite confident in my assessment that about 80% of the people with complaints have valid points.

[CorvusMask]

Just to note though, even though I've said my impression has been overall positive on the overall concepts, I'm not actually liking the thing perfectly out of the gate. Its just that I avoid stating my opinions on specific details and whether things work or not until I have actually run the playtest game, so I keep neutral opinion until then to avoid being biased. I feel free to express my disagreement with folks who think those overall concepts I like are bad though :D

(just as example, I like it that paladins and rangers aren't weird pseudo casters anymore. I don't make comment on whether paladin and ranger mechanics themselves work until I actually test them, but I know that I don't want them to make them back into casters when 2e is released)

Only thing I've commented on sure that I know I will dislike regardless of testing is those level 13 and 17 ancestry feats because its to me really silly you get those at those high levels considering none of playtest material ancestry feats require that high levels or are so good that at level 17 you are like "Omg, I got this uber cool ancestry feat". Its gonna be more like "Oh, hey. I got the final ancestry feat. Who cares"

magnuskn wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

Seriously though, I do agree that we need all sorts of feedback. Still I can't help if you are bit biased about 80% being informed complaints :D I mean, I've seen at least 10 threads made on day 1 about random issues way before anyone had time to read the rules in one of the forum sections.

Yes, because you need to read the entire rules before finding something you don't like? I of course went immediately to the sections I was most concerned about in the previews and found them just as lacking as I had feared. So did many others. I am quite confident in my assessment that about 80% of the people with complaints have valid points.

Hmm, even those "This class is useless because x" threads? I mean, how would you know its useless unless you had had time to compare it to other stuff and play it out?

[Phantasmist]

I'm having a hard time keeping my own morale up let alone trying to sell the system to someone else. I've read a good proportion of the rule book, but I'm not looking forward to either making a character or running the game. It may play a lot better then it reads, but the layout and seemly weird rules are putting me off.

Apparently Vic said in another thread that the action system has been overwhelmingly well received at the convention play-tests. Not sure how I feel about that since not a huge fan of it, but at the same time it's not the thing that bugs me the most about the new edition.

[Dire Ursus]

I've seen a lot of GMs stating their players "don't like it". However I've also seen these GMs posting around the forums about how they didn't like it during the blogs. If you're own GM is talking to you about how they don't like the game, how are you supposed to get excited about it? Feels like a lot of bias all around. Hopefully soon when people start actually running the game the haters that are just stating the same things over and over and not giving any real feedback will leave and we can get some actual constructive discussion about the system. Backed up with real play evidence.

I for one am excited and have been getting my players excited as well. They might like it, or they might not. But they sure as hell are excited to get their hands on a new system after a long time of playing pathfinder. (we skipped 5e.)

[CorvusMask]

Yeah, GM bias definitely affects player bias <_< Its why I'm skeptical of opinions on mechanics before testing because saying that your players aren't excited when clearly GM wasn't having fun either is just natural. Also why I try to avoid giving opinions on invidual mechanics until I actually have tested the system.

(to be fair though, only individual mechanic I currently have opinion on is that I like how wish/miracle equivalents of systems were toned down from previous version, they aren't anymore OP, just really powerful)

[Phantasmist]

To Dire Ursus

No offense but if people are having a hard time getting excited about sometime, that is usually because something is making it not exciting. That's not bias, that's a normal human reaction, saying to them something is wrong. I will admit actually playing the game is better still, but I still trust my instincts, as everyone should.

It's life, no mater how much you love something not every is required to do so. Did you you ever hear the saying "One mans fun is another's He.." (Heck, no profanity but I guess you can get the point.

[Witch of Miracles]

Phantasmist wrote:

To Dire Ursus

No offense but if people are having a hard time getting excited about sometime, that is usually because something is making it not exciting. That's not bias, that's a normal human reaction, saying to them something is wrong. I will admit actually playing the game is better still, but I still trust my instincts, as everyone should.

It's life, no mater how much you love something not every is required to do so. Did you you ever hear the saying "One mans fun is another's He.." (Heck, no profanity but I guess you can get the point.

Initial responses are typically based on initial impressions.

Unfortunately, the initial impressions for the system are really, really misleading. A lot of the things they did to make the system more unified/consistent made it so the rulebook A) looked like 4e to a lot of people and B)had things organized so that it's hard to understand how any one part of the game works without reading the whole thing. That is going to provide a very bad first impression to a lot of people, regardless of what the system is actually like.

