Normally I'd post this in the Third Party Product section but I think this effects a lot of us. I wrote an article over on my blog about what I call 'The Buy-In Dilemma'. So that you don't have to click on the link, the gist of it is that with a ton of books and especially with a ton of 3pp books there comes a point where moving away from Pathfinder or even moving to a new edition becomes less and less practical even if it was desirable. In the article I speak from the perspective of someone who has a lot of third party material and how they contribute to obsoleting reasons to get into a new edition but here I want to speak from the perspective of just the amount of books that Paizo puts out.
Does the amount of material make a new game or new edition less desirable or practical for you? I know that the answer is different for players that rely solely on d20pfsrd and have no third party material purchases but even then there is time invested in making the game work for you.
Does the game feel like it slowly solves it's own problems as more material is released? I know I got a lot out of Pathfinder Unchained, The Weapon Master's Handbook. I personally feel like the game shifts itself as time goes on.
Does the existence of the Beginner Box and the Strategy Guide contribute to making a new incompatible edition less useful by lowering the barrier of entry?
How do you feel about this 'dilemma' and are you okay with it?
Do you limit which books you use based on your campaign or the experience of your table?
How do you feel about this in regards to Pathfinder Society?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The barrier to entry for a rpg is minuscule compared to most games. The pathfinder core book contains most of what you need and with the proliferation of cheap PDF resources means you only need go beyond if you want to. Try taking up fishing, cycling or painting and see how much they set you bsck?!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah and given how easy it is to find rules from the new books online compiled neatly onto a webpage there really isn't a buy in dilemma unless you choose to ignore those websites.
Normally I'd post this in the Third Party Product section but I think this effects a lot of us. I wrote an article over on my blog about what I call 'The Buy-In Dilemma'. So that you don't have to click on the link, the gist of it is that with a ton of books and especially with a ton of 3pp books there comes a point where moving away from Pathfinder or even moving to a new edition becomes less and less practical even if it was desirable. In the article I speak from the perspective of someone who has a lot of third party material and how they contribute to obsoleting reasons to get into a new edition but here I want to speak from the perspective of just the amount of books that Paizo puts out.
Does the amount of material make a new game or new edition less desirable or practical for you? I know that the answer is different for players that rely solely on d20pfsrd and have no third party material purchases but even then there is time invested in making the game work for you.
Does the game feel like it slowly solves it's own problems as more material is released? I know I got a lot out of Pathfinder Unchained, The Weapon Master's Handbook. I personally feel like the game shifts itself as time goes on.
Does the existence of the Beginner Box and the Strategy Guide contribute to making a new incompatible edition less useful by lowering the barrier of entry?
How do you feel about this 'dilemma' and are you okay with it?
Do you limit which books you use based on your campaign or the experience of your table?
How do you feel about this in regards to Pathfinder Society?
I have not spent as much as people who buy every book, but between a few AP's, modules, core pdf's, herolab, and so on, I have put in a few hundred dollars.
However I don't think it is reasonable to expect the game to continue forever. I think the flavor should stay in tact as much as possible, but from a rules quantity perspective, and with the FAQ's falling behind as more books are released something will have to be done.My entry barrier to a new edition is going to be how the rules are written and how the game plays more than how much money I have spent. By the time it gets to that point Paizo will still have enough past material that I won't need to switch to keep playing. Depending on how things would be I could try to just convert their new stories to the old system, so I guess they could still get money from me.
I don't limit books based on experience, and I don't limit the core books based on the campaign.
I don't play PFS, so I don't have a comment on that.
Does the existence of the Beginner Box and the Strategy Guide contribute to making a new incompatible edition less useful by lowering the barrier of entry?I understand this one the least. Are you suggesting the Beginner Box and Strategy Guide make it harder for Paizo to release a new edition of Pathfinder because they invested resources into getting people into the current version? Or that they make it relatively harder for GMs and players to switch to non-Pathfinder RPGs that don't have those resources?
Either way, I don't see how products targeted at entry-level players could do either of those things. I have more quickstart/Starter Kit/Beginner Box-style products than anything else in my RPG library because they lower the barrier of entry.
Its more in the sense that they lower the barrier of entry making new editions that have changes meant to lower the barrier of entry of the game less practical because those products already do the job.
My two book shelves of D&D books and only half a bookshelf of Pathfinder books tells me no, number of books doesn't lock me into a system.
On the other hand, I'm probably an odd duck. I ran 2e Planescape adventures in Pathfinder, I'm currently running a Gamma World adventure in Ryuutama, a Pathfinder AP in Dungeon Crawl Classics, another Pathfinder adventure in Fantasy Age, and a Call of Cthulhu adventure in Dark Heresy.
Good adventure ideas transcend system. Paizo makes great adventures.
|
Much depends upon how big of a shift Pathfinder 2e is.
