Halfway to Doomsday

Personally, I'm a little shocked that they've gone with the dislike to like 5 point scale with the surveys. I've worked at companies that have used these to try and refine/fix various workplace processes/policies/programs and they almost never return any sort of useful data. Not only do many humans have a problem assigning numbers to their issues, often either taking a more moderate or extreme position because their temperament at the time might mean they don't want to seem mean, or very much do want to be mean, but also because they don't have a good baseline of what a number might mean, or how it's going to be interpreted. Along with that people will probably weight their answers according to what really concerns them the most, say for a PF2 example, someone who really only plans on playing casters will rank many sorcerer options as 1 or 2 when they may fill out the ranger section and give all 3s, despite the fact that ranger could have as many, or more problems.

For their part, I'm really glad that Paizo is including the text box responses, as for most people it's a more natural way to explain their feelings on a subject. Not that it doesn't have it's own issues, firstly that it's much harder to process text over numbers, so I mean, really kudos on Paizo for including them, because they are an order of magnitude more difficult to process. But they do need to be asking the right questions because people will still tailor their responses to the questions being asked.

Honestly, the most upvoted post is that of Jason Buhlman on page one with 55 votes. You could presume that those upvotes come from people rather in favour of PF2, so your "Positive posts: 5 individuals, With 37 likes, an average of 7.5 likes per positive post." is a very shacky assumption at best.

Please do not claim to speak for the majority of players only because you yell most loudly.

See, and I assumed that those favorites were from people who were happy that the development team were taking time to interact with the player base and explain issues with the playtest, including message board issues. Not that people were favoriting because they're happy with the Playtest rules. I mean that's why I usually favorite, and why I'll favorite something that I don't even agree with.

I think trying to extrapolate anything from these forums is a non-starter. I trust Paizo, and I trust their data-gathering methods.

Besides, the forum-goers aren't where the base is, as I understand it. We're vastly outnumbered by the people who play PFS. They'll be the ones who ultimately decide what PF2 looks like. And that's not a bad thing, it's not Paizo being money grubbing so-and-sos, it's the sensible thing to do what your largest base of customers want.

Of course, if there's a brilliant solution that brings everyone together then I'm sure they'll go for that. But let's not delude ourselves that we're the not-so-silent majority.

I post my thoughts and ideas here (and, yes, my complaints) in the hope that they'll be taken on board. And I'll keep doing that, since it's clear that both Jason and Mark are perusing these forums (and good for you, guys - it's hugely appreciated). But if they go a different way, it'll be because the data are telling them that's what's wanted. And that's fine! You go with your biggest customer base, and hope that the others come with you. Some will, some won't.

And that's a shame, but it's the way it is whenever you change something.

your theory about the majority hating PF2 like you do is quite preposterous.

I didn't know I had a theory about the majority, can you please show me the post where I exposed it because I don't remember writing one

Belisar wrote:

Honestly, the most upvoted post is that of Jason Buhlman on page one with 55 votes. You could presume that those upvotes come from people rather in favour of PF2, so your "Positive posts: 5 individuals, With 37 likes, an average of 7.5 likes per positive post." is a very shacky assumption at best.

Please do not claim to speak for the majority of players only because you yell most loudly.

See, and I assumed that those favorites were from people who were happy that the development team were taking time to interact with the player base and explain issues with the playtest, including message board issues. Not that people were favoriting because they're happy with the Playtest rules. I mean that's why I usually favorite, and why I'll favorite something that I don't even agree with.

You can still assume that those very vocally blaming Paizo to not listen to them how bad PF2 is will probably not upvote a post by a dev. It is quite a fair assumption that those upvotes don't come from that alu hat wearing crowd cursing PF2 at every turn because it is not exactly PF1.

Belisar wrote:

your theory about the majority hating PF2 like you do is quite preposterous.

I didn't know I had a theory about the majority, can you please show me the post where I exposed it because I don't remember writing one

Well then...

WatersLethe wrote:

It's honestly pretty silly to count favorites (which aren't supposed to be upvotes anyway)

If people use favorites as upvotes then functionally they become upvotes and you can use their number to count effective upvotes, the only difference being said upvotes are in favorites form

...you should pay more attention to your own posts, I guess.

Just to be clear: I am overall quite positive on the playtest, and optimistic about its final implementation. I think the devs have done a very fine job, and are continuing to admirably put to use feedback and hard data.

