When the system becomes bloated down with books an edition change would not be a bad thing, but its to soon to start entertaining the idea now.
IMHO, of course
Instead of not releasing stuff in the year/6 months before an edition change, how about releasing "conversion errata" for everything released in that time period that details how to use it with the new edition?
Gives you the full 10, 15 or however many years of support for the additional system, while not releasing soon-to-be-redundant stuff.
This also has another quality of allowing the new edition to start out with a handful of supplements already made for it.
No new edition of PF.. for at least 10 years IF that. If they do, the ONLY change I want is getting rid of the evil miniature/Tactical combat/movement rules grrr. The reason I won't buy the HC PFRPG is 1) $50 price tag & 2) MiniatureTactical combat/movement rules.I'll buy the $9.99 PDF till I can find a used cheap version of the HC.
no no no..PF 1st ed. nearly perfect..it's tainted by evil miniature/ Tactical combat/movement rules...e-v-i-l!!! Where as PF2nd ed. without the evil M/T C/M rules..utter perfection LOL
If they do, the ONLY change I want is getting rid of the evil miniature/Tactical combat/movement rules grrr.
Not going to happen. The movement rules are a major boon in my book. And they're still optional. They're a tool. A great one.
Plus, waiting 10+ years, noticing more and more things that could be improved, and then paying for a new book that has none of those improvements AND takes away one of 3e's best improvements would cost Paizo at least one customer for good.
The reason I won't buy the HC PFRPG is 1) $50 price tag
Because you cannot afford it or because you think it's too high?
Look at that book. It's huge! 3e core books cost 30 bucks apiece, and you need 3. And I think 4e core books are even more expensive.
Not that bad a price all things considered. And you can always get a better deal.
& 2) MiniatureTactical combat/movement rules.
Seriously? Wow.
Did I mention already that I want a second edition? Well, here I go again:
I want Pathfinder 2e.
Not now, not tomorrow, not next year. But I think 10 years is a bit too long.
And I want the game to change enough to take care of the problems 1e couldn't (because it's a 3e revision), but still remain true to Dungeons and Dragons and its history.
And I'm sure Paizo will deliver. They did great work with PF 1e already.
I'm really of the mind that it's way too soon to speculate, even. PF just came out, so let's enjoy and let it have it's run :)
See here's the thing... I don't view PF1.0 as a new edition really. To me it's still 3.5 but sold by someone else with a few tweaks. In my mind the 3.x line of rules has now had a good 9 years of life. If we assume that PF1.0 will now get a normal lifespan as if it were a completely new edition then we're saying that the 3.x generation of rules will probably last a good 15-18 years (9 for 3.x + 6-9 for PF1.0). For me, I am not planning to still be playing a 3.x derivative for the next 6-8 years.
And I'm not opposed to them keeping the 3.x generation of rules going forever. Hell, rebrand it as Pathfinder Classic in 5 years and release Pathfinder Xtreme for people who want some really new things.
Pathfinder Classic will continue into eternity with only minor tweaks and errata released over its lifetime.
Pathfinder Xtreme will explore truly new and fresh ideas as well as be a playground for Xperimental concepts. People who buy and play PF Xtreme will know going in that its a veritable playground of different concepts. If people want something tried and true, go with PF-Classic. If they want crazy off-the-wall rules that don't concern themselves with backwards compatibility, go with PF-Xtreme.
Just an idea.
The reason I won't buy the HC PFRPG is 1) $50 price tagBecause you cannot afford it or because you think it's too high?
Look at that book. It's huge! 3e core books cost 30 bucks apiece, and you need 3. And I think 4e core books are even more expensive.
Not that bad a price all things considered. And you can always get a better deal.
Just to point out 3*30 = 50 (Core book) + 40 (Monster book).
I haven't done a complete comparison, but someone mentioned on a thread on a different site (and they could have been wrong of course), that some of the equivalent DMing stuff was left out and will be put into the new GameMastery Guide (as well as other stuff). So the price comparison might be a bit more tricky than it first appears.
Anyway, just an observation, go back to your regular discussion.
I'd say they could go one of two directions with it.
1. If they decide to do pretty wide ranging changes, start a different game line. And I would like to see this. The Paizoites are clearly highly skilled game designers and I'd like to see a new fantasy game that is more fundamentally refactored for fun and story. You could run this in parallel.
