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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 321 of 321 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Yes, I agree a new version is already being designed by Paizo Publishing. They are good at this.

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 among many.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tinkergoth wrote:
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.

Citing observable trends is a far cry from playing "thought police" and this is just passive-aggressive hyperbole. Definitely not something the gaming community needs more of.

Tinkergoth wrote:
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.

The reverse is also true: if a revised Pathfinder comes out, you still have the Pathfinder you're happy with and an unholy amount of material for it. You wouldn't exactly be left wanting for material.

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

Hiram also used some aggressive hyperbole, but the basic point is true: the game was deliberately designed to reward optimization and system mastery, and punish a casual, "what looks like fun" approach. The engine runs on math that falls down in more than a few places. While experience with the system can let you ballpark things more accurately, for example, you can't accurately build and determine the CR of a monster with the system as presented. The underlying math and rules do not work properly.

Putting together a smoother, more functional core system doesn't have to mean an end to complexity. I like rules meat I can sink my fangs into; there's a difference between "streamlined" and "indie-level rules light." The existence of a second edition so cleaned up could help bring in fans; my whole group stands as one example. It doesn't deny existing fans access to their material, and it might pave the way for new generations of sourcebooks and players.

Heh, though it'd be funny if Pathfinder did a second edition, and the some other third-party Pathfinder'd 1E Pathfinder...


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
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.

I never said 3.5 was retired for "honorable" reasons. It died from splat-bloat near as I can tell. How many rule books do you need? Not that many for sure. Though some players liked all that... and the Collector-types, they liked it too.

Piazo is, rightly in my mind, playing both sides with PF. Lots of splat if you want it. Lots of APs if you don't. Or both if you swing that way. PF Unchained looks to me like a PF 1E rules-lite edition or maybe PF 0.5 :D

The non-revocable OGL hamstrung WotC because they couldn't make money off of the Module/Adventure/AP angle. Too many good ideas already published and made available at very lean pricing (or even free).

With 4E WotC tried to control everything and ended up marketing a game with a far narrower interest base. Yes it got new players in but... it tended not to keep them and it pushed far too many existing loyalists (now former loyalists) to look for content elsewhere. Mostly they went for PF.

BTW - Calling 4E the Voldemort Edition is an intentional joke on my part aimed at the Edition-war-minded folks out there. A lighthearted poke at the absurdity of that attitude if you will. My way of keeping "the messageboards a fun and friendly place". ;)


Tinkergoth wrote:
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...

You're not "people", you're a forumite.

Of course you don't care about the bloated system of 3E, because you're into this stuff enough to hang out here arguing about it on the internet. That's not a value judgment, by the way...I'm doing the exact same thing.

Neither you nor I are indicative of the player base at large, because the vast majority play every couple weeks or so, and then put their books away and don't even think about D&D/Pathfinder until the next game night. Only about 20% of the fan base is hardcore enough to come discuss rules on the internet.

The problem is that 3E/PF is not written or THEM, the majority of players...it's written for the relative handful of hardcore players who lock themselves up with stacks of books and master the system.


Lady Redfield wrote:


Heh, though it'd be funny if Pathfinder did a second edition, and the some other third-party Pathfinder'd 1E Pathfinder...

I believe that Pathfinder retains the right to revoke their licensing agreement with third party vendors whenever they wish, so I doubt this would happen.

It could be done through the OGL, but I don't believe anyone is dumb enough to pay for 3rd edition a THIRD time out of sheer spite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:
Lady Redfield wrote:


Heh, though it'd be funny if Pathfinder did a second edition, and the some other third-party Pathfinder'd 1E Pathfinder...

I believe that Pathfinder retains the right to revoke their licensing agreement with third party vendors whenever they wish, so I doubt this would happen.

It could be done through the OGL, but I don't believe anyone is dumb enough to pay for 3rd edition a THIRD time out of sheer spite.

