POLL: Do You Want A New Edition of Pathfinder? (From Erik Mona's Interview)


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 321 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:


I'm not sure we have an example of a selling an RPG twice with no changes. We do have plenty of examples of reselling an RPG with moderate to heavy changes, and from the looks, they tend to do very well. 3.0 -> 3.5, nWoD -> The God Machine, oWoD (which was out of print and no longer supported) -> the 20th Anniversary editions, WotC rereleasing the 1st-3rd Edition core books, which as I understand all sold pretty well. Even Paizo and Pathfinder have rereleased their Core book in what 5 different "printings" editions, and by all accounts their fanbase and sells keep growing exponentially.

Too bad White Wolf is still going ahead with a new edition and rereleasing the core with the GMC stuff inside and a whole new set of core books. http://theonyxpath.com/the-world-of-darkness-second-edition/ Notice that nowhere do they mention that the new edition is backwards compitble.

I get your point. Except their is a difference between a reprint of the core and working on another edition. With a new edition some in the hobby expect something new. If it's a rehash people will not buy imo. Not everyone has 100$ to invest in a core and a Besitiary with no changes. Who unless they are truly a huge fan of the system and company. Half my gaming table has yet to buy the core. Why bother when the free SRD is up. The Apps are cheaper.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Too bad White Wolf is still going ahead with a new edition and rereleasing the core with the GMC stuff inside and a whole new set of core books. http://theonyxpath.com/the-world-of-darkness-second-edition/ Notice that nowhere do they mention that the new edition is backwards compitble.

For what it's worth, the new stuff is vastly superior to the original nWoD system on basically every level. I should know, since I've worked on Vampire: The Requiem 2nd (a.k.a. Blood & Smoke), Werewolf, Demon, Mage, and now I'll be on Changeling, as well. The system works much better for its setting and genre with the new change. Each game line even has its own refinements to better define the original goals and themes. The games are selling very well because a lot of the future Chronicles treatments (I'm having a hard time getting used to being allowed to call them "2nd editions") were dependent on the success of previous ones.

It's a good time to be a World of Darkness fan!

Shadow Lodge

BigDTBone wrote:
The CRB is in its 6th printing. The revisions are a by-product of that, not a cause. The printings 1-5 sold out.

I meant in the sense of original +5 new printings. The important part is that they include all of the new errata and rules changes, so are not just "reselling the same book with no changes". I guess the difference is that Paizo has decided to do this, incorporate their errata and clarifications into the next printing rather than issue them as an attachment sort of PDF like WotC and other companies tended to do.

The point being really that it depends on what you view as a new edition at to just how much of that we have already had from Paizo. If you mean it more as a completely new game and system, then little to none, and I think almost everyone here agrees that it's not what they want.

It however you take a new edition to mean the same system, but updated, streamlined, and fixed, but all in all still the sameish game, I think a lot more people might be on board.

Particularly if you remember that it's probably going to be a whopping $9.99 US, (or $40-50), and not $100s+.


memorax wrote:
It's interesting how those who do not want any change or little expect Paizo to work on then sell such a edition. Why would I or anyone else buy it. If there is nothing new. Why even waste time or effort on playtesting what is essentially a rehash. Good luck trying to sell the same game twice by the way.

It would be good for new players. It won't decrease sales of the CRB, as people who already own it won't be buying another copy of the existing book anyway. A new CRB - just like the existing CRB - would mostly be sold to new players.

Any rule revisions could just be included in a small free pdf for download.

A new CRB makes sense if for no other reason than to improve the quality, layout, readability and various fixes.
The CRB is the gateway to the whole game, so Paizo should be putting their best foot forward quality-wise to help sell the game to new players.

Shadow Lodge

memorax wrote:
Too bad White Wolf is still going ahead with a new edition and rereleasing the core with the GMC stuff inside and a whole new set of core books. http://theonyxpath.com/the-world-of-darkness-second-edition/ Notice that nowhere do they mention that the new edition is backwards compatible.

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here? The article does mention hat it has been altered, so maybe you read the original one and it was different. But from the article:

"It’s been ten years since the new World of Darkness debuted at Gen Con 2004. With a decade of experience creating and running these games, we’re in a great position to improve them."