There are only a bare handful of sticking points that stop me from saying I would adopt PF2e as it currently stands.

It's honestly pretty silly to count favorites (which aren't supposed to be upvotes anyway) on forum posts in a forum specifically about giving criticism.

Amen. :)

...you should pay more attention to your own posts, I guess.

I never said that the majority is hating on PF2, so... Whatever

1.) Going strictly off a Core Book only comparison...PF1 is way easier to both navigate and understand. PF1 only starts to get complicated and overwhelming once you add in 10 years of extra books.

2.) Total non-issue...I could port the world of Golarion to almost any game system and tell the same stories.

3.) I'd give this one a 50/50 rating...there are a lot of elements I really like...unfortunately there are just as many (or more) elements I dislike so much that they are complete deal breakers for me causing me to not want to play PF2 at all.

4.) No one I ever played PF1 with ever really had a problem with this to begin with. Plus I hate the concept of 'defined role' One thing PF1 was excellent at was allowing you to build a character that broke the 'defined role' mold.

5.) Utter failure here...they have managed to alienate about 75% of the local community of PF1 players, and not drawn interest from anywhere near as many people as they are losing.

Slyme, I think that PF2 will gain players more than it will alienate others. This is assuming the final product is improved over the playtest.

For all the handwringing and badfunwrong that is being commented on, the playtest does have a lot going for it where a lot of people are excited about possibilities.

PF1 has, let us face it, much the same problem as 3.5 did toward the end of it's own run. In fact, a lot of the Book of the Nine Swords was never a part of Pathfinder for this very reason.

1.) Going strictly off a Core Book only comparison...PF1 is way easier to both navigate and understand. PF1 only starts to get complicated and overwhelming once you add in 10 years of extra books.

In regards to organization, agreed.

It may seem simpler because it's familiar to those of us who have been playing for decades but, based on my experience with new to TTRPG players, the Playtest is far more intuitive on many fronts.

Folks, lets drop a few things from this discussion...

1. Counting post favorites to use as a point of comparison is not of any use, no matter what side of the debate you are on. It is anecdotal at best.... misleading most of the time.

2. I am sure we could all get along much better if folks would stop assuming they speak for anyone other than themselves. Your experience with your friends and those on these boards is just that.. your experience. To assume that it speaks to a wide array of the audience is making a lot of large, unfounded assumptions. It is, in fact, the primary reason that we playtest, to ensure that our bias and our opinions are not the only driving factors in making this game.

In the end.. we have the boards to get more nuanced opinions and our surveys to give us the closest we can get to scientific data. Nuanced opinions usually have a down trend bias.

That's just human nature, but I am not going to discount those opinions. They are valid and we are listening to them.

Survey data is telling us some very concrete places where we have some problems, but it is also telling us a lot of places that seem to be playing as intended. Its a complicated process, and its never entirely one way or the other. We are working as hard and as fast as we can on various solutions.

We thank you for your patience and participation in this process.

tivadar27 wrote:

Finally, just because I think it's important to say, you are supposedly making Pathfinder 2nd Edition. You've stated you want it to feel like the game we know and love. Question: If you took the world of Golarion, and played in it using 5e rules, would that feel closer to Pathfinder 1st edition than Golarion using 2nd edition rules?

Funny you should mention that, I have converted some PF1/Golarion material to 5th Ed, and as of right now, I feel 5th Ed supports the action/feel of Golarion better than the Playtest. 5th Ed is closer to PF1 than the Playtest, as 5th Ed is sort of a 3rd Ed Lite, to me.

For the record, I strongly disagree with this. Golarion is a world where it is well established that levels matter quite a bit more than they do in 5E and where monster abilities of specific varieties (like demons having inherent spells) are well established.

A few characters might, at the moment, be better built with different Classes in PF2 than PF1 (or even not be buildable at all) but that'll change as more books are released, and the core engine is still better for Golarion than 5E is.

Folks.. this thread is really not for arguing about the use of the word feat, but it has been made clear that some feel that the adjective delineation is not sufficient.

If folks want to continue the discussion, please start another thread (and try not to use big text to make your point, it not necessary).

I created the new thread. Renaming Ancestry Feat, Class Feat, Skill Feat, and General Feat in the Skills, Feats, Equipment & Spells playtest subforum.