[magnuskn]

CorvusMask wrote:

Hmm, even those "This class is useless because x" threads? I mean, how would you know its useless unless you had had time to compare it to other...

I haven't said that all negative posts are constructive, only about 80% of them I've seen. That of course means that I also haven't read all threads, because I am gravitating to the ones whose title I find most interesting (mostly "first impressions" and the like and about stuff I am also very interested in like Sorcerers).

[Hythlodeus]

Witch of Miracles wrote:

Initial responses are typically based on initial impressions.

Unfortunately, the initial impressions for the system are really, really misleading. A lot of the things they did to make the system more unified/consistent made it so the rulebook A) looked like 4e to a lot of people and B)had things organized so that it's hard to understand how any one part of the game works without reading the whole thing. That is going to provide a very bad first impression to a lot of people, regardless of what the system is actually like.

but if Paizo wants to sell their products, first impression matters. Imagine seeing this in your local game store without prior knowledge. Would you buy it after having a quick read through it? I'd think that this book is the illegitimate hate child of 4E and 5E and put it back on the shelf, embarrased to have even looked at it.

[CorvusMask]

magnuskn wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

Hmm, even those "This class is useless because x" threads? I mean, how would you know its useless unless you had had time to compare it to other...

I haven't said that all negative posts are constructive, only about 80% of them I've seen. That of course means that I also haven't read all threads, because I am gravitating to the ones whose title I find most interesting (mostly "first impressions" and the like and about stuff I am also very interested in like Sorcerers).

Ah. That makes sense.

Also sounds way healthier <_< I've been checking every single thread so that is why I'm probably more grumpy about the subject xD I should really stop doing that huh

[Witch of Miracles]

Hythlodeus wrote:

Witch of Miracles wrote:

Initial responses are typically based on initial impressions.

Unfortunately, the initial impressions for the system are really, really misleading. A lot of the things they did to make the system more unified/consistent made it so the rulebook A) looked like 4e to a lot of people and B)had things organized so that it's hard to understand how any one part of the game works without reading the whole thing. That is going to provide a very bad first impression to a lot of people, regardless of what the system is actually like.

but if Paizo wants to sell their products, first impression matters. Imagine seeing this in your local game store without prior knowledge. Would you buy it after having a quick read through it? I'd think that this book is the illegitimate hate child of 4E and 5E and put it back on the shelf, embarrased to have even looked at it.

I wholeheartedly agree that it's a failure on their part to have the product misinterpreted so heavily on the first day.

I'd be shocked if they didn't feel like the benefits of 4e-like formatting outweigh the risk in the long run, though. Spells are certainly a lot easier to read than they used to be, at the least.

[CorvusMask]

To be fair though, you'd have to know what 4e looks like to have that opinion. I don't know what is ratio of folks who have played D&D editions older than 5e since there has been new players after that, so dunno if Paizo needs to be scared of that or not

[Vic Ferrari]

Dire Ursus wrote:

Hopefully soon when people start actually running the game the haters that are just stating the same things over and over and not giving any real feedback will leave and we can get some actual constructive discussion about the system.

Let's not be so quick to paint people with the obnoxious "Hater" brush (classic 4th Ed warring rhetoric, everyone that does not like 4th Ed is simply a "h4ter"), because they have concerns and maybe do not like what you like.

I see a lot of people giving well founded reasons for their problems with PF2, and that is what Paizo is looking for.

[Azalah]

I'm certainly not a fan of the whole Ancestry mechanic in general. I feel like it's an overly complex replacement for something that should be relatively simple.

Also don't like that Barbarians STILL don't have an unarmored option. C'mon, I can't be the only one that likes bare-chested barbarian hunks.

[Phantasmist]

Azalah wrote:

I'm certainly not a fan of the whole Ancestry mechanic in general. I feel like it's an overly complex replacement for something that should be relatively simple.

Also don't like that Barbarians STILL don't have an unarmored option. C'mon, I can't be the only one that likes bare-chested barbarian hunks.

I find them lackluster.

[Zardnaar]

Hythlodeus wrote:

Witch of Miracles wrote:

Initial responses are typically based on initial impressions.