"the difference between the two was academic, and the success of that book proves there’s demand for updates."

"No rules or setting will change, and Blood and Smoke won’t be outdated."

All sound pretty amazing to me. And this is coming from a company that is actively supporting two fully separate gamelines at the same time.

The nWoD doesn't really need to be "backwards compatible", per se, as the nature of it's system is extremely kitchen sinky and filled with optional rules already. From he looks of it, though, it's seems to imply pretty strongly that it will not invalidate older material, and will simply incorporate 4 books down into 2. But, with the nWoD, the base assumption is that there is a single core book for all the basic rules for all games, (the "blue book") and that each individual game, (Vampire, Mage, etc) also has it's one main book that builds upon the basic rules for that particular game line, but within the main system.

Both the "blue book" and the Vampire line had a major book come out that gave new options and mechanics to bring them more in line with the other game lines, (the God Machine Chronicles and Blood and Smoke). This is somewhat similar to maybe the APG for the "blue book" and then Ult Magic and Combat for VtR. The main issue is that, Vampire is the most popular of all the WoD games, and it came out first. As the other lines came out, they had the opportunity to learn from the mistakes and advantages of VtR, and incorporate new ideas, (many of which really work very well for VtR, but as it came out before those new concepts, had not been included).

So nWoD 2E seems to focus on finally incorporating the newer smoother rules from the later books into the core system for both nWoD blue book and VtR. Something that fans have been asking for for a long, long time.

Disclaimer, I'm not actually a fan of the nWoD, but to me, this sounds freaking amazing, and something I will absolutely give a shot, and might just become one finally.


Lady Redfield wrote:
For what it's worth, the new stuff is vastly superior to the original nWoD system on basically every level.

Get rid of the god-machine, and I'll at least give it a chance.

Shadow Lodge

Lady Redfield wrote:
It's a good time to be a World of Darkness fan!

I certainly sounds that way!!! :)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeven wrote:


It would be good for new players. It won't decrease sales of the CRB, as people who already own it won't be buying another copy of the existing book anyway. A new CRB - just like the existing CRB - would mostly be sold to new players.

What stopping them from buying cheaper older copies of the current edition then using the SRD or the free PDF as you mention to take what they need of the new rules. Were talking about a 50-60$ purchase. Not many gamers want to spend that money again just for a few new houserules tossed into the core. Gamers are also cheap as well. You want to bet the first thing that will be said as a complaint that it's more of the same.

Jeven wrote:


Any rule revisions could just be included in a small free pdf for download.

They should and knowing Paizo they will. Were not guaranteed that they will.

Jeven wrote:


A new CRB makes sense if for no other reason than to improve the quality, layout, readability and various fixes.
The CRB is the gateway to the whole game, so Paizo should be putting their best foot forward quality-wise to help sell the game to new players.

It still has to be worth the 5o-60$ of purchasing the same material again. I like organized well written core books. I'm not going to buy the same book again because of it. Not unless 30%+ of the material is new. With the free SRD and Apps the core is not the only geteway to the game. I have a APP that for five or is it six dollars I have the entire catalog of hardcovers. With the exception of the ACG. Let's not forget 5E as well. Unlike 4E it seems to have been better received by the fans at least so far.

@ Devils Advocate. You used WW to point out that how edtions are not needed. They are doing a new one. So using them as a comparison is not a good one. Call what you want it is a new edition. With Exalted, Scion and Trinity Contimuum all being rereleased. With a new core and the core WW lines all getting new core books imo it is a new edition. Why rerelease all the core books if it was not at least different enough to do so. Not that it's a bad thing I enjoy WOD. I call it what it is.


Pan wrote:
memorax wrote:
Keep a very tight rein on those who are very vocal who attempt to sabotage the playtest. Permabanning them if need. We don't need another core playtest debacle imo.
So those who diasgree with you are "sabotaging" the playtests and should be permabanned?

Well if there is a public playtest, and someone's only contribution is "don't change anything ever", then they are not being at all helpful to the process, and their input essentially becomes empty noise.