Plus, no Goblin characters...

In no campaign that I've played or run would a goblin PC have been appropriate or in keeping with that AP's setting. Doesn't mean that won't be true in the future, but if we're comparing Golarion as it's stood before the edition change, no goblin PCs isn't actually a problem.

But the problem is, you seem to have gone too far in your efforts to avoid that. And the result is very restrictive classes that don't allow for as many concepts.

While this seems a very popular opinion, I'd kind of like to be noted as a player and a DM who very strongly favours restrictive classes that don't allow for as many concepts per class. And more of those classes.

thaX wrote:

Plus, no Goblin characters...

In no campaign that I've played or run would a goblin PC have been appropriate or in keeping with that AP's setting. Doesn't mean that won't be true in the future, but if we're comparing Golarion as it's stood before the edition change, no goblin PCs isn't actually a problem.

Golarion is a kitchen sink setting. Goblin PCs would be just fine in Iron Gods, for example. Ratfolk too.

Goblin PCs would be just fine in Iron Gods, for example.

Well, if you can convince the other PC's that the goblin isn't going to eat and/or set them on fire while they sleep I guess they could fit. And, of course if you can convince every NPC of the same thing... That'd be a hard sell in most games I've played. ;)

I'm very aware of being in a minority perspective on the boards in many of my preferences as a DM, and as a player; such as the strong preference for restrictive classes mentioned above, really enjoying playing characters whose utility is entirely outside combat, favouring mechanics strongly tied to role-playing (such as the Sin and Virtue points in RotRL and the influencing significant NPCs rules from Jade Regent). At this point I don't expect PF2.0 to contain major shifts towards my preferences.

I appreciate the insights into the game design process, I really appreciate Paizo's approach to customers on these forums generally and specifically Jason's here. If I have to houserule PF2.0 significantly to make it work for the particulars of my table, that will not be notably different from PF1.0 or make it notably less appealing; and in the unlikely case of a PF2.0 so far from my group's tastes that houseruling it enough to work for us would be more work than porting APs to GURPS, I'll still be here for Golarion.

I don't see any PF1e material that exists to support the notion goblins would be appropriate as a PC race in Iron Gods. Ratfolk on the other hand have a history that suoports them as PCs, especially for Iron Gods.

Ya, your probably right canon-wise. I am no Golarion expert. It just seemed like the sort of rough and tumble place where I could see a Goblin PC as not being a problem.

Ya, your probably right canon-wise. I am no Golarion expert. It just seemed like the sort of rough and tumble place where I could see a Goblin PC as not being a problem.

This isn't really the best place to discuss the nature of goblin PCs (there were a good many threads on the topic back when it was first brought it), but Golarion/Paizo football-head goblins have a set of personality traits and quirks that make them fairly unique among the various incarnations of goblins in RPGs. Read the first part of Rise of the Runelords for more info.

Golarion is a kitchen sink setting. Goblin PCs would be just fine in Iron Gods, for example. Ratfolk too.

I don't see any PF1e material that exists to support the notion goblins would be appropriate as a PC race in Iron Gods. Ratfolk on the other hand have a history that suoports them as PCs, especially for Iron Gods.

Ya, your probably right canon-wise. I am no Golarion expert. It just seemed like the sort of rough and tumble place where I could see a Goblin PC as not being a problem.

According to Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Numeria, Land of Fallen Stars hobgoblins are found in the Felldales of western Numeria, ratfolk are found in the Sellen Hills of eastern Numeria, and goblins are not found anywhere in Numeria.

Ratfolk have NPC roles in the first two modules of Iron Gods, which take place in eastern Numeria, but they disappear after that. Whether that is because ratfolk are no longer a level-appropriate encounter at 7th and higher level, or because the adventuring party headed west out of eastern Numeria, is left to interpretation.

For contrast, in my Iron Gods campaign one player played a strix. That species is found only in one tiny region in Cheliax. Fortunately, in a follow-up to my Rise of the Runelords campaign, I had added a tribe of strix to the Shudderwood in northern Ustalav, a country adjacent to Numeria, so I told her, "I have a tribe for your character, but she needs to have traveled a few hundred miles."

Golarion's kitchen sink setting favors unusual character choices. Weird characters might not be local, but they could have traveled a few hundred miles.

