Gourd Leshy

The Blockhouse's page

Organized Play Member. 2 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Golurkcanfly wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
YuriP wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
However, I still think people are reasonably annoyed by what has turned out to be SF1's relatively short lifespan. 3.0 and its successors represented a unique situation where what was basically a single system was playable and actively worked on by either WotC or Paizo for more than twenty years. A lot of us who came into the hobby during that period aren't used to edition changes being an inescapable reality.
I agree but you know this was an exception and that normally a TTRPG system doesn't survive for so long time without a new edition.

Right, but the reason this situation is so uncommon is corporate sleaze. All your TTRPG books become outdated after five years for the same reason your phone is deliberately designed to break after two years. No product can ever be allowed to endure in its usefulness because that would eliminate the need to buy another one.

Your analysis of Paizo's motives later in your comment gives them a lot of benefit of the doubt. It's entirely possible they've simply realized that the edition treadmill is a way to maximize profits at the expense of the consumer, and have decided they'll switch to it now because it will make them more money. That's why everyone else does it. How likely is it, really, that Paizo is a special exception?

Edition changes come with unacceptable financial risk due to higher investment costs if the goal is just to ensure people repurchase books. Especially when players can still play with old books and the material is freely available online.

The financial incentive is instead to gather a new audience. The PF2e playerbase is massive relative to the SF playerbase and thus can provide an influx of new players.

You're probably right that PF2 being more popular than SF1 is a significant influence on this decision (to say nothing of the OGL crisis which I think it's fair to say is the cause of it here), but, regarding the...

Depends on what you define as "cynical". Companies exist to produce product and profit off of it, and I would say that is inherently a cynical thing, but your definition seems to be specifically that new editions only exist to make people rebuy books and...largely, no, I don't think that's true. I think the more common reason is the simple hard fact that times change. Markets change. The audience changes. I don't think, for example, D&D 4e being such a radical departure from 3.5 was just to get people to rebuy books - if that was the case the system would not have been so different and ultimately divisive. It was designed to tap into a new, wider audience that would be put off by some of the more clunky and archaic bits of the 3.5 system and would be interested in something more streamlined and less on the simulation side of things. We could argue all day if that had worked or if it was a good idea, but I think that's the clear intent. I would say the intent behind PF2e and now SF2e is along the same lines, and I can think of several other games that feel like developers with more experience under the belt going "oh we could probably do this really differently knowing what we do now".

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Viviolay wrote:
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

So just to check because I'm now confused of what people are talking bout. From what I understood, they are basically doing erratad changed version of classes and core options, but its not like they are changing rules or skill math or monster math?

So like post remaster and pre remaster versions are still working on same rules and same math and this is more of glorified errata with more changes than normal errata?

I want to be clear: This is exactly what I understand is happening. I can forgive people for being apprehensive and alarmed because "Nothing is actually changing" was the story that One D&D started with, too, right before ripping open the OGL debacle that provoked this change. I can see why people might reflexively flinch.

That said, for all intents and purposes it appears that most of these changes are either errata that was coming in a few months anyway, or changes that are made specifically as a ripple effect of the OGL debacle previously mentioned. Alignment seems to be the biggest single change and it suits that the reason for the alignment change is partly rooted in both those reasons.

I think, at least for me, I really want to feel like it's all going to be fine. I want to not be worried and to trust paizo.

But I feel like not enough information was given to make it clear how lawful/chaos and lore would be handled. Saying "not much will change" isn't clear. Hearing other not-employed-by-paizo people saying that also doesn't help.

Clear answers to questions people kept asking over and over would be better and would go farther to allowing people to chill out.

Till then, can you blame people for being anxious?

I feel like it's come up several times in this thread that nothing about the overall cosmology or setting is changing. They're just going to express those through terms that don't have the stink of the OGL on them.