Here's a newbie question for you:
Is Pathfinder here for the long haul?
May sound like a silly question, but allow me to explain. I've been gaming since the 80's and have been through a few editions. I also advise the school rpg club where I teach. Now my FLGS owner wants me to run some sessions at the hobby shop to draw customers. He would kind of like to see a 4e Wednesday night encounters. Now, I've played 4e and more recently Pathfinder. PF is the game most of the kids at school prefer right now. So much so that it seems to be moving towards the club's de facto game. I could be okay with that, but one of the reasons I've shyed a bit away from 4e lately is that the platform is likely to change every 5 to 7 years or so. And what with them bringing Monte Cook on I smell an edition change on the horizon. I'd rather stick with one game for the long haul.
I know most people here are likely going to be PF devotees, but I'd like an honest opinion about what the word is from Paizo. PF seems to be the game on the ascendant now, and it's fanbase just keeps growing. But are they going to change things any time soon? No massive new rerelease of the core book or antything, eh? Knowing where that stands would make switching over to PF completely easier overall.
thanks for the input,
chris
They wouldn't tell you here if they had a plan to do that, but I think the ruleset is pretty solid for the foreseeable future because they have developed a business model that doesn't rely on rebooting the game to sell core books every couple of years (they are making lots of money on adventure paths and Golarion products, as well as books like Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, etc.).
I could handle a reboot as long as the reboot was very similar to PF. But the DnD 4e reboot was very different from 3.5 and who knows how similar a 5e reboot will be? Which in itself is okay I suppose. But the problem with a reboot to a very different ruleset is that none of the creative stuff we imagined under the old ruleset is applicable under the new ruleset. That's a real killer if not at least a major dampener on long term campaigns.
Seems to me PF has a good thing going and an ever increasing fanbase. Would be a shame to change philosophies, rulesets aside. I know a certain amount of rerelease is necesary to keep their capital up, but philosophy changing is a major game killer. And before you know it your trying to play an oop game again. I've been there, done that--it aint no fun.
thanks for the input guys,
chris
Here's a newbie question for you:
Is Pathfinder here for the long haul?
May sound like a silly question, but allow me to explain. I've been gaming since the 80's and have been through a few editions. I also advise the school rpg club where I teach. Now my FLGS owner wants me to run some sessions at the hobby shop to draw customers. He would kind of like to see a 4e Wednesday night encounters. Now, I've played 4e and more recently Pathfinder. PF is the game most of the kids at school prefer right now. So much so that it seems to be moving towards the club's de facto game. I could be okay with that, but one of the reasons I've shyed a bit away from 4e lately is that the platform is likely to change every 5 to 7 years or so. And what with them bringing Monte Cook on I smell an edition change on the horizon. I'd rather stick with one game for the long haul.
I know most people here are likely going to be PF devotees, but I'd like an honest opinion about what the word is from Paizo. PF seems to be the game on the ascendant now, and it's fanbase just keeps growing. But are they going to change things any time soon? No massive new rerelease of the core book or antything, eh? Knowing where that stands would make switching over to PF completely easier overall.
thanks for the input,
chris
Does it seem like the beginners box will be released at the end of the month just now if they were not going to support the system?
1. Paizo developers have repeatedly said that they don't envision anything like a second edition of PFRPG until the first edition has been around for at least a decade.
2. Because their business model is based on the sale of modules and APs, I can't see them releasing a ruleset that will invalidate their whole back catalog of material. That is, if a prospective PFRPG 2.0 is too different from the first ruleset, they'll be stuck with a warehouse full of PFRPG 1.0 material that they'll be eating.
Honestly, their business model is the main problem I see them having with a potential 2nd edition. They either have to develop it undercover and spring it on fans who have been blithely buying 1.0 material (which rules out another open playtest and would lead to massive unrest) or build up a big enough financial cushion that they can afford to not sell APs and modules while the new ruleset is under development.
I am quite sure the system will stay the same, there will be only minor changes (more like expanded errata, layout changes). After all, it is not that different from 3.5.
It seems to me that compatibility with existing material is somehow an important part of paizo's design philosophy.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a history here that is solid, and actions on the part of PAIZO that have the kind of integrity gamers want/need and help build for the long hall.