This isn't really the best place to discuss the nature of goblin PCs (there were a good many threads on the topic back when it was first brought it), but Golarion/Paizo football-head goblins have a set of personality traits and quirks that make them fairly unique among the various incarnations of goblins in RPGs. Read the first part of Rise of the Runelords for more info.

Because my wife played a goblin character in The Lost Star chapter of Doomsday Dawn, I have already started spinning off new canon for Golarion goblins. Those very flavorful goblins from Rise of the Runelords, We Be Goblins, and Jade Regent are the local Varisian goblin culture. The goddess Lamashtu had a major influence on that culture. I added that Magnimar in Varisia also has some trash-picking goblins that live in its alleys and sewers and don't embrace the goblin culture as fervently. My wife's character was one of those alley goblins.

Golarion's kitchen sink setting favors unusual character choices. Weird characters might not be local, but they could have traveled a few hundred miles.

And with magic, even further.

I think it's safe to state that the widely advertised massive public outcry about goblins never materialized - even here, in the wellspring of negativity. :)

I think it's safe to state that the widely advertised massive public outcry about goblins never materialized - even here, in the wellspring of negativity and hurt egos :)

It's easily house-ruled. I don't play PFS so I'm not going to have to suffer through tables of goblins, and my home game is just as easy as "we're going with 1st edition flavour, goblins aren't playable".

I do feel sorry for those who enjoy Golarion's flavour and do play PFS. But perhaps they'll come to like New Golarion.

Massive public outcry about goblins!
Massive public outcry about goblins!
Massive public outcry about goblins!
Massive public outcry about goblins!
Massive public outcry about goblins!

I love goblins. Especially as PCs. Always so wise, and those kewl Jedi Powers. Also the Force Ghost stuff that one Paizo-Pathfinder-looking-goblin learnt in the last episodes of the Lost Missions, that was aw...no...wait. That was Yoda. Who isn't a goblin. But he sure looks like a Paizo Pathfinder goblin

Vic Ferrari wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

Finally, just because I think it's important to say, you are supposedly making Pathfinder 2nd Edition. You've stated you want it to feel like the game we know and love. Question: If you took the world of Golarion, and played in it using 5e rules, would that feel closer to Pathfinder 1st edition than Golarion using 2nd edition rules?

Funny you should mention that, I have converted some PF1/Golarion material to 5th Ed, and as of right now, I feel 5th Ed supports the action/feel of Golarion better than the Playtest. 5th Ed is closer to PF1 than the Playtest, as 5th Ed is sort of a 3rd Ed Lite, to me.

For the record, I strongly disagree with this. Golarion is a world where it is well established that levels matter quite a bit more than they do in 5E and where monster abilities of specific varieties (like demons having inherent spells) are well established.

A few characters might, at the moment, be better built with different Classes in PF2 than PF1 (or even not be buildable at all) but that'll change as more books are released, and the core engine is still better for Golarion than 5E is.

I totally disagree, what you posted doesn't even really make sense (maybe it is unfamiliarity with the system). Levels matter in 5th Ed, innate spellcasting is a thing, and the core chassis, being much more like 3rd Ed/PF1, supports Golarion far more than the Playtest rules, so far.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

Finally, just because I think it's important to say, you are supposedly making Pathfinder 2nd Edition. You've stated you want it to feel like the game we know and love. Question: If you took the world of Golarion, and played in it using 5e rules, would that feel closer to Pathfinder 1st edition than Golarion using 2nd edition rules?

Funny you should mention that, I have converted some PF1/Golarion material to 5th Ed, and as of right now, I feel 5th Ed supports the action/feel of Golarion better than the Playtest. 5th Ed is closer to PF1 than the Playtest, as 5th Ed is sort of a 3rd Ed Lite, to me.

For the record, I strongly disagree with this. Golarion is a world where it is well established that levels matter quite a bit more than they do in 5E and where monster abilities of specific varieties (like demons having inherent spells) are well established.

A few characters might, at the moment, be better built with different Classes in PF2 than PF1 (or even not be buildable at all) but that'll change as more books are released, and the core engine is still better for Golarion than 5E is.

I totally disagree, what you posted doesn't even really make sense (maybe it is unfamiliarity with the system). Levels matter in 5th Ed, innate spellcasting is a thing, and the core chassis, being much more like 3rd Ed/PF1, supports Golarion far more than the Playtest rules, so far.