If it's a change like 3.0 to 3.5 - I don't think that it'd change much. People mostly allowed 3.0 stuff in 3.5 games - just used the difference to more easily ban the most broken 3.0 options.
If they do major changes beyond class balance/other tweak (perhaps including unchained action economy) then the current books would be less useful.
Really - I know that people on here don't like to hear it - but it's mostly a business decision.
Pros:
1. People have to re-buy a Core rulebook, and likely buy the first supplement or three. Probably far more than the next 3-4 random supplements for the current edition.
2. Hopefully improve the rules significantly, which would help the system as a whole - keeping other systems from eating into their market-share, make converts to it easier etc.
3. Other benefits which I can't think of off the top of my head.
Cons:
1. Some people will stick with the old Pathfinder system and refuse to buy new stuff. (Pathfinder was largely started on those 3.5 players who didn't like 4e.)
2. The risk that the rules are considered inferior. (again - see 4e)
3. The risk that Pathfinder players will take the change as a spur to try out other RPG systems, possibly giving up on Pathfinder.
4. Make current stock of Pathfinder books extremely difficult to sell. (Meaning that for months before the new edition they wouldn't be publishing old edition books - or likely even reprinting the most popular volumes.) This would cost a decent chunk of growth - possibly more than the #1 Pro.
5. Other detriments which I can't think of off the top of my head.
To be honest they should just keep releasing unchained books, maybe once every class becomes unchained/chained they can release an unchained core book that uses their favorite rules and classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Earlier this year I bit the bullet and dumped almost my entire 4e collection for recycling (having tried to find a buyer and not being able to), in the interests of saving shelf-space. I kept the core 3 books, just so that I can continue to have every edition of D&D from the red box to 5E.
Gamers as a whole tend to have disposable income, so buying a new edition isn't generally a problem, if that edition offers a gain on earlier versions. One thing that gamers crave is "new content", new flavour, new rules, new options. A system that doesn't produce these is more likely to be extremely niche, or very stagnant (or is the mythical "perfect system").
For myself, a new edition needs to correct flaws, but still retain enough of the (highly nebulous) "feel" of the last one to not utterly invalidate the things I've learned about how adventures using the game work. To use a non-Pathfinder example, the jump from Rolemaster 2e to Rolemaster Standard System wasn't all that big a deal to me, because the game "felt" very similar. Even the 2e>3e transition for D&D was a fairly safe option since one glance at the Player's Handbook showed me a whole bunch of things that were the same, but different enough to be fresh, and cleaned up enough to be a whole new edition.
Yes, I'm "bought in" to Pathfinder, but I could easily "buy in" to Pathfinder 2e, and I'd even more easily buy in to Pathfinder Revised, where they keep the "numbers" the same, but fix some of the more problematic abilities/options/text.
I am not sure that this is a terrible problem, especially since pathfinder 2e is years and years away. More materials fixing old problems seems like an unambiguous good to me; more options the better.
In the article I concluded that this was not a terrible problem for me personally but admit that I do feel locked in so feelings on it may be different for others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gamers as a whole tend to have disposable income, so buying a new edition isn't generally a problem,
Of course, reinforcing this unfortunate imbalance may not really be a good thing. I personally don't favor leaning on "gamers have disposable income" as a long-term strategic basis, especially since that's a crutch that drives away younger gamers as well.
I would hope that 2e, when it does inevitably happen, is along the lines of the shift from 3.0 to 3.5
Clean up the rule and spell languages to be more consistent and account for all the new core material and FAQs that have accumulated over the year. Make the unchained classes Core. Get ride of the rules conflicts that resulted from entire paragraphs being copy/pasted from 3.5
Standardized terminology and an in-depth glossary in 2e would be much appreciated.
Keep 2e compatible with existing material.
Normally I'd post this in the Third Party Product section but I think this effects a lot of us. I wrote an article over on my blog about what I call 'The Buy-In Dilemma'. So that you don't have to click on the link, the gist of it is that with a ton of books and especially with a ton of 3pp books there comes a point where moving away from Pathfinder or even moving to a new edition becomes less and less practical even if it was desirable.
This is, IMHO, nonsense. Pathfinder is for all intents and purposes universally available through the Web, and anyone with a smart phone or tablet has access to more books than the human mind can comfortably comprehend.
Now, we might argue that people who can't afford a smartphone can't afford to buy all the books as well, but smartphones are pretty ubiquitous.
The main issue is not the number of books but the rule complexity and learning curve. This is easily solvable at the home table either by limiting the rules available (okay, folks, we're just using Core + APG in this campaign) or mentoring n00bs to help them get up to speed. (don't play an arcanist, just start out with a sorcerer because you don't have as many spells to deal with.)