In short:
2006 PAIZO finishes a five year glorious contribution to Dungeon and Dragon magazines as publisher when the license is pulled. Eric and the team begin Pathfinder Chronicles in v.3.5
2007 Eric Mona is undecided about supporting 4e; Long thread online of supporters encourage PAIZO to go forward and be stewards of the traditions and history of the game, continuing in the footsteps of Gygax/Arneson; During this time the smells of 4e were leaking out and it looked like the game was going to lack traditional tropes as well as lose vancian magic system and other significant alterations would be made to things unnecessarily like the alignment system and certain races
2007 Winter; An iron clad GSL (Game System License demands that any 3pp destroy v.3.5 inventory; GSL demands any 3pp writing for 4e must give up their in perpetuity clause of the OGL (Open Game License)
2007-2008 The GSL by wotc is revised, but its too late and the damage to gamer fan base is irrevocably done; the 4e system marketing pushes aside long time gamers, saying this is not your fathers d&d; flash animations by wotc show a red dragon dropping turd on a troll who is posting dislike for 4e, and the marketing backfires. Meanwhile all the .pdfs of 1e D&D are culled from sales anywhere on internet, suggesting a major departure from the old traditions and also appearing like a hostile "hiding of the past" in attempts to force a new video-game like dnd on the populace; meanwhile wotc forces gamers to pay for online content and makes half-rate dungeon/dragon online content too pricey without quality.
2007-2008 After playtesting/previewing 4e; PAIZO decides they will continue their brand in the v.3.5 version, and since previous October Jason Bulmahn begins making refinements to v.3.5
2008-2009 More than 50,000 gamers playtest and provide feedback on Pathfinder RPG. I know, I was one of them.
2009-2010 wotc designers like Mearls pay platitudes to things like rust monsters on their blogs, but their efforts seem hollow and contrived as though appearing to love the old games yet sounding like two-faced marketing for the new system. The d20 licence logo is also revoked by wotc-forcing several 3pp (third party publishers) to go under or suffer out-of-business effects.
2009-2011 Pathfinder RPG is lavishly designed with the traditions and history of the game in mind, while still appearing fresh, fun, and provides something interesting for all the classes at all levels. Artwork and writing is top-shelf quality, along with print/publishing.
2012-2018 The core rulebook is built to last. And subsequent supplements offered through the subscription model. This scrappy company has made business decisions over the past 5 years, suggesting that they care deeply about the game, and gamers. At each turn, the company listens to suggestions and offers by gamers to get what they want/need at their gaming table. Pathfinder RPG is acclaimed as perhaps the very best version of dungeons and dragons ever made, while 4e is found out to be a half-rate version, written hastily in the huff of Hasbro demands for more gamist design, as well as poor R&D and marketing delivered by its company toward legacy gamers, in an attempt to market the "new" game under the same name as previous versions, although 4e lacks the very heart of D&D. Meanwhile each winter, just about Thanksgiving time, massive lay-offs at wotc suggest to gamers that game designers there are used and abused just to put out the recent "new shineys" without the substantive heart of quality and tradition.
Pathfinder RPG has all the very best of the Monte Cook "high is good" d20 system, all the elements allowed under the OGL, and all the quality that Gygax/Arneson would have wanted to see put into the game. The game is dedicated to them on its first page, and the behavior of PAIZO has been supremely stellar.
I attest that just on my end, I've introduced more than 35 gamers to Pathfinder RPG since the Alpha1, Alpha2, and Beta Playtest versions. Now, in my area, those who play role playing games are playing Pathfinder RPG. The game can be played as my old "guru" friend does, with a bit of handwaiving and DM fiat, just as 1st edition was played. The game can also be played with as much grandiose grandeur that AD&D 2nd edition provided, as one can easily run Rod of Seven Parts or any AD&D 2e feel games. And finally, as is my enjoyment, the game can be played RAW (rules-as-written) with much enjoyment of the v.3.5 feel, only better. The game can be played with or without miniatures, though plays fun and interestingly with miniatures, floor tiles, and all the trappings one can afford. The games accessories are smart; from the combat pad to the condition cards. The game's card accessories make for great treasure handouts, and the quality of game balance is there for most "gamist" style players. The Narrativist or the Simulationist also can get everything they want out of Pathfinder RPG.
The question of longevity, and the duribility of PFRPG imho is a great question. And as someone who's watched this enterprise grow from the seedling ideas of making a few tweaks to v.3.5 all the way to the many optional supplements, guides, maps, card, rulebooks, and online support... I can say that I project this endeavor will continue, as it was built-to-last right from the very start. PFRPG seemed destined for greatness for the long haul from the start, because its makers like Bulman, Mona, Cook (who consulted on the Beta Playtest and Core Rulebook), Jacobs (and his endless pool of creative ideas) and later Reynolds and the rest of the team, are deeply dedicated to making the highest quality game for the gaming community that the gamers ask for, want, and play.
This is imho for once, the world set-right e.g. a game company that listens carefully to gamers, provides high quality usable materials for them, and still shapes and guides the game not with the almighty dollar as their first goal, although profit is naturally important to any company. It would seem, based on the past 1000 data points I've read, heard, and spoken with PAIZO staff about, that the endurance of Pathfinder RPG is attributed to the love of the game that the designers share, Lisa Stevens (CEO of PAIZO shares), and that the gamers who purchase and read and play the game can SEE is inherent in the great game design, and lavish publications.