Also, magic/spells work much more like in PF1, so, Golarion might requite some apocalyptic explanation of why the multiverse has suddenly changed so drastically.

Deadmanwalking is far more familiar with both PF1 and 5E than me or you. He's also capable of disagreeing with people without insinuating their lack of knowledge or comprehension.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

Finally, just because I think it's important to say, you are supposedly making Pathfinder 2nd Edition. You've stated you want it to feel like the game we know and love. Question: If you took the world of Golarion, and played in it using 5e rules, would that feel closer to Pathfinder 1st edition than Golarion using 2nd edition rules?

Funny you should mention that, I have converted some PF1/Golarion material to 5th Ed, and as of right now, I feel 5th Ed supports the action/feel of Golarion better than the Playtest. 5th Ed is closer to PF1 than the Playtest, as 5th Ed is sort of a 3rd Ed Lite, to me.

For the record, I strongly disagree with this. Golarion is a world where it is well established that levels matter quite a bit more than they do in 5E and where monster abilities of specific varieties (like demons having inherent spells) are well established.

A few characters might, at the moment, be better built with different Classes in PF2 than PF1 (or even not be buildable at all) but that'll change as more books are released, and the core engine is still better for Golarion than 5E is.

I totally disagree, what you posted doesn't even really make sense (maybe it is unfamiliarity with the system). Levels matter in 5th Ed...

I suspect what he was referring to was the effectiveness of low level monsters as threats versus high level PCs.

In 5E monsters remain threatening (in sufficient numbers) for a long time. In PF1, low level monsters are pretty much useless against high level PCs. Similarly, the gap in other abilities between low level PCs and high level PCs is far more significant in PF1. Hence the claim: “levels matter more in PF1 than they do in 5E”

(It’s what the “+1/ level treadmill” analysis misses out on addressing).

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

Finally, just because I think it's important to say, you are supposedly making Pathfinder 2nd Edition. You've stated you want it to feel like the game we know and love. Question: If you took the world of Golarion, and played in it using 5e rules, would that feel closer to Pathfinder 1st edition than Golarion using 2nd edition rules?

Funny you should mention that, I have converted some PF1/Golarion material to 5th Ed, and as of right now, I feel 5th Ed supports the action/feel of Golarion better than the Playtest. 5th Ed is closer to PF1 than the Playtest, as 5th Ed is sort of a 3rd Ed Lite, to me.

For the record, I strongly disagree with this. Golarion is a world where it is well established that levels matter quite a bit more than they do in 5E and where monster abilities of specific varieties (like demons having inherent spells) are well established.

A few characters might, at the moment, be better built with different Classes in PF2 than PF1 (or even not be buildable at all) but that'll change as more books are released, and the core engine is still better for Golarion than 5E is.

I totally disagree, what you posted doesn't even really make sense (maybe it is unfamiliarity with the system). Levels matter in 5th Ed...

I suspect what he was referring to was the effectiveness of low level monsters as threats versus high level PCs.

In 5E monsters remain threatening (in sufficient numbers) for a long time. In PF1, low level monsters are pretty much useless against high level PCs. Similarly, the gap in other abilities between low level PCs and high level PCs is far more significant in PF1. Hence the claim: “levels matter more in PF1 than they do in 5E”

(It’s what the “+1/ level treadmill” analysis misses out on addressing).

Yes, I can dig that, I'm sure in some ways it may be more supportive, but overall I feel 5th Ed captures the feel/vibe, better, at this point.

Ah, yes, DMW's Insights into +Level were very helpful; I omit it in my non-playtest home games.

Vic Ferrari wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

I think so because over the years he has displayed a great knowledge of mechanics - both of PF and other games and coupled that with a pleasantly approachable demeanour, a rare sight these days.

Indeed, and as you are a fan, maybe take a page from his book (it's a good page).

I also think you should apologise to DMW, as to bring his name so personally into things, not cool, I was merely responding to his reply about Golarion (nothing personal), what you are doing is actually pretty irresponsible and vulgar.

P.S. I apologise to DMW for my exchange with G, nothing personal, as I said, I like your posts - critiques/analyses, etc, one of the best. No hard feelings.

So are DMW's critiques some of the best, or what he posts doesn't make sense and he's "maybe unfamiliar with the system" when he disagrees with you?