Incidentally, my vote is Yes on a new edition of Pathfinder. 3.x was a mess before the Pathfinder RPG, and PF has steadily grown into a bloated, tumorous mass. I think they need to completely break the game down and rebuild it from scratch without 3E D&D assumptions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:


Incidentally, my vote is Yes on a new edition of Pathfinder. 3.x was a mess before the Pathfinder RPG, and PF has steadily grown into a bloated, tumorous mass. I think they need to completely break the game down and rebuild it from scratch without 3E D&D assumptions.

That is what the traditionalists do not want - we got into Pathfinder because it was a continuation of 3.5. We wanted to keep playing that game... with tweaks and improvements. You change the game to ignore those assumptions, and it is a vastly different game... and one I know I wouldn't play. A great deal of why I like PF is that it is built on that chassis.


Lady Redfield wrote:
memorax wrote:
Too bad White Wolf is still going ahead with a new edition and rereleasing the core with the GMC stuff inside and a whole new set of core books. http://theonyxpath.com/the-world-of-darkness-second-edition/ Notice that nowhere do they mention that the new edition is backwards compitble.

For what it's worth, the new stuff is vastly superior to the original nWoD system on basically every level. I should know, since I've worked on Vampire: The Requiem 2nd (a.k.a. Blood & Smoke), Werewolf, Demon, Mage, and now I'll be on Changeling, as well. The system works much better for its setting and genre with the new change. Each game line even has its own refinements to better define the original goals and themes. The games are selling very well because a lot of the future Chronicles treatments (I'm having a hard time getting used to being allowed to call them "2nd editions") were dependent on the success of previous ones.

It's a good time to be a World of Darkness fan!

Have they finally admitted that Exalted 3E is vaporware?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Mhoram wrote:
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:


Incidentally, my vote is Yes on a new edition of Pathfinder. 3.x was a mess before the Pathfinder RPG, and PF has steadily grown into a bloated, tumorous mass. I think they need to completely break the game down and rebuild it from scratch without 3E D&D assumptions.
That is what the traditionalists do not want - we got into Pathfinder because it was a continuation of 3.5. We wanted to keep playing that game... with tweaks and improvements. You change the game to ignore those assumptions, and it is a vastly different game... and one I know I wouldn't play. A great deal of why I like PF is that it is built on that chassis.

That chassis is a clunky old beater and it needs to be retired.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

A new edition is a new game.

If I wanted a new game, there are plenty to chose from.

No thank you.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:
That chassis is a clunky old beater and it needs to be retired.

That chassis is a reliable and adaptable platform and it needs to be preserved.

See? It's easy to just say things and pretend their true, or at least universally true. The only word in your post that is factually accurate is "old". If old is a bad thing, feel free to let us know when you're done digging the new Grand Canyon, then we'll look at a new PF edition.

Sovereign Court

Its times like this I really wish folks could find a reliable source of players for multiple systems. Since there is only room for one of the worlds greatest TTRPG(s), its a total dog fight over how the one to rule them all has to be developed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

so wait! We're not digging a new grand canyon then?

I just got my shovel:(


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Not yet. Eventually. Every game system eventually shows its age, gets bloated, etc. The "3.5 back compatibility" restriction is becoming less important year over year, as the new Pathfinder Unleashed hints at. 4e was a fiasco but 5e has a lot of on-target stuff to reclaim a big chunk of the user base - the Golarion world and AP adventures are the big competitive advantage for Paizo, not the rules.

In probably another 2 years, there will be about as much rules for Pathfinder 1 as anyone can/should ever read and/or use. At that point, taking a look at the chassis and heck, back-stealing from 5e to make higher level play better, etc. would be a good plan (and 3.5 compat would be less important than easy 5e porting).

Of course those wanting 3.5e grognardism will still have 500 lbs. of sourcebooks to choose from, and new Golarion lore etc. will still be usable by them.


kaboom! wrote:

.

YES

.

Pathfinder's rules are a bloated, complicated mess. Our group has to STOP PLAYING every two minutes to look something up, and we're sick of it. The only reason I'm still playing is to humor the GM, who loves this game. If it was up to me we'd be switching to something playable, like 5E or Savage Worlds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Mhoram wrote:
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:


Incidentally, my vote is Yes on a new edition of Pathfinder. 3.x was a mess before the Pathfinder RPG, and PF has steadily grown into a bloated, tumorous mass. I think they need to completely break the game down and rebuild it from scratch without 3E D&D assumptions.
That is what the traditionalists do not want - we got into Pathfinder because it was a continuation of 3.5. We wanted to keep playing that game... with tweaks and improvements. You change the game to ignore those assumptions, and it is a vastly different game... and one I know I wouldn't play. A great deal of why I like PF is that it is built on that chassis.