Thanks for taking the time to read these quick thoughts of mine. Thanks for asking if PFRPG is a long-haul kinda game. Just as the game takes 2 or more players normally, I would say its the partnership of the PAIZO gaming community that supports and works with PAIZO that makes this edition the game for our times and the future.
Sincerely,
Pax Veritas (just a game player, like any other)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks everyone. I really appreciate the replies. It is what I needed and wanted to hear. I always had heard that Paizo was very invested in its supporters: they know what side their bread is buttered on. But more than that, the fact that they are gamers and run their business with gamers in mind makes me feel much more secure. I too would love to see instead a new release of alternate campaign worlds instead of a new system.
And one of the reasons I really like PF is that I can still use almost all of my 3.5 books as written. If PF 2.0 ever comes out I trust I will be able to say the same about all of my PF 1.0 books. Good point that PF is very close to 3.5.
Very much appreciated. You've made my decision much easier. Great crowd here. This is my first time posting and you've really helped out.
-Chris
I don't want to see a departure edition any time soon, and I have no reason to expect Paizo will make one. There's nothing about the rules that requires a new and different version, that's been borne out by the whole story of Pathfinder.
I do think the CRB is a bit unwieldy in terms of presentation -- a lot of things are in the wrong place, poorly-worded legacy rules, and wasted space or incomplete table systems abound. I know the designers are aware of this, they must have learned quite a bit from the making of the beginner box.
If they announced a revised edition that presented the existing rules more effectively, I would welcome it. The rules can stay, but the CRB itself is a beast that needs to be wrangled if it is going to attract and hold a new wave of gamers.
I severely doubt any such release would invalidate the dozens of PF adventures and sourcebooks that Paizo stocks.
If they really start to feel a drag in sales, they might opt instead for a smaller change: just launch a second campaign world to march alongside Golarion. (Imagine what they could do if they got hold of one of the old TSR worlds. Planescape or Dragonlance or some such.)
I feel confident that Paizo is run by gamers who know business - rather than accountants who claim to know gaming. The 4th Edition launch (and I'm not bad-mouthing the edition, now: I didn't like it but I didn't hate it) was the sort of decision you get from a guy who knows more about business than he does about gamers.
I think paizo said they will not launch a second game world because it would split the people who play in each world into buying different books with smaller print runs means each print run costs more.
I'm good with that. I love Golarion. I was referring more to introduction of a new world instead of a major rule reboot. I would prefer the former. But it sounds like what everyone is saying here is that PF is good to continue their current interation for the next 7 or 8 years and even when they do realease 2.0 they'll do so keeping it backwards compatible. _That_ I like.
Ever notice how in RPGs, "new edition" means "incompatible with everything older than itself"? I suppose Microsoft's to blame. Before computers, a new edition meant that the same material had been re-edited ("edit ...ion") to make it better-organized and easier to use. I use a Third Edition Webster's dictionary, but that doesn't make the Second Edition useless - it's just not as easy to use.
Within that definition of 'edition', I'd quite enjoy seeing a new edition. Perhaps something bound in fake leather - my core book, despite being fairly sturdy, is just too darn thick for a cardboard spine to have a really good lifespan.
I would tend to disagree with that definition. Even in the educational work new "editions' of books often contain updated or completely revised material if needed. Historical textbooks (where details of history are often points of contention) are the best example, although Mathematics and Literary manuals can be subject to change as well. For example the "edition" change in many geological textbooks back when plate tectonics was adopted by the majority would be classified as a "major change".
The Mechwarrior RPG holds closer to the (A)D&D model of editions, with changes from 1st, to 2nd, to 3rd being rather deep.
It depends on how much 'change' is needed. Even dictionaries are not simple reprints and often have to include new colloquial (some times derogatory) uses for words. You may notice in many text books that they are not in fact new editions but merrily revisions.
Personally for the RPG industry I would currently use the following terms,
Printing: A particular run of physical copies, which may/may-not include minor Errata such as the removal or addition of a few words to provide increased clarity.
Revision: A rewrite of the current edition which goes beyond word revision, and either restructures the information presentation, changes makes significant (paragraph sized) alterations to rules, or the like. The current revision to the Stealth rules under playtest are an example. This often includes incorporating additional rules from supplemental sources or brining the Core book into line with current printing methodology.
Edition: Once enough major revisions have occurred to the rules, either in revisions or through supplements, a new edition is needed to collect those in a central place for both new an old players. Done organically, long term players shouldn't really notice many changes in their games (because they're already using most of the rule changes already). Unless there is a shift in the game design philosophy.