I own a ton of Pathfinder books (probably more than average since the collection is a joint effort between my partner and I), but I don't feel particularly "locked in." I bought a bunch of things for the system because I like it. That said, I'd be mildly annoyed if they replaced it with something that wasn't compatible with the previous version. That was my main bone of contention with 4e (and why I started playing Pathfinder in the first place). That being said, I doubt a second edition is imminent anyway, since that would probably be a huge headache to coordinate with the adventure paths, which I think are Paizo's primary source of profit (someone correct me if I'm wrong about that).
I don't think it relies on people having disposable income, since all the rules/classes/etc. are available online for free. That's one of the things I like about it. Even for someone who owns a lot of the books, it's usually easier to look something up online in the middle of a game than to flip through three books trying to remember where it's explained.
I have to say, this is about the cheapest hobby I have. I blew more in booze for my new year's party than I have spent on Pathfinder material, and I subscribed to both the adventure path and rulebook lines for a couple years. Expenses for my 40K army dwarf those of Pathfinder, and I play Pathfinder at least twice as much. Hell, add up the expenses of my entire gaming group and I'm not sure either of those is beaten out by Pathfinder.
Honestly though, my gaming group is getting tired of Pathfinder and looking for a new game. Currently we are looking at homebrew setting using old WoD mechanics, FATE, or Mutants and Masterminds.
I have to say, this is about the cheapest hobby I have.
Agreed. Karate classes around here cost between $100-$150 a month, and a single round of golf costs $30 and up. Your wine-and-cheese tasting hobby can easily run twice that for each night. That same $30 as a one-time expense gets you a copy of Core that you can use for years.
Something else to consider is that Pathfinder has (through the websites) an effective try-before-you-buy policy; if there's a feat you want to use d20pfsrd.com, just slap it on your character. No need to buy Earthworms of Golarion at all until/unless you want to use that feat in PFS.
Normally I'd post this in the Third Party Product section but I think this effects a lot of us. I wrote an article over on my blog about what I call 'The Buy-In Dilemma'. So that you don't have to click on the link, the gist of it is that with a ton of books and especially with a ton of 3pp books there comes a point where moving away from Pathfinder or even moving to a new edition becomes less and less practical even if it was desirable.This is, IMHO, nonsense. Pathfinder is for all intents and purposes universally available through the Web, and anyone with a smart phone or tablet has access to more books than the human mind can comfortably comprehend.
Now, we might argue that people who can't afford a smartphone can't afford to buy all the books as well, but smartphones are pretty ubiquitous.
The main issue is not the number of books but the rule complexity and learning curve. This is easily solvable at the home table either by limiting the rules available (okay, folks, we're just using Core + APG in this campaign) or mentoring n00bs to help them get up to speed. (don't play an arcanist, just start out with a sorcerer because you don't have as many spells to deal with.)
I do frame the article in the context of it being impractical due to more material 'solving' most problems that would make a new edition appealing. Its not even about a monetary cost but the fact that I am also very reluctant to go to a new edition in the same way that I don't go out and take advantage of a sale on Pranx cereal when I have a dozen boxes of Trix cereal in my pantry. My reasons of desiring a new edition have been pretty much whittled down to nothing.
|
Initially that was one of the things that kept me away from pathfinder initially was the sheer amount of material was a little much to take on board.
However you can do most of the things you want to do from the core book.
That's from a player perspective, still a little wary of running games as there will come a time where the person who has a pile of books will want to run something I don't know. Because the amount of material in 3pp and even from the expanded core options means there can be a pretty steep learning curve.
Just my 2c.
Cheers
|
Does the amount of material make a new game or new edition less desirable or practical for you?
Absolutely not. If that would be the case, I would have never gotten into 3E, and I most surely wouldn't have gotten into Pathfinder.
I have a lot of 2E material and that didn't stop me from trying a new edition. The simple reason being that roleplaying design is still developing, meaning that there is a lot of improvement possible. Personally I think 3E was a vast improvement over 2E design-wise (as was 4e over 3E), but unluckily it changed the way the game was played (or at least it changed the perception of how it should be played).
In the meantime, though, there was a revolution out there as far as design is concerned and that is to this day not sufficiently reflected in the way D&D/PF is designed. So no matter how many money I spent on Pathfinder products, I'd absolutely go for a new edition in the hope, that in the meantime lessons have been learned, experience as been won and both bring out another improvement in what is still my preferred system.
Does the game feel like it slowly solves it's own problems as more material is released?
Actually, no. The one major problem for a lot of players (M/CD) can only be solved by a major overhaul of the whole system. Because no matter what they try with new material, the standard group of any D&D-style game will ever be Fighter, Magic-User, Cleric and Thief, and there's where the problem starts in 3.X/PF.