Unfortunately, the initial impressions for the system are really, really misleading. A lot of the things they did to make the system more unified/consistent made it so the rulebook A) looked like 4e to a lot of people and B)had things organized so that it's hard to understand how any one part of the game works without reading the whole thing. That is going to provide a very bad first impression to a lot of people, regardless of what the system is actually like.

but if Paizo wants to sell their products, first impression matters. Imagine seeing this in your local game store without prior knowledge. Would you buy it after having a quick read through it? I'd think that this book is the illegitimate hate child of 4E and 5E and put it back on the shelf, embarrased to have even looked at it.

Its not the final book but yeah its not the easiest read ATM.

[Azalah]

Hythlodeus wrote:

Witch of Miracles wrote:

Initial responses are typically based on initial impressions.

Unfortunately, the initial impressions for the system are really, really misleading. A lot of the things they did to make the system more unified/consistent made it so the rulebook A) looked like 4e to a lot of people and B)had things organized so that it's hard to understand how any one part of the game works without reading the whole thing. That is going to provide a very bad first impression to a lot of people, regardless of what the system is actually like.

but if Paizo wants to sell their products, first impression matters. Imagine seeing this in your local game store without prior knowledge. Would you buy it after having a quick read through it? I'd think that this book is the illegitimate hate child of 4E and 5E and put it back on the shelf, embarrased to have even looked at it.

My DM bought it yesterday. He was very excited. He's returning it today. He is very disappointed.

[Vic Ferrari]

Azalah wrote:

I'm certainly not a fan of the whole Ancestry mechanic in general. I feel like it's an overly complex replacement for something that should be relatively simple.

Also don't like that Barbarians STILL don't have an unarmored option. C'mon, I can't be the only one that likes bare-chested barbarian hunks.

Oh, yeah, I was hoping for an unarmoured Barbarian option, and for other classes; 5th Ed is pretty good about that, they even have an unarmoured cleric variant for your staff-wielding Moses type. I would like one for the Paladin.

[Vic Ferrari]

Azalah wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

Witch of Miracles wrote:

Initial responses are typically based on initial impressions.

Unfortunately, the initial impressions for the system are really, really misleading. A lot of the things they did to make the system more unified/consistent made it so the rulebook A) looked like 4e to a lot of people and B)had things organized so that it's hard to understand how any one part of the game works without reading the whole thing. That is going to provide a very bad first impression to a lot of people, regardless of what the system is actually like.

but if Paizo wants to sell their products, first impression matters. Imagine seeing this in your local game store without prior knowledge. Would you buy it after having a quick read through it? I'd think that this book is the illegitimate hate child of 4E and 5E and put it back on the shelf, embarrased to have even looked at it.

My DM bought it yesterday. He was very excited. He's returning it today. He is very disappointed.

See, this is truly sad; I have been excited for months, been following all the blogs, what I did not like I was hoping would congeal when I got a hold of the book, well, after perusing the downloads/PDFs, I am now not even sure if I want to pick up/pay for the hardcover I pre-ordered from my FLGS.

I am depressed (anger without the enthusiasm) at my lack of joy with this new edition.

[Igor Horvat]

yeah.

I feel it too.

This book is realy a disapointment.

And many people here played several different RPG systems and read 100s of books with fluff and rules and variations.

So many of us can recognise bad product on-sight.

I remember when I first saw 5e ranger class and within 2 minutes said the the class is crap.

Guess what class got the only rewrite in UA?

Yes this is a playtest.

But, they are putting it out like it's a "beta" test, but it feels like "pre-alpha".

[Phantasmist]

I think it's a good thing we all had the courage to step forward and say that the initial reaction is a lacking one, no offense to those who love it. It would have been easier to have said nothing, but this way paizo's sees how everyone stands on the new rules.

[Azalah]

I DO like the action economy, however. I also like how the classes were laid out similar to Starfinder. With the, "What people may think" kind of stuff.

[Insight]

Hythlodeus wrote:

Witch of Miracles wrote:

Initial responses are typically based on initial impressions.

Unfortunately, the initial impressions for the system are really, really misleading. A lot of the things they did to make the system more unified/consistent made it so the rulebook A) looked like 4e to a lot of people and B)had things organized so that it's hard to understand how any one part of the game works without reading the whole thing. That is going to provide a very bad first impression to a lot of people, regardless of what the system is actually like.

but if Paizo wants to sell their products, first impression matters. Imagine seeing this in your local game store without prior knowledge. Would you buy it after having a quick read through it? I'd think that this book is the illegitimate hate child of 4E and 5E and put it back on the shelf, embarrased to have even looked at it.