I would. And I'm not dumb. I like 3.X If Paizo is publishing a new wave rules lite (I read as "useless") system I'll go to whoever dedicates themselves to continuing the legacy of 3.X

And I technically paid for 3.5. . .5 times so far (3 3.5 PHs, PF Core plus Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:

I believe that Pathfinder retains the right to revoke their licensing agreement with third party vendors whenever they wish, so I doubt this would happen.

It could be done through the OGL, but I don't believe anyone is dumb enough to pay for 3rd edition a THIRD time out of sheer spite.

Sadly, I can see it happening. I've encountered more than my fair share of "fans" who spit vitriol at anyone who doesn't feel the exact same way as they do. Often those who want to change anything. There's a subset of 3.x/PF fans who remind me of diehard Palladium fans in the worst way. Changing anything about their beloved system is tantamount to a personal attack on them, and they respond with hateful invectives. It makes me reluctant to venture outside the borders of the well-moderated RPGnet.

At any rate, I would personally like to see what Paizo can do with their production values and enthusiasm on a second edition. One that's cleaned up, revised, more accessible and more flexible in keeping with modern trends. I think it'd be amazing, but it seems like the loudest fans clamor for things to stay exactly the same. I guess we'll see if Paizo ever listens to those who want to see innovation.

I tell you, after Paizo's treatment of Distractedelf, I want to support them as much as possible. They seem like very cool people. Alas, I don't have the time or energy to try to hammer a 3.x derivative into something usable for me, so my Pathfinder book sits unused. But I pay attention, and hope beyond hope that some day they'll take the game in a direction I'd use.


Hiram_McDaniels wrote:
...but I don't believe anyone is dumb enough to pay for 3rd edition a THIRD time out of sheer spite.

Not out of spite but the Collector-types will.

EDIT

Thank you Nathanael Love for making my point ;)

And I agree. You're not dumb. Gotta spend money on something. What's the point of dying rich?


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

Guys, can we dial back the edition warring, and accept that some people actually like 3E and Pathfinder, just like some people actually like 5E, 4E, 2E, 1E, etc.

Right now we are flying towards a thread lock...


MMCJawa wrote:

Guys, can we dial back the edition warring, and accept that some people actually like 3E and Pathfinder, just like some people actually like 5E, 4E, 2E, 1E, etc.

Right now we are flying towards a thread lock...

I second that opinion.

And I do like them all but liking something and having it be marketable are two things that don't always run together.

<tangent>
I have a friend who's been writing since we were in grade school. He's written more, as a kid, than many a "best selling" author I'm sure. But I would gamble a whole lot of money that he won't ever hit the big time as an author. His style is too quirky.
</tangent>

Pulling this together. 4E was too quirky to sustain a long term ROI.


Quark Blast wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

Guys, can we dial back the edition warring, and accept that some people actually like 3E and Pathfinder, just like some people actually like 5E, 4E, 2E, 1E, etc.

Right now we are flying towards a thread lock...

I second that opinion.

And I do like them all but liking something and having it be marketable are two things that don't always run together.

<tangent>
I have a friend who's been writing since we were in grade school. He's written more, as a kid, than many a "best selling" author I'm sure. But I would gamble a whole lot of money that he won't ever hit the big time as an author. His style is too quirky.
</tangent>

Pulling this together. 4E was too quirky to sustain a long term ROI.

That's exactly what Quark Blast is trying to do -- get this thread locked.

Notice how his last post is a classic Troll Post, in that he agreed with you and then laid some bait.
I'm going to not feed him, and ignore it.

EDIT: I have flagged him.


Hiram_McDaniels wrote:
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.

For some. I don't and have never hated WotC. I just preferred the rules to 3.5 (then Pathfinder) to 4E. And to 5E. There isn't enough mechanical engagement for me in 5th Ed. And I've never played an adventure path.

I play Pathfinder because for a class/level based system, it has the best rules. I include much of 3PP in that as well. I don't play it for the setting, I don't play it for the adventures, I play it because I love the current rules system.