Right. I switched to PF as I wanted to play D&D.

Now there's nothing wrong with wanting a classless system, or non-Vancian or no alignments- but there's plenty of games out there that have those.

Most of them languish covered with dust on the 40% off shelf at your FLGS. Actually some of them are quite good, nevertheless, and deserve a try for those that dont like the core assumptions of PF.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Neon Sequitur wrote:
kaboom! wrote:

.

YES

.

Pathfinder's rules are a bloated, complicated mess. Our group has to STOP PLAYING every two minutes to look something up, and we're sick of it. The only reason I'm still playing is to humor the GM, who loves this game. If it was up to me we'd be switching to something playable, like 5E or Savage Worlds.

I don't have this problem, and most of my players in more than one group don't either. What your statement means is that PF may not be the game for you, but that does not make it a "mess". As for the GM, offer to run a game for him under another system. That is how I got introduced to Mutants and Mastermind, and Shadowrun.


Lord Mhoram wrote:
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:


Incidentally, my vote is Yes on a new edition of Pathfinder. 3.x was a mess before the Pathfinder RPG, and PF has steadily grown into a bloated, tumorous mass. I think they need to completely break the game down and rebuild it from scratch without 3E D&D assumptions.
That is what the traditionalists do not want - we got into Pathfinder because it was a continuation of 3.5. We wanted to keep playing that game... with tweaks and improvements. You change the game to ignore those assumptions, and it is a vastly different game... and one I know I wouldn't play. A great deal of why I like PF is that it is built on that chassis.

You know you wouldn't like to play a hypothetical Pathfinder 2, even though we (obviously) have little idea what it would be like? Shouldn't you at least wait until we see Pathfinder Unchained for some sort of hint of what it might be like?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

NO NEW PAFFINDER VERSION. IT IS AWESOME AS IS RIGHT NOW!! JUST MORE SUPPLEMENTS!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
jasin wrote:
Lord Mhoram wrote:
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:


Incidentally, my vote is Yes on a new edition of Pathfinder. 3.x was a mess before the Pathfinder RPG, and PF has steadily grown into a bloated, tumorous mass. I think they need to completely break the game down and rebuild it from scratch without 3E D&D assumptions.
That is what the traditionalists do not want - we got into Pathfinder because it was a continuation of 3.5. We wanted to keep playing that game... with tweaks and improvements. You change the game to ignore those assumptions, and it is a vastly different game... and one I know I wouldn't play. A great deal of why I like PF is that it is built on that chassis.
You know you wouldn't like to play a hypothetical Pathfinder 2, even though we (obviously) have little idea what it would be like? Shouldn't you at least wait until we see Pathfinder Unchained for some sort of hint of what it might be like?

I for one KNOW that if I wanted to play a game without Vancian magic and without a 1-20 leveling system with the same core classes that do basically the same things that no, I would not play that game.

Or if that's what I wanted I would play any of the dozen of games out there that meet that description.


YES YES YES. It is awesome, but it should be better. Please start a second version and publish it ASAP.

Also, can you break the WotC connection? It seems you have enough proprietary material to let Pathfinder RPG run on its own (and finally bury WotC once and for all.)

Edit: Can a purely Paizo IP version of Pathfinder RPG put WotC down for the count? If so, publish it now.


Kevin Mack wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
These forums, despite the opinion of some, aren't really any better than any others. There have been a few threads where I've had the entire Paizo Defense Force rise up and tell me to GTFO, that my opinions were unwelcome, and that I should leave these forums and not return sine I have the temerity to prefer some other system to Pathfinder.
The "Paizo Defense Force" is definitely a thing. Unfortunately.
To be fair while it is a thing it's a thing that in my experiance most game systems (or game companies) seem to have to various degrees Shadowrun has it, exalted has it 4e had it etc

Really, it's not even limited to gaming systems, it seems to be part of fandom in general. If it has fans, some of those fans will become ridiculously fanatical about defending it from any perceived attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

I for one KNOW that if I wanted to play a game without Vancian magic and without a 1-20 leveling system with the same core classes that do basically the same things that no, I would not play that game.