In D&Ds own past the shift from 1e to 2e had the "we're not demonic, see" design issues. 2e to 3e was a big change in the mechanics, most notably the "Roll High", unified XP chart, basically the d20 system vs "Classic D&D". 4e as noted had both some major design changes and trope/fluff changes making it the biggest jump in the history of the game. Pathfinder may be coming up to a revision in a few years. The number of additional experimental sub-rules in the Adventure Paths, different class mechanics in RPG supplements, and the chance to dig into the presentation aspects due to the Beginner Box all give Paizo some things to work on in a future Revision. None of the changes are drastic enough to warrant a new Edition, which would be a serious enough to break any hit of "just run it" backwards compatibility with 3.5.
=====
Speaking to "long haul", considering everything Game System wise Paizo has published to date is almost wholly licensed and declared "Open Content", granting 3rd parties the right to republish, it quite literally cannot be killed save an apocalyptic ending of civilization. Even if Paizo suddenly had collective seizure or something and went loony, rewriting everything on the assumption that the game was about eating Smurfberries, it could still continue and even be picked up by another publisher albeit under a different name.
Partly this is why when WotC kept fumbling with the GSL I really totally walked away from 4e D&D. The very nature of the GSL would allow (and likely will) WotC/Hasbro to pull any and all 4e Edition content out of the market, save for the hardcopy already printed. They can kill 4e anytime they need to make a new Edition profit bump.
Ever notice how in RPGs, "new edition" means "incompatible with everything older than itself"? I suppose Microsoft's to blame. Before computers, a new edition meant that the same material had been re-edited ("edit ...ion") to make it better-organized and easier to use. I use a Third Edition Webster's dictionary, but that doesn't make the Second Edition useless - it's just not as easy to use.
Within that definition of 'edition', I'd quite enjoy seeing a new edition. Perhaps something bound in fake leather - my core book, despite being fairly sturdy, is just too darn thick for a cardboard spine to have a really good lifespan.
I would tend to disagree with that definition. Even in the educational work new "editions' of books often contain updated or completely revised material if needed. Historical textbooks (where details of history are often points of contention) are the best example, although Mathematics and Literary manuals can be subject to change as well. For example the "edition" change in many geological textbooks back when plate tectonics was adopted by the majority would be classified as a "major change".
The Mechwarrior RPG holds closer to the (A)D&D model of editions, with changes from 1st, to 2nd, to 3rd being rather deep.
It depends on how much 'change' is needed. Even dictionaries are not simple reprints and often have to include new colloquial (some times derogatory) uses for words. You may notice in many text books that they are not in fact new editions but merrily revisions.
Personally for the RPG industry I would currently use the following terms,
Printing: A particular run of physical copies, which may/may-not include minor Errata such as the removal or addition of a few words to provide increased clarity.
Revision: A rewrite of the current edition which goes beyond word revision, and either restructures the information presentation, changes makes significant (paragraph sized) alterations to rules, or the like. The...
Of new math textbooks they often change the problems around at least recently at college level. They do this so to do the homework problems you have to buy a new book and not a used one. The math has not really changed.
Of new math textbooks they often change the problems around at least recently at college level. They do this so to do the homework problems you have to buy a new book and not a used one. The math has not really changed.
Sorry, I keep forgetting that most folks here are college+ when they think "education" where I think K-12 because that's where my job is. Changes in standards, shifting views on how "best" teach basic skills, and more can cause some serious shifts in textbooks over the years. Garb a Houghton Mifflin grade level book from today, 10 years ago, 20 years, 50 years, and you'll see how much can change without changing the underlying information.
According to Simon Wardley, the economist I do not think there is any guarantee of how long it will last as we are well in to the commoditization phase of OGL's cycle. The best guess is we will see a new innovation spring-boarding from the OGL that will become the new development point. I think the surge of indie/ story games is the homemade innovation phase of the curve co-existing with the commodity aspect of the current mature curve.
Of new math textbooks they often change the problems around at least recently at college level. They do this so to do the homework problems you have to buy a new book and not a used one. The math has not really changed.Sorry, I keep forgetting that most folks here are college+ when they think "education" where I think K-12 because that's where my job is. Changes in standards, shifting views on how "best" teach basic skills, and more can cause some serious shifts in textbooks over the years. Garb a Houghton Mifflin grade level book from today, 10 years ago, 20 years, 50 years, and you'll see how much can change without changing the underlying information.
I don't think the information has really changed all that much. Some of the problems might have changed. I never paid much attention to what edition a book was when I was in k-12 even though it was not that long ago for me only a junior in college. Let alone laws that require textbooks to be upgraded. Also AP classes use college level. I did not really get to look at many different gradebook editions since all students had the same edition. I could not really compare them.
|
I definitely think that Paizo will still be selling a recognizable PF long after 5e has been released. Too much of Paizo's business plan relies on adventure sales to blithely invalidate their previous products by making too drastic of changes to the base rules.