I’m not sure that an initial impression from the consumer who gets vibes that Pathfinder 2 looks like 4e/5e is a bad thing. These are two of the best selling RPG systems of all time. Paizo should be ecstatic that the book is giving off this impression. They should be trying to impress people like Matt Mercer and Matt Colville if they want to compete, and I think PF2 as currently presented will impress the influential people in the hobby.

[Vic Ferrari]

Igor Horvat wrote:

yeah.

I feel it too.

This book is realy a disapointment.

And many people here played several different RPG systems and read 100s of books with fluff and rules and variations.

So many of us can recognise bad product on-sight.

Good point, at this point I know when a PHB/CRB is not doing it for me, I have enough of them by now.

[Vic Ferrari]

Insight wrote:

Hythlodeus wrote:

Witch of Miracles wrote:

Initial responses are typically based on initial impressions.

Unfortunately, the initial impressions for the system are really, really misleading. A lot of the things they did to make the system more unified/consistent made it so the rulebook A) looked like 4e to a lot of people and B)had things organized so that it's hard to understand how any one part of the game works without reading the whole thing. That is going to provide a very bad first impression to a lot of people, regardless of what the system is actually like.

but if Paizo wants to sell their products, first impression matters. Imagine seeing this in your local game store without prior knowledge. Would you buy it after having a quick read through it? I'd think that this book is the illegitimate hate child of 4E and 5E and put it back on the shelf, embarrased to have even looked at it.

I’m not sure that an initial impression from the consumer who gets vibes that Pathfinder 2 looks like 4e/5e is a bad thing. These are two of the best selling RPG systems of all time.

4th Ed was not really up to snuff, financially or popularity-wise, but it has some great stuff.

[magnuskn]

Also, there is a 5th edition of D&D and it is apparently super popular. I'm not sure if there is a big market place for "hey, we are 5th edition, too, but slightly different!". I'm pretty sure there is one for "we are a better 3.5 edition", because we are here.

[Vic Ferrari]

magnuskn wrote:

Also, there is a 5th edition of D&D and it is apparently super popular. I'm not sure if there is a big market place for "hey, we are 5th edition, too, but slightly different!". I'm pretty sure there is one for "we are a better 3.5 edition", because we are here.

That is what I have wanted since PF1, I wanted them to change more, but PF2 seems to have jumped the shark or something, not evolutionary enough for me. Like 4th Ed, they seem to be curing the headaches of 3rd Ed (PF1, now) by cutting off the head.

[edduardco]

I too am very disappointed with the playtest document, the nerf on magic/casters was worse than what I first feared from the blogs, right now I'm on the point of questioning if the time investment is worth it because I'm not sure how much could be changed based on feedback, and the playtest document gave me the impression that Paizo has ill will toward casters.

[Insight]

The 4e bottom line may not have been inmpressive (depends on exactly how much they spent on things like marketing and infrastructure), but analysis of the overall revenue shows 4e is only behind 5e in terms of sales (not counting inflation adjustment for older D&D editions and separating 3.5 from Pathfinder). 4e DDI subscription revenue alone for the first 3 years after release exceeded all of Pathfinder’s sales during the same time frame.

4e may be considered distasteful by a few enthusiasts in corners of the internet, but to try to argue that it didn’t have products reach the Bestsellers list for multiple years is just alternate facts. Beyond sales, guys like Matt Colville, the Penny Arcade creators, Nerdarchy, etc. extol 4e’s virtues. PF2 would be lucky to say the same.

[Gorbacz]

magnuskn wrote:

Also, there is a 5th edition of D&D and it is apparently super popular. I'm not sure if there is a big market place for "hey, we are 5th edition, too, but slightly different!". I'm pretty sure there is one for "we are a better 3.5 edition", because we are here.

Where "here" is "Pathfinder sells worse than its Sci-Fi offshot".

[CorvusMask]

I do wonder what ends up being final opinion by time game is released. Like, will folks think its upgrade of Pathfinder or pathfinder 4.5 ._.

[Jason S]

Colette Brunel wrote:

Is anyone else having trouble maintaining group morale now that the playtest has appeared?

Here's the thing, the Playtest document is huge. Despite some people saying "nothing has changed", a LOT has changed.