Or if that's what I wanted I would play any of the dozen of games out there that meet that description.

Maybe this hypothetical Pathfinder 2 would keep Vancian magic and a 1-20 leveling system? I'd even say it's probable. Do you know you wouldn't want to play it even so?


No. Not needed.

Isn't that what Piazo did here (UNCHAINED) ?

Right?

Plus, changing the game or simplifying it won't really bring in new players <cough>Voldemort Edition<cough>.

We all know that the way we got involved was the moment we showed the slightest interest in what those guys at the back table were doing and they said; "No, we can't tell you what we're doing but we'll show you how to play. Here, sit down and take this NPC. He's the flunky to Ryan's cavalier there... Here, you can borrow my extra dice."

sigh The good old days.


Quark Blast wrote:
<cough>Voldemort Edition<cough>.

What does that even mean?


Scavion wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
<cough>Voldemort Edition<cough>.
What does that even mean?

It's the edition-that-shall-not-be-mentioned because it sparks edition wars. But it's also proof that changing up the rules serves little purpose for the long-term success of a game/game company.


No. I like the rules, I would be happy to see new re edits of all the books to clarify things, because as far as I know that hasn't happened for a bit, but I like it how it is.


Quark Blast wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
<cough>Voldemort Edition<cough>.
What does that even mean?
It's the edition-that-shall-not-be-mentioned because it sparks edition wars. But it's also proof that changing up the rules serves little purpose for the long-term success of a game/game company.

? There are tons of good and bad things about every edition. 4e has good ideas just like Pathfinder, 5th, and every edition has had.

Quite honestly, the only proof of anything it shows is that homogenization is bad.

Or in other words, 4e fallacy. Any kind of change will result in 4e. It's a discussion nonstarter brought up to decry any attempts to change the status quo.

A simplified system has merit. If I wanted to get someone into TRPGS, I wouldn't introduce them via Pathfinder.


jorunkun wrote:

Well - what I'd like to see is a cleaned-up core rules book. Reduce complexity, cut bloat, add the most popular options from later books. A sort of compendium / best-of approach.

Would buy. :)


Quark Blast wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
<cough>Voldemort Edition<cough>.
What does that even mean?
It's the edition-that-shall-not-be-mentioned because it sparks edition wars. But it's also proof that changing up the rules serves little purpose for the long-term success of a game/game company.

I think at best it could be called evidence of that. Then again, look at the 2E->3E transition. I don't think it's that simple.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jail House Rock wrote:

YES YES YES. It is awesome, but it should be better. Please start a second version and publish it ASAP.

Also, can you break the WotC connection? It seems you have enough proprietary material to let Pathfinder RPG run on its own (and finally bury WotC once and for all.)

Edit: Can a purely Paizo IP version of Pathfinder RPG put WotC down for the count? If so, publish it now.

Absolutely, unequivocally not possible for Paizo to "put WotC down." D&D could disappear tomorrow, and WotC would continue merrily along with Magic.

Besides, why would you want such a thing? Enjoy people being laid-off? Think competition is bad? :P


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
jasin wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

I for one KNOW that if I wanted to play a game without Vancian magic and without a 1-20 leveling system with the same core classes that do basically the same things that no, I would not play that game.

Or if that's what I wanted I would play any of the dozen of games out there that meet that description.

Maybe this hypothetical Pathfinder 2 would keep Vancian magic and a 1-20 leveling system? I'd even say it's probable. Do you know you wouldn't want to play it even so?

No? I don't want to Buy Core rules 2.0 APG 2.0, ARG 2.0, Ultimate Equipment 2.0, Ultimate Combat 2,0, Ultimate Magic 2.0, Ultimate Campaign 2,0, Beastiry 1-4 2.0 just to get back to what I have NOW.

I'm very exited about the NEW content coming next year though. I'd much rather keep buying more new material for this pathfinder. I'm not buying new edition reprints, that stuff already clogs my bookshelf from the other times I had to switch.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

no


Scavion wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
<cough>Voldemort Edition<cough>.
What does that even mean?
It's the edition-that-shall-not-be-mentioned because it sparks edition wars. But it's also proof that changing up the rules serves little purpose for the long-term success of a game/game company.