I expect that somewhere 3-5 years down the road, Paizo will meld CRB and APG into a single volume, likely including some UC and UM material. It makes sense than all character creation rules should be in one volume. If done correctly, the new volume will remain compatible with the old books and any changes will be available in errata which will be freely available for download.
I definitely think that Paizo will still be selling a recognizable PF long after 5e has been released. Too much of Paizo's business plan relies on adventure sales to blithely invalidate their previous products by making too drastic of changes to the base rules.
I expect that somewhere 3-5 years down the road, Paizo will meld CRB and APG into a single volume, likely including some UC and UM material. It makes sense than all character creation rules should be in one volume. If done correctly, the new volume will remain compatible with the old books and any changes will be available in errata which will be freely available for download.
That book would be huge.
That book would be huge.
They could split all the spell information and magic item information into another volume. The resulting book would be manageable then :)
Reprints of the core rules in new formats? Blatant cash grab.
Not if it's presented as such (though a pure rerelease in a new format would be unlikely, imo).
I'd agree with you if it was 90% repeated content with 10% new stuff.
That book would be huge.
I want that book more than anything now.
Fair enough. I've never claimed to be not-dense. :)
|
I think Paizo plans to not have a 2E before a good decade or so of Pathfinder PRG 1E. So we're looking at about 2020 for Pathfinder 2E.
That being said, I'll buck the trend here and say that I hope Pathfinder 2E IS a substantial change. As cool as Pathfinder RPG is, it's still handicapped by the 3.X / d20 system in many ways. It attempted some fixes, but these are really just band-aids.
As for the argument that it makes their previous library completely obsolete...I don't really think that's true. There's people that play 0E, 1E, and 2E; as well as the various incarnations of Basic D&D. A new retro-clone seems to fall out of the internet every few weeks. Hell, Pathfinder itself could be classified as a retro-clone. Just because a game moves on to a new edition, that doesn't mean that players will no longer play that edition anymore. They might even (shock horror!) play both Pathfinder 1E and Pathfinder 2E.
There's also the fact that the Player's Companion and Campaign Setting lines have a much higher percentage of flavor as opposed to mechanics. So they will continue to be useful even if the game system changed dramatically. Hell, some people already use the various Pathfinder books to play in Golarion under different systems...sometimes vastly different. I've seen people talk about playing in Golarion under True20, Savage Worlds, BRP/RuneQuest, and Warhammer FRP.
1. Paizo developers have repeatedly said that they don't envision anything like a second edition of PFRPG until the first edition has been around for at least a decade.
2. Because their business model is based on the sale of modules and APs, I can't see them releasing a ruleset that will invalidate their whole back catalog of material. That is, if a prospective PFRPG 2.0 is too different from the first ruleset, they'll be stuck with a warehouse full of PFRPG 1.0 material that they'll be eating.
Honestly, their business model is the main problem I see them having with a potential 2nd edition. They either have to develop it undercover and spring it on fans who have been blithely buying 1.0 material (which rules out another open playtest and would lead to massive unrest) or build up a big enough financial cushion that they can afford to not sell APs and modules while the new ruleset is under development.
I think you make a lot of excellent points, but I don't know if the situation would be as extreme as that. As it is now, there are people who buy Pathfinder APs who don't actually play Pathfinder RPG. They convert them to whatever system they're using--I've seen a lot of people say they use Pathfinder APs for 4th Ed, and I think I've seen at least one person say they adapt them to GURPS. Other people collect them for the art and ideas but don't play them.
While backwards compatability IS a concern to take into consideration, I think Paizo could reasonably convert to a new system without having a huge impact on rendering past games useless. After all, the earliest APs and modules are 3.x, and while there IS conversion work necessary (and not as easy to do as sometimes is assumed--the backward compatibility really only goes so far), they're still valued, I think. There might need to be a transitional period--maybe one AP is published with both rulesets accounted for (probably a pain to produce, but doable). And I don't think it would need to be done hush hush--any more than the conversion from 3.5 to Pathfinder was. Yes, even if PF2E is more notably different from its predecessors.
There might need to be a transitional period--maybe one AP is published with both rulesets accounted for (probably a pain to produce, but doable).
The precedent is already there from WotC using AEG's Legend of the Five Rings setting for the oriental adventure 3.5 setting. Numerous books were made with mechanics for both game systems. I have no doubt it was a pain but can make transitions smoother in the case of a new game system.
I could handle a reboot as long as the reboot was very similar to PF. But the DnD 4e reboot was very different from 3.5 and who knows how similar a 5e reboot will be? Which in itself is okay I suppose. But the problem with a reboot to a very different ruleset is that none of the creative stuff we imagined under the old ruleset is applicable under the new ruleset.