2. If they decide on another "incremental rev" (3.865?), then largely do it like they have so far. Open playtest and listen to the fans, be honest about when you start working on it, etc. Don't stop putting out product and have a dead year, instead (God forbid) leverage modern technology and offer buyers a PDF updating interstitial products to the new version when it releases. Especially when you're fairly compatible with the old version this isn't hard (IMO they should have done it with Legacy of Fire).
My general thought on back compatibility is that there's two levels.
1. Crunch
2. Fluff
A lot of the 4e backlash is that it's not just the RULES changed, as they did in 1e->2e and 2e->3e, but that the changes were deep in the fluff. You couldn't just take a Greyhawk book and redo the stat blocks, you had to change the wold to allow for dragonborn warlocks crawling around. It was a major misunderstanding of how many RPGers like campaign worlds and use/develop them over decades - whether GH/FR or their own homebrew world. Redoing stat blocks isn't all that hard. But if fundamental assumptions change - classes, races, how magic works - that's a bigger discontinuity to these ongoing worlds. IMO Paizo could change the rules a good bit in a PF 2.0 as long as it was compatible with the general tropes of Golarion/3.5e (which in turn is largely compatible with the general tropes of D&D going back to 1e, which is why we all like it).
Of course there's also levels of crunch change. 3e to 3.5e to Pathfinder, the changes are disruptive only to the most pedantic players/GMs. I'm running a Pathfinder campaign where I am using adventures published for 3e, 3.5e, and Pathfinder without modification. If it says that guy has +7 Spot, good enough, I don't care that it might go up or down a couple points if you rebuilt the NPC from scratch in the new ed. (You do have to remember that if an adventure is 3e you probably need to amp it up or run it at slightly lower levels than intended). I think a lot of the people concerned about crunch change need to understand and distinguish between the different levels - 3e to 3.5e and 3.5e to 4e are different orders of magnitude of change.
I'm not necessarily opposed to an eventual Pathfinder 2E, though I feel that there is an alternative to planned obsolescence. Two reasons why RPG edition change happens at all is because so many new systems are introduced that the core framework of the rules has a hard time supporting all these additions, and because new alternate systems have come along that work better. Eventually people want the good alternate systems collected into one place and made official so that there's no confusion about what the rules are when you get together to play, particularly at conventions, where not everyone is playing from the same house rules.
I think that Pathfinder did a great job of handling both points for now, but there will inevitably be more development, more paradigm shifts, and more systems tacked on over time. It's the natural evolution of any non-static RPG system.
So I think the best course of action Paizo could follow is to keep the door open to a possible PFRGP 2nd edition, but not try to plan for it or force it. Let it happen when (and if) the fans are crying out for it. In the mean time, don't just throw any old rule system out there because it seems like a neat idea at the time. Make sure that every new rulebook hangs well on the existing game's framework. In my opinion, books like the Book of Nine Swords were an unnecessary departure from the core 3.5 system and were used to help justify edition change. Meanwhile, books like Unearthed Arcana - books full of useful optional systems that replace core systems - are cool and should be encouraged.
Pathfinder Classic will continue into eternity with only minor tweaks and errata released over its lifetime.Pathfinder Xtreme will explore truly new and fresh ideas as well as be a playground for Xperimental concepts.
This would split the customer base in half. Sure, some would probably get and use both systems, but for many, it would be only one.
So now you need to have two lines of adventures - one for the old, one for the new - which doubles your work load, but not necessarily your payload.
I don't think that's a very good idea from a commercial point of view.
Still, I agree that PF 1e is not a new edition. Paizo agrees, too. The game had that design goal: Be compatible with 3e crunch.
Now, I do say that it's the best version of 3e I ever saw, and probably the best version of D&D so far as well. I also think it granted 3e a second lease on life.
But it's not a reincarnation. No young, healthy body to use up just like the old one. The maximum age of 3e might have been pushed back, but I do think it's middle age lies in the past, not in the future.
And for the record: I don't want an "X-TREME" Pathfinder, either! Pathfinder Second Edition, when it comes, should be an attempt to make the game even better. Fix those things PF 1.0 couldn't change because it was just a 3e revision. Make bigger changes.
But only make necessary changes. Keep it the same game at heart. Make sure it's still recognisable. Keep the core concepts intact.
1. If they decide to do pretty wide ranging changes, start a different game line.
Well, two things speak against that, at least for me:
That would mean if they abandon my favourite game, it will, well, die. No one will support it any more.