? There are tons of good and bad things about every edition. 4e has good ideas just like Pathfinder, 5th, and every edition has had.

Quite honestly, the only proof of anything it shows is that homogenization is bad.

Or in other words, 4e fallacy. Any kind of change will result in 4e. It's a discussion nonstarter brought up to decry any attempts to change the status quo.

A simplified system has merit. If I wanted to get someone into TRPGS, I wouldn't introduce them via Pathfinder.

SIGH

So I repeat - Isn't that what Piazo did here (UNCHAINED) ?

Just what you want, right? A good way to introduce new players.

Quoting the promo blurb; "Delve into a new system for resolving player actions designed to speed play and dispel confusion. Many of the new systems (such as the revised classes) work seamlessly with the existing Pathfinder rules. Even the most staunchly traditionalist player will appreciate the book's math-lite system..."

Otherwise I submit that they will only do themselves harm.

Oh, and the "4E fallacy" isn't a fallacy. If 4E had been doing so well why did they drop it in it's relative youth? With only four years of serious support and another few months of tepid promo it died youngest of the editions - especially if you count 3.5 as errata for 3.0, as seems reasonable to do. And without the push to 4E, PF would never have gained the traction it has. Paizo, Necromancer and Kobold all owe a great debt to the (unintentional) 4E-Booster Rocket to their relative success. IMO.

Or maybe it was the OGL that launched them and PF got a secondary big boost from dropping 3.5 support at WotC?

Whatever. Not trying to start an edition war here and it doesn't really matter for my point. Which is, that if Piazo goes all 2E for PF then they are going to create more problems than solutions. I think PF Unchained (linked above) is the best move they can make.


I'm as happy with Pathfinder as I was with 2e before I knew how to be picky.

The hunger for new editions, when you boil it down, is a hunger for rewrites of the classes. They could write a book anytime they wanted called, "Ultimate Base Classes," and put just anything they want in it. The classes aren't balanced as it is. If they put another class that was exactly the same as the Fighter but had a better REF save and 2 more skill points, I'd spend 40 bucks on the books just for that.


I would prefer to not have a new Pathfinder version seeing as how this could have negative effects just as it did with WotC. As I am a little worried about bloat, I don't feel the system needs to be completely over-hauled for this. Lord knows there are other systems that have done their own thing.

The question is, though, how does one continue to publish new material for a gaming system that is now officially 5 years old? I would prefer for them to not take the route of just publishing a whole bunch of junk to try for some kind of mass appeal with maybe one feat in there that gets you to slap down 30 to 40 dollars like the 3.5 stuff was doing, or hopefully not downplaying martial and skill areas for more magic. Stuff like PF Unchained sounds like a better way to go (though I was hoping Cavalier would have been on the list for altered classes).

It's obvious that Paizo is printing off some different avenues to take PF with things like the Technology Guide if you want some strange sci-fi/fantasy mash-up. I don't have a problem with this as it confines it more to a book so it can be completely ignored if you don't want it.

My personal hopes would be a book that would offer more for a low-magic world where you could do more mundane to experimental things with weapons and fighting styles rather then relying as much on Magi-Mart if you want to take PF to that area.


4e fallacy is just another kind of false dilemma. Balance does not lead to homogenized systems inherently. It has nothing to do with the financial success of said gaming system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:


SIGH

So I repeat - Isn't that what Piazo did here (UNCHAINED) ?
Just what you want, right? A good way to introduce new players.

No. "Unchained" is paizo testing the water with a not-backward-compatible rules system before deciding to publish the new Pathfinder 2e. If it catches on, they'll begin targeting content to that not-backward-compatible rules system. See what they did there?

Thus, it is only a matter of time before Pathfinder 2e is given the green light. Because, as you said, it is a good way to introduce new players to the game -- which is one goal of the new Pathfinder 2e rules.

Coming sooner, rather than later to a retail store near you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
Lady Redfield wrote:
For what it's worth, the new stuff is vastly superior to the original nWoD system on basically every level.
Get rid of the god-machine, and I'll at least give it a chance.