I won't repeat the "PF will be around for 10 years before there will be a new edition" reassurances that Paizo themselves have given.
Damn, I just did.
Anyway, I want to address the part I quoted. 4e did indeed change in a more extreme way than any other edition. Other editions invalidated rules. 4e invalidated stories (they even had to butcher their Flagship campaign setting to make it fit the new rules).
I highly doubt Pathfinder will ever do this. Look at how it transitioned from 3.5 to PF without doing it. PF2e will probably come one day, and might even be more than a bit different from PF1e - but it will remain similar enough that you can still tell all the old stories.
So, I know I have seen staff members say a number of times that they are not working on 2nd Ed yet and have no immediate plans to. That being said, I think we will see a new edition earlier, with some time arround 2015. I do not see this as a bad thing.
Ther are a couple reasons for this. The big one is that designers like to play with systems to make them better. Sometimes they will just be playing with an old rule as a distraction, working on a FAQ, or messing with something in their home game to make it work better. They will want to include these changes in the offical game, and that is hard to do. Alternatively, they will see house rules in the forums they like. Look at the stealth rules for an example, with them doing a blog beta test. Where will they store/update these rules? If it just stays forever as a blog, how many people will end up using those rules? You hit a much larger audience with a new book, and an even larger one with core rules, but then you have major errata that work significantly differently. When they have a significant set of rules built up, how confusing will it be to have people with different revisions? You don't want people to get to the point where they think a purge is nessessary, so pre-emptively purging with a new eddition is a good thing.
A second major reason is revenue. Core rule books sell better than other books. Once sales of the core rule book slow, they will want to replace that revenue stream, and the best way to do that is with a new revision. This is less of a problem for Paizo, since their primary revenue stream is their APs, not their rules, but it is a consideration. At the same time, because of their APs, they will want to keep things as close to compatible to the orriginal system as possible. This also holds true for more obscure rules supliments that they will not want to reproduce. The Stronghold Builder's Guide is still a good 3.0 book that sees use in Pathfinder games, and Orriental Adventures worked fairly well in 3.5, despite being for 3.0. They filled the niche and were still sold, reducing the need for rules for the new edition.
In the end, I think what we will see with 2nd Edition Pathfinder is mostly an updated rules set. I expect them to add more flexibility into the rules, allowing them more ability to add things. For instance, the APG adds some neat new combat manuevers, but these are hard to encorporate into play because of the feat requirements to do them well. Streamlining those feat chains would allow them to add all sorts of new abilities in expansions without constraining players in a way that those options will rarely be taken. Additionally, some of the things that are not working as intended will be revisitted.
|
|
I expect that somewhere 3-5 years down the road, Paizo will meld CRB and APG into a single volume, likely including some UC and UM material. It makes sense than all character creation rules should be in one volume. If done correctly, the new volume will remain compatible with the old books and any changes will be available in errata which will be freely available for download.That book would be huge.
When and if they do it, I expect the CRB will split into the old paradigm of PHB and DMG. Cleaning up the presentation would be a good thing, but as long as everything is accessible through the PRD, it doesn't force anyone to buy the updated books.
A second major reason is revenue. Core rule books sell better than other books. Once sales of the core rule book slow, they will want to replace that revenue stream, and the best way to do that is with a new revision. This is less of a problem for Paizo, since their primary revenue stream is their APs, not their rules, but it is a consideration.
I'm sure at some point in the future they'll come out with something that's not Pathfinder 1.0 ... but that's so far off that it's irrelevant as far as 5e is concerned.
My big question is whether WoTC will enlarge or shrink their market share if they go to 5e, and whether Paizo's market share will enlarge or shrink as a result.
After seeing the unveiling of the Beginner's Box, I have to say that it's still not a simple game. Simpler than full Pathfinder, perhaps, but the way I see it, if two non-gamer parents were to get a copy of the Beginner Box for their kids who had never played an RPG before, the box would be opened and poked through, the two huge rulebooks would be leafed through, and it would sit in a closet.
I think we need a beginner's version of the beginner's box :)
I'm curious how far the shrinking of the rule set can go. If we assume a game that only supports first level characters, I bet it could be shrunk even more. But the challenge is to create a set of rules that someone could pick up blind and have a chance of playing. I'm talking HeroQuest or HeroScape here, or even the old blue box, which had what, 32 pages of rules total? And even HeroScape had "beginner" and "master" rules.
I do think the Beginner Box is great for an existing gamer. I think it's still a steep learning curve for a true beginner. I bet a true beginner box would be Paizo's best reaction to 4e - a game that would address the perceived (and in my opinion actual) complexity of the system.