2. If they decide on another "incremental rev" (3.865?), then largely do it like they have so far.
I don't think they'll do that. Pathfinder took care of a lot of 3e's problems. The game still has room for improvement, the changes are either too small to warrant a new revision, or they are too big for a revision.
A lot of the 4e backlash is that it's not just the RULES changed, as they did in 1e->2e and 2e->3e, but that the changes were deep in the fluff.
That's why I'm against the new game approach. I want it to be the same game. For me, 4e isn't the same game as 3e, too much changed in the world(s). Too much history was invalidated.
So I think the best course of action Paizo could follow is to keep the door open to a possible PFRGP 2nd edition, but not try to plan for it or force it. Let it happen when (and if) the fans are crying out for it.
That one is obvious. A lot of people thought that 4e came too early, and that cost wizards a lot of customers.
As I said before, the best way to go about this is to start developing it now - or, rather, to have started the development a year or more ago. But I don't mean starting to write the book.
I mean observing. I mean making notes. I mean collecting ideas.
Maybe even go crazy and throw out the occasional "radical change" subset of rules out for the fans to playtest.
So say Jason dislikes the way multiclassing works in PF, or, rather, how it doesn't work in many cases. And then, he has a great idea for a system that makes more combinations viable without making some too strong, and without requiring prestige classes like the mystic theurge.
Wouldn't it be great if they released those rules as a PDF for playtesting, asking people give the rules a test run, and reporting on their experiences?
In my opinion, books like the Book of Nine Swords were an unnecessary departure from the core 3.5 system and were used to help justify edition change.
The book was a field test for 4e.
This would split the customer base in half. Sure, some would probably get and use both systems, but for many, it would be only one.
So now you need to have two lines of adventures - one for the old, one for the new - which doubles your work load, but not necessarily your payload.
I don't think that's a very good idea from a commercial point of view.
Maybe this will reveal my commercial ignorance but I'm not getting how it would "split the customer base".
Example:
Paizo has 10 customers.
7 of them love Excellent Current Product Line to death. They couldn't be happier with Excellent Current Product Line.
3 of them buy Excellent Current Product Line because it is better than anything anyone else on the market. Those 3 customers aren't massively in love with Excellent Current Product Line so they just buy the core books and then that's about it. Those 3 customers are actually the sort who might jump ship if they got tired of Excellent Current Product Line.
Before those 3 customers start looking around for other options, Paizo introduces a new product line, calling it Awesome New Product Line. Awesome New Product Line appeals greatly to those 3 customers above. Those 3 customers become much more enthusiastic and decide to buy the core books and more of the supplements for Awesome New Product Line than they would have had they just stuck with Excellent Current Product Line.
Plan A: 10 customers, all on existing product line, with 2-3 frustrated.
Plan B: 10 customers, 7-8 on existing product line and 2-3 on new product line.
Same 10 customers, but 2-3 are happier on plan B. The other 7-8 are just as happy as ever.
Under Plan A, those 2-3 customers could be lost.
Under Plan B, those 2-3 customers are not lost and could actually buy more product than they would have otherwise.
In the end Paizo still has 10 customers but there's a possibility of selling MORE product under Plan B I would think.
I do accept however, that this would require additional resources on Paizo's end. But, isn't that a good problem to have? Wouldn't you like to have Product Line A (for the masses), Product Line B (for the hardcore tweakers), Product Line C (a simple line for kids, beginners, and casual gamers), Product Line D (a space game), Product Line E (a cyber game), etc? Its just a problem of having sufficient staff to generate the material I would think.
And I don't know that having other product lines necessarily "doubles the workload". For example, you could decide, "you know what, lets explore this Awesome New Product Line idea. Let's let one dude in the office dedicate his time to nothing but this for a month. Let's see where that gets us. Then, have that one dude responsible for building it and seeing it through to release. Then, if it takes off, throw another body at it. Really, just throw resources at it if it deserves it. If it takes off and there is demand, throw a body at it.
Probably really crappy business sense on my part but what do I know, I don't run a business lol
PLAN A and PLAN B
It just wouldn't work like that, both lines would cost the same, there is no garauntee the those 2-3 players would like Awesome etc, and so on.
It really wouldn't work with Paizo's current layout, and Paizo like their layout, and frankly so do I.