That's easy enough to do, you know. The God-Machine doesn't have to be an inherent part of the game. It was used to make a fun default setting for mortal games and a background detail for others, but none of the other game lines really mention it. Even Mage, which deals most with high cosmology stuff, doesn't really get into it.


bugleyman wrote:
jorunkun wrote:

Well - what I'd like to see is a cleaned-up core rules book. Reduce complexity, cut bloat, add the most popular options from later books. A sort of compendium / best-of approach.

Would buy. :)

The new Pathfinder 2e rules will also be designed to attract new players. In order for the industry to grow it has to attract new players.

So, this will be *one* of the design goals of Pathfinder 2e.


Quark Blast wrote:
Oh, and the "4E fallacy" isn't a fallacy. If 4E had been doing so well why did they drop it in it's relative youth? With only four years of serious support and another few months of tepid promo it died youngest of the editions - especially if you count 3.5 as errata for 3.0, as seems reasonable to do. And without the push to 4E, PF would never have gained the traction it has. Paizo, Necromancer and Kobold all owe a great debt to the (unintentional) 4E-Booster Rocket to their relative success. IMO.

Or in other words, "Edition X failed because it was a mistake, but edition Y was honorably retired because Reasons." People have been arguing over why editions 'fail' and what qualifies as errata vs. a new edition and whatnot for years, but the only thing we know is: It's all speculation. We don't know the particulars of why which edition gets discontinued, or why some last longer than others. Edition changes can happen as a result of unmet revenue goals, designer changeovers, or any number of reasons. We don't know.

So yes, using 4e as an argument against new editions is very much a fallacy. Likewise, calling it the 'Voldemort Edition' is undeniable edition-warring, which is all the less reason to take anything you say seriously.

Shadow Lodge

Lady Redfield wrote:
I should know, since I've worked on Vampire: The Requiem 2nd (a.k.a. Blood & Smoke), Werewolf, Demon, Mage, and now I'll be on Changeling, as well.

So what can you tell me of my upcoming Jyhad Diary???

Lady Redfield wrote:
It's a good time to be a World of Darkness fan!

It certainly seems that way after the Gen Con recording I just heard.


Lord Mhoram wrote:
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:


Incidentally, my vote is Yes on a new edition of Pathfinder. 3.x was a mess before the Pathfinder RPG, and PF has steadily grown into a bloated, tumorous mass. I think they need to completely break the game down and rebuild it from scratch without 3E D&D assumptions.
That is what the traditionalists do not want - we got into Pathfinder because it was a continuation of 3.5. We wanted to keep playing that game... with tweaks and improvements. You change the game to ignore those assumptions, and it is a vastly different game... and one I know I wouldn't play. A great deal of why I like PF is that it is built on that chassis.

Those assumptions lead to classes that are either obsoleted by classes released at a later date or that are obsoleted as you climb in level. We've already seen the end of Pathfinder's life with the end of 3.5. Sadly, I think the assumptions made by 3e have been too pervasive as anything that goes against them is put down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:
That chassis is a clunky old beater and it needs to be retired.

That chassis is a reliable and adaptable platform and it needs to be preserved.

See? It's easy to just say things and pretend their true, or at least universally true. The only word in your post that is factually accurate is "old". If old is a bad thing, feel free to let us know when you're done digging the new Grand Canyon, then we'll look at a new PF edition.

The 3E system is an unwieldy, bureaucratic mess that punishes newer and more casual gamers, and rewards obsessive, antisocial deckbuilders...by design. This is why my group(s) are happily dropping PF in favor of D&D 5E, and we're not the only ones.

It's not that 3E/PF is "old" exactly, it's that the game is getting obsolete. Bloated, rules-heavy games are a relic of the 90's. People want fast, streamlined and user-friendly rules rather than burying themselves in esoteric minutiae (and let me cut off your inevitable 4E comparison right here; 4E is by no means a "rules lite" game; it merely took much of 3E's complexity and moved it somewhere else). What Pathfinder needs, is a revision to take it into the direction of the beginner's box while fixing 3E's problems, which have been well documented at this point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:
Anguish wrote:
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:
That chassis is a clunky old beater and it needs to be retired.