Edit: Har. Can anyone tell I thought I was in the "5e" thread? :)
But either way, the points are still valid; I don't see Paizo making a new edition for a long while. I do hope they create an even simpler version of the rules, though. Even though a board game might be a loss leader, Pathfinder as a name is nothing compared to Dungeons & Dragons. Many, many people recognize Dungeons & Dragons (though not usually D&D), nobody except gamers recognizes Pathfinder.
After seeing the unveiling of the Beginner's Box, I have to say that it's still not a simple game. Simpler than full Pathfinder, perhaps, but the way I see it, if two non-gamer parents were to get a copy of the Beginner Box for their kids who had never played an RPG before, the box would be opened and poked through, the two huge rulebooks would be leafed through, and it would sit in a closet.I think we need a beginner's version of the beginner's box :)
I know the begginers D&D that I learned on in the mid 90s had 100 pages or so. I think the beginners box is in about the same line.
Unless the design goals change, I imagine that any new edition of Pathfinder would have backwards compatibility as one of the goals of the system. I imagine playing 1st edition rules with these theoretical second edition modules would be about as easy as playing 3.5 rules with current modules - some conversion issues, but overall pretty easy to handle.
Of course, the hypotheticals don't really matter since there's no reason to believe a new edition is on the immediate horizon. Pathfinder has a slower release of rules than D&D, meaning that there's still a ton of area to expand for the next few years. Moreover, it would be pretty foolish of Paizo to be releasing a high-quality basic set if they had secret plans for a new edition in the foreseeable future.
|
|
Pathfinder has a slower release of rules than D&D, meaning that there's still a ton of area to expand for the next few years.
I dunno about a TON more areas. WotC's guiding principle seemed to be that if someone had an idea that could be expressed in a complete sentence or more, they would pump out a 256 pg book on the subject. Pathfinder seems to be a bit more selective. And let's tell the truth and shame the devil...UM and UC aren't anywhere near as good as the APG. Most of the areas I personally would want to see them focus their attention are areas that they've made fairly clear they have little to no interest in working on [steampunk/tech book, psionics (although Dreamscarred fills this quite nicely), etc].
Unless the design goals change, I imagine that any new edition of Pathfinder would have backwards compatibility as one of the goals of the system.
I think that design goal will change.
PFRPG (1e) is basically a revision. It's 3eRR, or 3.75, if you want. It's not quite where new editions of D&D went. It was not meant to, because the current edition's time was not yet up (by current edition, I mean 3e). All it needed was fine-tuning, which Pathfinder delivered.
I think that when PFRPG 2e comes along, it will be like a new edition:
The old rules will probably not be compatible (at least not without non-trivial work). However, it will not be a new game either, i.e. the spirit of the rules will be kept.
The reason for the latter part ("spirit compatibility") is that many feel that 4e has failed at it and went to Paizo and their game because Paizo succeeded at it. They won't be eager to annoy their fans by going the same route.
I imagine playing 1st edition rules with these theoretical second edition modules would be about as easy as playing 3.5 rules with current modules - some conversion issues, but overall pretty easy to handle.
I don't think they'll do another "revision"-type edition that only does fine-tuning. I'd say that if they go and make a new edition, they'll go the whole nine yards and make the fixes they think the game needs, even if the rules aren't compatible any more.
I dunno about a TON more areas. WotC's guiding principle seemed to be that if someone had an idea that could be expressed in a complete sentence or more, they would pump out a 256 pg book on the subject. Pathfinder seems to be a bit more selective.
I believe either James Jacobs or Eric Mona posted a wishlist of things they'd like to do books on in the future, and while not huge it was sizable enough to carry the game for a few more years as long as they remain with the model of two rulebooks plus a monster book per year, give or take. And should any new supplements prove popular, they could easily spawn more expansions. Should an epic-level book sell well, for instance, there's no reason to believe that there wouldn't be some followup.
And let's tell the truth and shame the devil...UM and UC aren't anywhere near as good as the APG.
I agree with this, but I also don't think that Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat were bad, either. I think it's more a case of the Advanced Player's Guide being truly excellent and hard to top. But in terms of rulebook stuff, there's also items like the GameMastery Guide, which was very useful and well-done and whose format could be cribbed from for further books. Not everything needs to be extremely rules-intensive like the three player's option books.
I think that when PFRPG 2e comes along, it will be like a new edition:
Given the history of the game, a new edition doesn't necessarily mean incompatibility. oD&D, basic D&D, and both editions of AD&D are all pretty compatible with one another. 3rd and 4th edition are the two outliers in that area, but I don't think it's a given that a new edition of Pathfinder would want to go that way and rebuild the system from the ground up. Sure, certain items would have to change dramatically (such as the Stealth rules, which are already being tweaked), but the system as it stands now is solid. There are areas where options can be added and clunky rules can be streamlined, of course, but no areas that I see that scream out a desperate need for an overhaul.