I am interested to see what Unchained brings. I don't mine new subsystems. But I don't want a full revised ruleset, especially a narrative or a simpler version.

Launch 2E with every class we currently have (including ACG) with the same depth of spell and feat choices as we have... I'll think about it. The depth of choices is part of what the appeal of PF is to me.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:
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.

I dont hate WotC, and outside of Age of Worms, could mostly care less about APs. None of them really catch me, though I will admit, destroying House Thrune (and maybe Cheliax if we are really lucky) and fighting Giants has got my attention.

In my opinion, Golarion as a setting is a bit meh, so its not the setting either. I hope one day they do another fantasy setting that throws all of Golarions basic assumptions out the window, personally.

In the end, I play Pathfinder because I liked 3E. Id actually play 3.5 over PF if I could. 4E, after playing for a while, I found just too lite and well, boring. It just wasnt for me. From what Ive seen of 5E, its looking like it might go the same way. Just not for me. Ill give it an honest go, but I dont plan on investing in it before hand like I did with 4th. If I play and turn out to like it, its a different story.

If PF 2E abandons the 3E system, I most likely will not continue. Which is ok. It will just no longer be something Im interested in. I do think you underestimate how many people like the d20 system or went to PF not because they hated 4E or WotC, or because they liked the APs, but just because they wanted to continue playing 3.5. It wasnt that WotC dared to make 4E, it was that they turned on their own fan base and condemned 3.5 fans when they tried to push 4E as such a superior game.

Im not interested in rules lite or mostly narrative games. Just not. They are not engaging enough, not satisfying, in my opinion.


Jail House Rock wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

Guys, can we dial back the edition warring, and accept that some people actually like 3E and Pathfinder, just like some people actually like 5E, 4E, 2E, 1E, etc.

Right now we are flying towards a thread lock...

I second that opinion.

And I do like them all but liking something and having it be marketable are two things that don't always run together.

<tangent>
I have a friend who's been writing since we were in grade school. He's written more, as a kid, than many a "best selling" author I'm sure. But I would gamble a whole lot of money that he won't ever hit the big time as an author. His style is too quirky.
</tangent>

Pulling this together. 4E was too quirky to sustain a long term ROI.

That's exactly what Quark Blast is trying to do -- get this thread locked.

Notice how his last post is a classic Troll Post, in that he agreed with you and then laid some bait.
I'm going to not feed him, and ignore it.

Uhhh... Except you just replied 8^\

On opening day I played 4E at the local game store. It was an ok experience but it felt pretty MMORG to me, what with all the shifting/sliding effects and other stuff. Later that summer I played with a longer lasting group that went through The Keep on the Shadowfell and into the next module (Stonefang Pass I think it was...) and we all had great fun!

Then I couldn't ever find a group that played 4E again. And then I noticed WotC stopped supporting it about four years in (2012). These observations, and the others I've already posted, lead me to believe WotC fouled out with 4E. To continue the metaphore, it seems pretty clear that Piazo hit a home run with PF, particularly their Adventure Paths.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jail House Rock wrote:


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.

I got into Pathfinder two years ago. I "am" a new player. Pathfinder attracted me despite running on a 10 years old legacy.


Nathanael Love wrote:
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:
Lady Redfield wrote:


Heh, though it'd be funny if Pathfinder did a second edition, and the some other third-party Pathfinder'd 1E Pathfinder...

I believe that Pathfinder retains the right to revoke their licensing agreement with third party vendors whenever they wish, so I doubt this would happen.

It could be done through the OGL, but I don't believe anyone is dumb enough to pay for 3rd edition a THIRD time out of sheer spite.

I would. And I'm not dumb. I like 3.X If Paizo is publishing a new wave rules lite (I read as "useless") system I'll go to whoever dedicates themselves to continuing the legacy of 3.X

And I technically paid for 3.5. . .5 times so far (3 3.5 PHs, PF Core plus Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed).

Ahh. So you're a religious fanatic.


I'm happy with the current game. No, do not 2e it.