That chassis is a reliable and adaptable platform and it needs to be preserved.

See? It's easy to just say things and pretend their true, or at least universally true. The only word in your post that is factually accurate is "old". If old is a bad thing, feel free to let us know when you're done digging the new Grand Canyon, then we'll look at a new PF edition.

The 3E system is an unwieldy, bureaucratic mess that punishes newer and more casual gamers, and rewards obsessive, antisocial deckbuilders...by design. This is why my group(s) are happily dropping PF in favor of D&D 5E, and we're not the only ones.

It's not that 3E/PF is "old" exactly, it's that the game is getting obsolete. Bloated, rules-heavy games are a relic of the 90's. People want fast, streamlined and user-friendly rules rather than burying themselves in esoteric minutiae (and let me cut off your inevitable 4E comparison right here; 4E is by no means a "rules lite" game; it merely took much of 3E's complexity and moved it somewhere else). What Pathfinder needs, is a revision to take it into the direction of the beginner's box while fixing 3E's problems, which have been well documented at this point.

Huh. I had no idea that's what I wanted. Thanks for letting me know. Here I was thinking I was perfectly happy with Pathfinder as it stands.

Oh wait. I am perfectly happy with Pathfinder as it stands, and if I want more streamlined games, I have those options on my shelf as well.

I'd rather not have a second edition just yet.

Interesting to note that I wasn't aware that I'm an obsessive, antisocial deckbuilder either. The things you learn...


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
These forums, despite the opinion of some, aren't really any better than any others. There have been a few threads where I've had the entire Paizo Defense Force rise up and tell me to GTFO, that my opinions were unwelcome, and that I should leave these forums and not return sine I have the temerity to prefer some other system to Pathfinder.
The "Paizo Defense Force" is definitely a thing. Unfortunately.
To be fair while it is a thing it's a thing that in my experiance most game systems (or game companies) seem to have to various degrees Shadowrun has it, exalted has it 4e had it etc
Really, it's not even limited to gaming systems, it seems to be part of fandom in general. If it has fans, some of those fans will become ridiculously fanatical about defending it from any perceived attack.

Paizo has a very devoted fanbase, but that devotion is based on two things: The quality of their adventure paths, and wotc hate.

The exodus of half the D&D fanbase to pathfinder was never about the system itself, it was about punishing wotc for 4E. It wasn't enough for people to just keep playing 3E; they wanted 3E to beat 4E in the marketplace and thus prove them RIGHT. Well, mission accomplished. 4E threw in the towel in 2012, and 5E adheres to many of the traditions that the previous version jettisoned. 5E is an apology that is reclaiming a lot of goodwill or wotc, while Pathfinder is essentially an already burnt effigy. I think that the player base will start to dwindle away until paizo either A)comes out with a 2nd edition; one that jettisons the backwards compatibility with 3E; or B) starts making products for wotc again. It can't just be the same game until the heat death of the universe and hope to survive.


Hiram_McDaniels wrote:
Anguish wrote:
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:
That chassis is a clunky old beater and it needs to be retired.

That chassis is a reliable and adaptable platform and it needs to be preserved.

See? It's easy to just say things and pretend their true, or at least universally true. The only word in your post that is factually accurate is "old". If old is a bad thing, feel free to let us know when you're done digging the new Grand Canyon, then we'll look at a new PF edition.

The 3E system is an unwieldy, bureaucratic mess that punishes newer and more casual gamers, and rewards obsessive, antisocial deckbuilders...by design. This is why my group(s) are happily dropping PF in favor of D&D 5E, and we're not the only ones.

It's not that 3E/PF is "old" exactly, it's that the game is getting obsolete. Bloated, rules-heavy games are a relic of the 90's. People want fast, streamlined and user-friendly rules rather than burying themselves in esoteric minutiae (and let me cut off your inevitable 4E comparison right here; 4E is by no means a "rules lite" game; it merely took much of 3E's complexity and moved it somewhere else). What Pathfinder needs, is a revision to take it into the direction of the beginner's box while fixing 3E's problems, which have been well documented at this point.

Let's not look to the past, let us look to the future.

251 to 300 of 321 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / POLL: Do You Want A New Edition of Pathfinder? (From Erik Mona's Interview) All Messageboards