Of course, if Paizo for some reason decides that they want to part ways with the OGL and do their own thing, then I could see the game changing dramatically. But barring a situation like that, I think they would be better served by providing revision rather than an overhaul. Pathfinder doesn't have the same brand recognition as D&D, and I don't think it would weather a dramatic change to the rules as well as 4th edition did.
I guess my question would be: where does the game really need a big overhaul? I can see combat needing some work, but the basics of class structure, the skill system, et cetera all feel pretty solid to me. Sure, I'm not a game designer and maybe lack an imagination when it comes to changing rules around, but unless there is a real need to tear apart the rules and start over, I don't see why a future Pathfinder edition would need to jettison a large chunk of what is already there.
Back to the actual topic of the thread, if you're right and a new Pathfinder edition would be a dramatic change, that would probably mean a longer development time and more time with the current edition. And given Paizo's trend of doing open playtests with their rules, we wouldn't be left guessing about potential changes nearly as much as we were in the buildup to 4th edition D&D.
And given Paizo's trend of doing open playtests with their rules, we wouldn't be left guessing about potential changes nearly as much as we were in the buildup to 4th edition D&D.
To be completely fair, WotC's playtest of 4E might have been, at the time, the biggest beta/playtest of a gaming system ever. If not, it certainly ranks up there. I know a lot of people who were asked to playtest it and I'm sure I would have as well if I wasn't at the end of a few year period of being burned out on gaming.
(Granted, it doesn't seem like the feedback of the people I know made much of a dent, and I don't know if that's because they were outliers or because WotC decided they weren't going to start again from scratch.)
Pathfinder's later wide-open beta, it wasn't, true, but in its time it was a pretty substantial playtest.
|
This is just my own personal pet theory based on how I have taken some of the posts and comments by paizo staff over the past few years.
I think the PF 2.0 will be out in 7-10 years after the first one. Mostly cause I think by then they will be hitting the limit for the support they can bring to the game.
PFRPG 2.0 I think will be another step, a slightly bigger step from PFRPG 1.0 than it was from DnD 3.5 but only a slightly bigger step. Enough that likely PFRPG 1.0 stuff could be used with some reasonable modification and updates but likely to much for 3.5 to still be updated or at least making it for most people not worth the effort.
Perhaps a bigger step to address some of the under laying math issues the game has at higher levels. But I think it will still play and feel much the same way PFRPG does now and 3.5 did before it.
This of course is just my own personal musing on the topic.
Invalidating old flavor material isn't necessarily a feature of a new edition. Whatever it's flaws, one big advantage 4E has is the ease of DM preparation. Hence it's very easy to run Paizo APs or modules and to use their flavor material even though the systems are substantially different.
If PF2 were also built with a view to making the DM's job simple and quick, converting old APs and so forth could well be a minor issue.
The biggest thing I see that needs improvement still is the presentation of pretty much everything in the core book after the races and classes. As it stands, the system is remarkably complete overall, but it can be extremely frustrating to find related pieces of information. My one hope for PF 2.0 is that they completely scrap the current format, and figure out one with a better flow to it. If they do that, accessibility will double without changing a single rule.
|
That book would be huge.I definitely think that Paizo will still be selling a recognizable PF long after 5e has been released. Too much of Paizo's business plan relies on adventure sales to blithely invalidate their previous products by making too drastic of changes to the base rules.
I expect that somewhere 3-5 years down the road, Paizo will meld CRB and APG into a single volume, likely including some UC and UM material. It makes sense than all character creation rules should be in one volume. If done correctly, the new volume will remain compatible with the old books and any changes will be available in errata which will be freely available for download.
Yeah - Imagine dropping that an your bare foot!! :D
To be completely fair, WotC's playtest of 4E might have been, at the time, the biggest beta/playtest of a gaming system ever. If not, it certainly ranks up there. I know a lot of people who were asked to playtest it and I'm sure I would have as well if I wasn't at the end of a few year period of being burned out on gaming.
(Granted, it doesn't seem like the feedback of the people I know made much of a dent, and I don't know if that's because they were outliers or because WotC decided they weren't going to start again from scratch.)
Pathfinder's later wide-open beta, it wasn't, true, but in its time it was a pretty substantial playtest.
Oh, I'm certainly not bashing WotC for the way they playtested 4th edition D&D. I knew about as much about 4th edition as I did 3rd edition prior to it coming out. I'm just saying that in a hypothetical Pathfinder 2e, the tendency of Paizo to do an open playtest is a huge advantage because it allows people to get a more complete idea of what the system will look like.