Ha, not at all, I do not know how familiar he is with 5th Ed, I know he is very well versed in PF1 and the Playtest, just an honest wondering. Again, sorry about this DMW, you deserve better representation!

Let me be clear, since I'm the one that posted the upvote data. First, yeah, it's not a perfect representation of the quality of PF2, and I recognize that. But to suggest that forum posts and general sentiment is not good for measuring at all is a gross oversight. Paizo *should* be looking at overall sentiment on these forums, which has many of their core fans, and as I pointed out previously, has a much lower bar for feedback than playtesting.

Second, well, let's be honest, we, as players, don't have much else to operate on. I'm assuming, based on this limited set of data I have (forum posts in general) that there was a sudden sharp shift to the negative about the playtest upon its release, and that corresponds with the fact that *many* thought it didn't measure up to what they were looking for. It would be great if Paizo made any of their survey data public/discussed actual numbers, even about general sentiment, but they haven't. I understand this choice, and its theirs to make.

Finally, with regards to good faith, honestly, Paizo has lost it from me, as a consumer. Perhaps it comes back, and I know my experience isn't universal. I'm not going to post here as to why, as I'll set up a different thread for that, but I no longer expect them to do the right thing with the Playtest given the way things have been handled in the past couple of months. In short, this comes down to feeling that voices are going unheard and that, for lack of a better term, the company seems to be "paizosplaining" a lot.

I'm angry and frustrated, because this is a company and product I cared deeply about. I don't expect Paizo to design a product exclusively for me, but from where I'm sitting, they seem to be ignoring big issues (critical system, hit rate, class-gating) and firmly pressing forward. I'll continue to submit feedback (via surveys), as I feel I owe this much to the company, but don't expect much beyond that.

I think the thing is, the forum in and of itself is such a small sample size that it's hard to extrapolate anything towards the greater gaming community.

You are right, we don't have the numbers...the closest we can get are things looking at current sales numbers, which obviously can only tell us if a new edition was needed or not, not whether PF2E is going in the direction it needs to, in order to be successful.

I think the thing is, the forum in and of itself is such a small sample size that it's hard to extrapolate anything towards the greater gaming community.

You are right, we don't have the numbers...the closest we can get are things looking at current sales numbers, which obviously can only tell us if a new edition was needed or not, not whether PF2E is going in the direction it needs to, in order to be successful.

Let me give you an example of how forums are hardly representative. Aeons ago, Paizo asked if people want an art book of best art from Dungeon and Dragon mags. There were dozens of posts supporting that idea with people gushing about how excellent that idea is and how they'll buy one for themselves and for their friends. You would get the idea that the hoi polloi is overwhelmingly cool with product.

So Paizo put out the "Art of Dragon Magazine" artbook. I have it, it's a great book, it has solid reviews and was generally well received.

It's now sitting in Paizo's warehouse at 4 USD (FOUR DOLLARS) discounted from 35 USD. And it's there at this price since 2015.

In terms of publishing business, this means that pretty much nobody bought it, it sold in laughable numbers and is now clogging up the warehouse and really needs to go.

What happened? Well, first was the good old "what people want and what people ask for are not the same", and the other is that the invested, emotionally attached forum is hardly indicative of what the general consumer is after. I'm not saying it never is, but neither it is always the perfect polling sample.

Add to that the fact that the forum itself is a pale shadow of it's former self, decimated by 5e and a general drift of discussion online away from forums and blogs and into social media and streaming. The Facebook 2nd ed playtest group (sitting at 2300 members) is, I'd dare to say, a totally different planet as far as both tone and content are concerned. Might have to do with people there posting under real names (mostly), since that usually means you moderate yourself far more ;-)

I think the thing is, the forum in and of itself is such a small sample size that it's hard to extrapolate anything towards the greater gaming community.

You are right, we don't have the numbers...the closest we can get are things looking at current sales numbers, which obviously can only tell us if a new edition was needed or not, not whether PF2E is going in the direction it needs to, in order to be successful.

But Paizo also seems to want to infer *some* things from the forums. For example, the new formatting for their critical failure on damage spells... They're not consistent, the forums matter when they want them to matter, and don't at other times.

Also, do we know relative number of people posting here vs people participating in the playtest surveys? We don't. I'd agree, I suspect survey participation is higher, but I'd also argue that neither group is inclusive of the other.