Hiram_McDaniels wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:
Hiram_McDaniels wrote:
Lady Redfield wrote:


Heh, though it'd be funny if Pathfinder did a second edition, and the some other third-party Pathfinder'd 1E Pathfinder...

I believe that Pathfinder retains the right to revoke their licensing agreement with third party vendors whenever they wish, so I doubt this would happen.

It could be done through the OGL, but I don't believe anyone is dumb enough to pay for 3rd edition a THIRD time out of sheer spite.

I would. And I'm not dumb. I like 3.X If Paizo is publishing a new wave rules lite (I read as "useless") system I'll go to whoever dedicates themselves to continuing the legacy of 3.X

And I technically paid for 3.5. . .5 times so far (3 3.5 PHs, PF Core plus Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed).

Ahh. So you're a religious fanatic.

Ahhh... Danger of Thread Lock averted. I can go to sleep now.

_
\
O


Lord Mhoram wrote:


For some. I don't and have never hated WotC. I just preferred the rules to 3.5 (then Pathfinder) to 4E. And to 5E. There isn't enough mechanical engagement for me in 5th Ed. And I've never played an adventure path.

I play Pathfinder because for a class/level based system, it has the best rules. I include much of 3PP in that as well. I don't play it for the setting, I don't play it for the adventures, I play it because I love the current rules system.

I am interested to see what Unchained brings. I don't mine new subsystems. But I don't want a full revised ruleset, especially a narrative or a simpler version.

Launch 2E with every class we currently have (including ACG) with the same depth of spell and feat choices as we have... I'll think about it. The depth of choices is part of what the appeal of PF is to me.

Yeah. Some people love rules heavy systems. The clunkier and more cumbersome, the better. These are the people who prefer the Hero System to FATE or Savage Worlds. But these are the deep, deep diehard players, not the vast majority of the playerbase.

Maybe Pathfinder stays the way it is for ever and ever and ever, because that's what the diehard Paizo fans want. My prediction is that this ends with the gradual hemorrhaging of players until the hardcore, number-crunchy gamers are the only ones left playing 3E/PF. Then again, maybe this is the best thing for all parties concerned.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Locking for tonight until we're back in the office tomorrow and can properly sift through this. Just a quick reminder that we have absolutely 100% no desire to have edition wars take place on paizo.com.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

10 people marked this as a favorite.

After reading through every post in this thread, this one is going to remain locked. No posts have been removed because we would like it very clear as to why.

Dragging in drama from previous threads, making pointed statements about other community members, and accusing others of being trolls adds nothing to the conversation. Additionally, suggesting/alluding to physical violence, even in jest, towards any of our staff members (past or present), or anyone on paizo.com is unacceptable.

We take removing people from the community very seriously, and I'm not sure that assuming that we'll need to in any future playtests (regardless of what they are playtests for), is all that productive. Each one will be different and there are definitely some things we took away from the last one in how to handle various kinds of posts; don't assume it will be the same.

As I said in my previous post, edition wars just aren't something we're interested in hosting on paizo.com, and perhaps the result here is having that more clearly spelled out in our Community Guidelines soon. Hostility towards other publishers and games is not good for our hobby, and it can make other gamers who might have different preferences feel unwelcome. This includes passive references like "the Voldemort edition", purposefully obfuscating what game or company you're referring to, and disparaging comments about others who prefer those games.

I'd also like to nip this one in the bud: referring to others as the "Paizo Defense Force" has to stop. This is divisive, isolates others in the community, and is unproductive. If you're finding that specific people are causing problems, or you're noticing a trend that is making you feel unwelcome, please send us an email at community@paizo.com with the details. We can't read minds (or every single messageboard thread/post) so if there is a problem, please let us know so that we can investigate further.

Just recently, we revised our messageboard rules, and you can find them on the Community Guidelines page. Take a moment to read over it, step away from the situation, and remember that those you're interacting with on paizo.com are still people on the other side of the screen. Please be civil to each other, and flag and move on.

301 to 321 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