The second major problem is actually increased by new material. Part of it is Power Creep, part of it is the steady increase in overpowered and/or broken options, often by combining options which would be fine per se. You can try to fix some of those problems by something like the Unchained rules book. But those books will never be as important to most groups as the core books and actually may make some things even worse. You wanna fix the Rogue? You have to fix it in the Core book becasue that is the book that really matters
Does the amount of material make a new game or new edition less desirable or practical for you?
That is oddly more complex a question for me the more I think about it. At first I didn't think it would be an issue, since I did come to Pathfinder after purchasing or receiving nearly every D&D 3.5 book. At the moment physical storage is an issue that PDFs adequately solve. It is highly unlikely that I would move to another edition given the amount of 3PP stuff I have bought. I am more likely to homebrew fixes for rules that we find troublesome than anything else.
Does the game feel like it slowly solves it's own problems as more material is released?
To an extent, yes. Unchained was useful and the Weapon Master's Handbook was a step in the right direction. I personally support more "Unchained" books. I'm not sure issues like the Martial/Caster Disparity will ever be tackled, and I do not expect them to.
Does the existence of the Beginner Box and the Strategy Guide contribute to making a new incompatible edition less useful by lowering the barrier of entry?
I had thought of that in a boredom induced daydream at work, and I came up with a resounding maybe. Not the most useful of answers, but I think there is some merit in questioning that line of thought.
How do you feel about this 'dilemma' and are you okay with it?
Given the availability of beginner sets, guides, and online resources, I do not think there is any problem really. Heck, for the same price I bought four books for 3.5, I was able to purchase most of the PDFs I desired from Paizo's website.
Do you limit which books you use based on your campaign or the experience of your table?
My table is currently made up of two old friends and two new friends. The friends that started back in 2e-3.5 are reluctant to try out some of the newer stuff, but have slowly come around. The two newer players have no problem trying out the new stuff. When it comes to a Paizo AP, most of the time the GM limits available resources. When I run an adventure, so far all homebrewed, I will let players use anything I have purchased or have approved. I will admit that I am blessed with friends that act decisively in combat and do not optimize more heavily than anyone else at the table.
How do you feel about this in regards to Pathfinder Society?
I do not play in PFS, so anything I say would be speculation at best. I just hope PFS thrives and continues to draw enthusiasts to Pathfinder and tabletop RPGs.
Does the amount of material make a new game or new edition less desirable or practical for you? I know that the answer is different for players that rely solely on d20pfsrd and have no third party material purchases but even then there is time invested in making the game work for you.
It depends on the differences between the old edition/game and the new. I still own all my 1st and 2nd Ed AD&D, BECMI D&D, 3.0 and 3.5 D&D material (as well as several other RPG systems). If I have the desire (and find other willing gamers) I can still play/run games in them; the truth is that there are some (few) things that previous editions did better than 3.x/Pathfinder (especially considering all of the houserules for those editions). Other systems have their own strengths and weaknesses; the best fit depends on what type of campaign/setting/storyline I want.
I'll admit that I was a late adopter of 3.0; 2nd Ed AD&D with the Player's Option/DM Option books was sufficient for what I wanted (especially when it came to tailoring classes in setting design). However, 3.x made character customization more straightforward and loosened restrictions on a character's abilities being through their class even more; it also significantly simplified/standardized advancing in multiple classes and unified the basic mechanics to be much more comprehensive.
Does the game feel like it slowly solves it's own problems as more material is released? I know I got a lot out of Pathfinder Unchained, The Weapon Master's Handbook. I personally feel like the game shifts itself as time goes on.
This is both yes and no. As additional material is released, some of it will correct perceived issues and fill in gaps; however, new material will bring its own problems (either with how it interacts with other material or by opening new loopholes). Paizo is better about checking compatibility/duplication than WotC and has a much less aggressive "splat book" publishing schedule, so the shift is slower.
Does the existence of the Beginner Box and the Strategy Guide contribute to making a new incompatible edition less useful by lowering the barrier of entry?
Not really. The barrier of entry is already fairly low with the existence of the PRD, d20pfsrd, etc. If/when a new edition is developed/released, similar products will likely be published for the new system.
How do you feel about this 'dilemma' and are you okay with it?
It's a false dilemma, IMO. Unlike other "sunk cost" arguments, RPGs don't lose utility or "wear out." They may have "compatibility" issues, but converting RPG material between systems is almost always much easier than converting equipment or software.
Do you limit which books you use based on your campaign or the experience of your table?
As with previous editions, it will depend on the campaign and/or setting. Depending on the circumstances, I may even ban/limit Core Rulebook classes!
How do you feel about this in regards to Pathfinder Society?
No opinion, as I don't participate in PFS. However, PFS imposes its own restrictions on allowable material.