MMCJawa wrote:

I think the thing is, the forum in and of itself is such a small sample size that it's hard to extrapolate anything towards the greater gaming community.

You are right, we don't have the numbers...the closest we can get are things looking at current sales numbers, which obviously can only tell us if a new edition was needed or not, not whether PF2E is going in the direction it needs to, in order to be successful.

Let me give you an example of how forums are hardly representative. Aeons ago, Paizo asked if people want an art book of best art from Dungeon and Dragon mags. There were dozens of posts supporting that idea with people gushing about how excellent that idea is and how they'll buy one for themselves and for their friends. You would get the idea that the hoi polloi is overwhelmingly cool with product.

So Paizo put out the "Art of Dragon Magazine" artbook. I have it, it's a great book, it has solid reviews and was generally well received.

It's now sitting in Paizo's warehouse at 4 USD (FOUR DOLLARS) discounted from 35 USD. And it's there at this price since 2015.

In terms of publishing business, this means that pretty much nobody bought it, it sold in laughable numbers and is now clogging up the warehouse and really needs to go.

What happened? Well, first was the good old "what people want and what people ask for are not the same", and the other is that the invested, emotionally attached forum is hardly indicative of what the general consumer is after. I'm not saying it never is, but neither it is always the perfect polling sample.

Add to that the fact that the forum itself is a pale shadow of it's former self, decimated by 5e and a general drift of discussion online away from forums and blogs and into social media and streaming. The Facebook 2nd ed playtest group (sitting at 2300 members) is, I'd dare to say, a totally different planet as far as both tone and content are concerned. Might have to do with people there posting under real names (mostly),...

The problem is this logic also applies to the surveys... So by your logic, it doesn't matter what Paizo does, they can't possibly get useful information asking consumers. So why bother playtesting at all?

Marketing.

I think the thing is, the forum in and of itself is such a small sample size that it's hard to extrapolate anything towards the greater gaming community.

The rest of you ought to ignore my taste in games. I learned decades ago that my preferences in books, games, and TV shows do not match the public's tastes or even that of fellow science fiction fans and board gamers. I do like what almost everyone likes, so I am not a total maverick, but I also like a lot of stuff that doesn't sell well.

For a marker of how far from normal I am, I attend mathematics lectures for fun.

Hence, I try to remember to talk about my experiences, my mathematicial analyses, and my new ideas rather than my likes and dislikes. I am more likely to present my wife's opinion, which is more mainstream than mine.

The problem is this logic also applies to the surveys... So by your logic, it doesn't matter what Paizo does, they can't possibly get useful information asking consumers. So why bother playtesting at all?

Mainly because a forum post saying, "hey, guys and gals, what do think of X?" with a few dozen responses gives a very different data set from a survey that is widely publicized, does not require the hassle of signing up to a forum, and (attempts to) ask unbiased questions about a specific thing with a limited range of possible responses. All that said, according to Jason's post earlier in this thread, even with the added confidence of a large pool of responses and a less-biased response range, and best practices for proper extrapolation from that data, they're still taking their data with caution.

We don't have accurate numbers to how many responses they're getting, but it wouldn't be too wild of speculations to guess they're somewhere in the four digit-range as opposed to the two-digit range?

Playtest questions only investigate wether the game is running according to plans

They don't ask wether the rules are fun or enjoyable or feel easy to use or well designed, or any other important question...

Ephialtes wrote:

You can still assume that those very vocally blaming Paizo to not listen to them how bad PF2 is will probably not upvote a post by a dev. It is quite a fair assumption that those upvotes don't come from that alu hat wearing crowd cursing PF2 at every turn because it is not exactly PF1.

I'd say that is a very individual and wrong assumption. I regularly upvote if I think the post contributes positively to the discussion. A dev weighing in, even if s/he says something I disagree with, counts about 90% as something like that. Hell, I even give Gorbacz the occasional upvote, because he says something which contributes positively to a discussion.

This! I regularly upvote developer posts.

I think I am amongst the most agressively negative and critical posters here (when I'm active). I make no secret my distrust of Paizo or my biased opinions about their publishing strategys. But when Mark or Jason or most anybody else from Paizo takes the time to post here I'll favorite the post because they are, as a rule, smart people who're paid to ponder and discuss these topics in particular. So their posts are extremely interesting and informative to an amateur like myself. I can also just appreciate their feedback, even if I disagree with it for whatever reason.