I don't think you need the Paizo guys to tell you, but that is just never going to happen, not for a decade or two, if ever. And my money is on the former.
I'm not trying to be overly negative and dump on you here man, but its just really not realistically ever going to happen.
Now, a third party company could theoretically make that alternate ruleset and probably sell pretty well if their small and make a good product, but again, if it was a really viable plan to do that unless it was a totally seperate system, their be more companies doing that.
Under Plan A, those 2-3 customers could be lost.Under Plan B, those 2-3 customers are not lost and could actually buy more product than they would have otherwise.
In the end Paizo still has 10 customers but there's a possibility of selling MORE product under Plan B I would think.
That's not the whole picture:
With plan A, you only have to create and support one product line, but with plan B, you have to support two.
While it certainly means that they can get some extra custom out of it, as some people buy both systems, some people are prevented from not buying anything, and others are encouraged to buy more, there are costs which might very well more than balance out the extra custom.
They need supplemental material for both games. Campaign setting books would be the least affected, since they're mostly fluff, anyway, but even there they'd probably need to either make two versions or make dual-stat versions (which means it will take up more space in the book, leaving less space for fluff.
Adventures are worse: I doubt providing both sets of rules in an adventure would work, so now they need to create their adventures in two versions.
And finally, any rules supplements would be only for one system.
All that means that they need to either spend extra time and money to create stuff in two versions (which is a thought that would probably cause nightmares in Paizo staff, seeing as they already have their hands full), or not fully support either system.
The number of people buying both core rules isn't that high. The number of people buying adventures for both is lower still. So they sell less of each product (Revenge of the Evil Clown God Adventure Path for Pathfinder is not the same as Revenge of the Evil Clown God Adventure Path for PF Second Edition), which means lower print runs, which means higher price.
Unless they are sure that a lot of people are lost by not having both and that enough people would buy both versions, the resources involved are probably not worth it.
Its just a problem of having sufficient staff to generate the material I would think.
You hit the nail on the head: Sufficient staff. Paizo has said repeatedly that they don't want to become too big. The people in charge want to keep the company comparatively small and manageable. When the company gets so big they don't know everyone personally any more, when they need a more structured and rigid hierarchy and all the bureaucracy that entails, I think that's when they're no longer happy with their company.
I also think that the size of the team is one of the more important factors of Paizo's high quality products.
A smaller company, you can manage without too much creativity-stifling order and still maintain the desired level of quality.
And I don't know that having other product lines necessarily "doubles the workload".
Well, of course it does. Maybe not double it, but it's more than an afternoon distraction. Because in addition to all the stuff you do now, you also need enough time to do the new stuff.
For example, you could decide, "you know what, lets explore this Awesome New Product Line idea. Let's let one dude in the office dedicate his time to nothing but this for a month.
That assumes you can afford to draw that guy away from his products for a whole month.
Let's see where that gets us. Then, have that one dude responsible for building it and seeing it through to release. Then, if it takes off, throw another body at it. Really, just throw resources at it if it deserves it. If it takes off and there is demand, throw a body at it.
The problem is: How far does one guy get? Is he the right guy for something like that? Can he do it alone? Does he need other people? If so, can we afford to take those people away from their other projects as well?
Either you put too few people into it, and the project goes nowhere because it's too slow. Or you put enough people in it to pull it off, and suddenly, everything slows down.
Remember, we're not talking about a one-off thing. This isn't a fire-and-forget matter!
We're talking about two different RPG rulesets being supported at once. In addition to the extra strain of creating the new rulebooks while still supporting the old rules, once you're done you'll be forced do either not support the lines as much as you used to support your single line, or you need to do every enemy and stat block twice, and make adjustments for many encounters that use bestiary stat blocks, because while monster X would be an adequate challenge in the old rules, the new have boosted it, requiring you to tone it down or redesign the encounter.
I was looking for posts on PF 2nd.
As many have said, I don't want PF now. but you are surely thinking about it.
So my request would be : Please make it more simple at high levels.
I mean a single combat at lvl 15 takes about an hour and a half (more or less) given all the different options.
Multiple attacks are a pain in the arse. just make one BIG attack for example (I think I remember having read that Erik Mona or James Jacobs wanted to do that for PF but it was impossible due to backward compatibility).
I think that's one of the reason why some (a majority?) people don't like high lvls : It's much much much too heavy.
So please .... too many rules kill the fun and the flow and the RP.