You can walk veterans through the new game in a few minutes and it still feels like Pathfinder. However, if they need to read 400 pages by themselves, it's overwhelming.

That's what is happening to your group. Someone needs to read and sit down with everyone and explain.

[Azalah]

On the subject of magic being nerfed. I haven't looked all that much into the magic system and classes, but I'm the type of person who prefers martial characters. And that was often a huge point of contention I had with Pathfinder. Martial characters just feel so weak mid to late game, and they NEED magic just to function properly.

[magnuskn]

Gorbacz wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Also, there is a 5th edition of D&D and it is apparently super popular. I'm not sure if there is a big market place for "hey, we are 5th edition, too, but slightly different!". I'm pretty sure there is one for "we are a better 3.5 edition", because we are here.

Where "here" is "Pathfinder sells worse than its Sci-Fi offshot".

Oh, you are done hoping that I quit the game and will talk civilized again? Good.

The sci-fi offshoot is much more an evolution of Pathfinder 1E than an approximation of other editions from other publishers. If it outsells the current ten year old edition of the game, it stands to reason people are still wanting an upgrade to the 3.X model, not a conversion to 4.X/5.X.

[The-Last-Rogue]

Colette Brunel wrote:

Is anyone else having trouble maintaining group morale now that the playtest has appeared?

I was supposed to GM two concurrent groups for the Pathfinder 2e playtest, but morale took an immense hit once everyone had time to look over the playtest book. A few players have since dropped their interest entirely, and even those players who are sticking around are shaky in confidence.

After asking around, it seems that a few other groups, plural, aside from mine had cancelled their own playtest game plans after seeing the playtest documents.

I would like to hold out hope, however. If you are interested in playtesting Pathfinder 2e under me via MapTool 1.4.1.7 (unfortunately, Roll20 is not an option) and are willing to abide by a cutesy anime aesthetic, then send me a Discord friend request at Earth Seraph Edna#1648. We can work out a schedule from there. I will need all the willing playtesters I can get.

Is anyone else seeing this post as the most passive-aggressive way of noting they, personally, are displeased with the Playtest version?

Spoiler:

Is anyone else noting how passive-aggressive my post is, too!

[Insight]

I think the people wanting an upgrade to the 3.x model (beyond what they already have) is such a small sliver of the market that it is not worth pursuing. A system that is watchable and playable via streaming, interesting and accessible to discuss and engage with via online media, and highly compatible with VTT is much more likely to be successful, and the archaic PF system just doesn’t seem to be a good match for those.

[Vic Ferrari]

Insight wrote:

The 4e bottom line may not have been inmpressive (depends on exactly how much they spent on things like marketing and infrastructure), but analysis of the overall revenue shows 4e is only behind 5e in terms of sales (not counting inflation adjustment for older D&D editions and separating 3.5 from Pathfinder).

Well, according to what I have heard/read, Amazon etc, 5th Ed is apparently selling as well as it did back in the early 80s.

[GameDesignerDM]

Nope, all my players are absolutely enthused.

[Insight]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Insight wrote:

The 4e bottom line may not have been inmpressive (depends on exactly how much they spent on things like marketing and infrastructure), but analysis of the overall revenue shows 4e is only behind 5e in terms of sales (not counting inflation adjustment for older D&D editions and separating 3.5 from Pathfinder).

Well, according to what I have heard/read, Amazon etc, 5th Ed is apparently selling as well as it did back in the early 80s.

According to Hasbro, far better even! The point was that both 4e and 5e are two of the best selling (if not the best-selling) RPGs of all time. I can’t fault Paizo for trying to emulate them.

[Vic Ferrari]

Insight wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Insight wrote:

The 4e bottom line may not have been inmpressive (depends on exactly how much they spent on things like marketing and infrastructure), but analysis of the overall revenue shows 4e is only behind 5e in terms of sales (not counting inflation adjustment for older D&D editions and separating 3.5 from Pathfinder).

Well, according to what I have heard/read, Amazon etc, 5th Ed is apparently selling as well as it did back in the early 80s.

According to Hasbro, far better even! The point was that both 4e and 5e are two of the best selling (if not the best-selling) RPGs of all time. I can’t fault Paizo for trying to emulate them.

Was 4th Ed actually one of the best selling RPGs of all time, I know initial sales were good. I guess the real money came from the DDI subscriptions?