As a first-time poster I feel a bit of background on myself is in order. I’m a long time D&D 5e GM that was introduced to the TTRPG hobby by Matt Mercer’s Critical Role. My fellow table members have convinced me to make the move to PF2 due to the expanded “complexity” and “customization” options the Pathfinder system offers when compared to 5e. I believe that makes my group and I Paizo’s “target market” for PF2, but I’ll get to that in a moment.
As a long time GM, I enjoy browsing various forums, web sites, and YouTube videos to learn more about the system I’m playing (which, again, until now has been 5e) and the response from longtime Pathfinder players to PF2 has been…interesting to say the least. It’s led me to a bit of a “theory” on the future of PF2 and Paizo that I thought would be, at the very least, fun to share and discuss. Here are the critical assumptions my theory relies on:
1) Paizo wants to move away from PF1 for financial reasons.
Various reports I’ve read peg Pathfinder at around $10M in
market share as of 1Q18, with the total TTRPG market sitting
roughly around $35M. Just under 30% of market seems great as
it puts Pathfinder in a clear 2nd place to only 5e. However,
I’m unsure this tells the whole story. As the forum
unfortunately doesn't allow graphical posts I can only
reference the following figures:
Amazon Sales Rank (1Q18):
5th Edition Players Handbook - #63
Pathfinder Core Rulebook - #12,675
Roll20
(4Q14):
D&D 5e - 1,500 Games
Pathfinder - 6,100 Games
(1Q18):
D&D 5e - 77,000 Games
Pathfinder - 12,500 Games
Both of these tell essentially the same story. 5e is vastly
expanding the market as a whole, and Paizo would probably like
like to cut into their ever-expanding piece. While the
halcyon days of early 2015, when Pathfinder was arguably the
market leader, are perhaps an unrealistic goal; increasing
market share to the $15M - $18M range perhaps isn’t. This
speaks to my guess about what Paizo’s “target market” is:
Players and GMs currently playing 5e that are looking for a
more complex and robust rules system.
2) Paizo NEEDS to move to PF2 for financial reasons.
This sounds the same as the 1st point, but it is likely a bit
more controversial. Paizo released StarFinder at GenCon in
2017. While it was a raging success at the Con, which I can
remember anecdotally as I believe everything sold out
Thursday, it may not have had the staying power needed for
financial success. While I’m no industry insider and have no
access to sales numbers, the fact that an edition change to
their core product was announced barely 6 months after the
creation of a brand new IP leads me to believe the new revenue
stream StarFinder was supposed to create has not materialized.
Now regarding point #2, I personally don't believe that the start-up cost of Starfinder has put Paizo in financial peril in the short-term.
What I believe it does mean, however, is that the risk of failure on PF2 could cause that financial peril. This leads to my theory:
In their attempt to expand market share with PF2, Paizo has inadvertently created a rift between the market they want to capture and the market they already own. This is the Star Wars Problem.
As I’m sure there is plenty of fan overlap between Pathfinder and Star Wars this likely needs little explanation. As a quick synopsis though, Disney's Star Wars problem occurred with the release of Last Jedi: Some fans, mainly those who were fans of the Original Trilogy first, are opposed to changes made to the lore and characters in the New/Disney Trilogy. Disney has, by and large, branded these complaints as misogynistic and petty, which has quite obviously done nothing to allay the concerns/complaints of those fans. Opinions are split as to whether this impacted the box office returns for their latest movie Solo , which performed far below original expectations and resulted in a financial loss for Disney.
What is the connection to Paizo and Pathfinder you might ask? Well, based on what I’ve read on this forum, reddit, GitP, and various YouTube channels the overwhelming majority (I'd anecdotally peg it at around 75%) of CURRENT Pathfinder players DO NOT approve of many of the changes being made in PF2. Some don’t like Resonance, others are focused on the +Class Level mechanic, still others on the % success ratios, and on and on. overall, PF2 should be an “easier” system to play than PF1 but still a more complex system than 5e (again speaking to that “target market” from earlier). It is thereby likely achieving it's design goal of threading the needle of being complex enough to be close to PF1, while easy enough to digest for current 5e / non-PF1 players. What happens, though, if threading the needle of appeasing the current PF1 players and capturing ex-5e players fails?
I believe Paizo’s biggest design failure was not recognizing the contraction risk PF2 presented. Current players that choose to skip PF2 entirely and stick with PF1 aren’t going to maintain market share, as the intention is to stop production of PF1 material. Thus, there is a real risk of a shrinking footprint for Pathfinder and Paizo. This would only be further exacerbated if another company pulled off what Paizo did in 2007 when another company we all know and love failed to keep their current customers happy with the launch of a new edition…
I most certainly hope I'm wrong on all counts. Perhaps Starfinder is printing money for Paizo, rendering point #2 moot. Or perhaps the voices online are a "loud minority" that is not a true reflection of the overall Pathfinder community. I for one rather like PF2 and, as my game tables "always DM", I rather like some of the limiting factors the game has put in place to limit potential for PC abuse. my opinion does feel like a minority one unfortunately.
I’d be curious what others think of the theory (although I hope I haven’t inadvertently created a Star Wars flame war), especially those of you who have been around the Pathfinder community for longer than the month I’ve been here.
TL;DR – In an effort to expand market share into non-PF players with a new ruleset, Paizo may have inadvertently poisoned the well with current players, and long-term financial distress could be a real risk for the company.
Thanks for Reading!
