Starfinder: Is it going to fail, split Paizo in half, or succeed?

[Sundakan]

Liz Courts wrote:

Removed a post. Comparing buying decisions to willfully putting oneself in harm's way is unnecessarily hyperbole. Keep it civil.

Hyperbole is against forum guidelines?

That's an odd rule, particularly as it pertains to a relatively common saying.

"Falling on a grenade" is also used colloquially in non-military contexts to indicate individual acceptance of a personally harmful or sacrificial task in an effort to protect a larger group; during a scandal, corporate leaders or politicians who attempt to draw negative attention away from their company or party by pleading guilt, publicly admitting culpability and drawing condemnation on themselves (at the cost of their freedom or career) are often said to have "fallen on a grenade".

I'd say buying something for the express purpose of making sure a better version is made falls under that definition. You have wasted money on a product you know will be obsoleted, in the hopes that it WILL be obsoleted for the good of the game and everyone else who plays it.

[Sundakan]

But fine, I'll rephrase.

Vic Wertz wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

I will definitely pick up the hard cover... in its second printing. i will go digital for first printing and print out the sections i most commonly need for a three ring binder. Too many wild alterations running around Paizo products as errata and revisions for me to want a physical copy of a first edition anymore.

I will just point out that each person who does that effectively delays that second printing from happening. And if a large enough number of people did that, there would never be a second printing.

To a lot of people, this would be a GOOD thing given the general reaction to the Errata that have come down the line recently.

Besides which, asking someone to buy a certain (more expensive) version of your product in the hopes that the hypothetical next version (that they will then have to repurchase to easily access the changed information) will be better is an odd sentiment.

Very good for the company making the product, but not very good for the consumer who just paid 8 times as much (hardcovers generally being at least $40 versus $10, times 2) for the same product.

[Nutcase Entertainment]

Quote:

Starfinder: Is it going to fail, split Paizo in half, or succeed?

"Split Paizo in half" and success aren't mutually exclusive.

[Steve Geddes]

Sundakan wrote:

Besides which, asking someone to buy a certain (more expensive) version of your product in the hopes that the hypothetical next version (that they will then have to repurchase to easily access the changed information) will be better is an odd sentiment.

Very good for the company making the product, but not very good for the consumer who just paid 8 times as much (hardcovers generally being at least $40 versus $10, times 2) for the same product.

Whether the errata are usually good or bad is a matter of opinion. However, it's worth noting that you don't need to repurchase a hardcover you've bought to find out what the changes are. You can get access to the changed information for zero cost (especially if you consider the PDF and the hardcover to be the "same product"). They make a download available for each historical printing listing changes in the most recent printing.

You just don't get your hardcover updated when a new printing is released, which is the nature of the medium - if you like hardcovers over PDFs you give up on the auto-update feature but can hold doors ajar with it.

[Torbyne]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Sundakan wrote:

Besides which, asking someone to buy a certain (more expensive) version of your product in the hopes that the hypothetical next version (that they will then have to repurchase to easily access the changed information) will be better is an odd sentiment.

Very good for the company making the product, but not very good for the consumer who just paid 8 times as much (hardcovers generally being at least $40 versus $10, times 2) for the same product.

Whether the errata are usually good or bad is a matter of opinion. However, it's worth noting that you don't need to repurchase a hardcover you've bought to find out what the changes are. You can get access to the changed information for zero cost (especially if you consider the PDF and the hardcover to be the "same product"). They make a download available for each historical printing listing changes in the most recent printing.

You just don't get your hardcover updated when a new printing is released, which is the nature of the medium - if you like hardcovers over PDFs you give up on the auto-update feature but can hold doors ajar with it.

Zero cost yes but then you also need to maintain a separate reference document and either remember everything in it or refer back to it anytime you use information from the original book. I have come to assume every hardback will have errata that alters commonly used material, either to correct legitimate mistakes or rebalance options after release which means a lot of cross referencing. Then of course you still should check what you end up with against any FAQs. Avoiding the first print in hard back can do a lot to prevent that hassle. That's the only point I was going for, save time, save money, have a product that is much easier to read as it corrects itself to the most current wording. I do prefer hardback books over PDFs though and after a second print I would be much more likely to pick up a copy as a reference.

[Steve Geddes]

Yeah, the auto-update thing is a definite advantage of PDFs over hard copies. Not really any way around that though (other than to not update either, which seems perverse).

I just wanted to point out that it doesn't cost any money to keep abreast of changes, that's all. The information is provided free of charge. (The cost of reprinting the book is a function of the medium, not a result of paizo policy).

[Sundakan]

You know, Torbyne mentioned printing out stuff and putting it in a binder earlier, and that seems like an interesting idea to think about as far as an official product.

What if all the books came in binder form? Nice cover, but the pages are removable. Then hardcover users could have an easily moddable book like PDF users do, Paizo just needs to print off "Patch Pages" or make them available via PDF to insert into the binders.

I imagine most would object on aesthetic grounds, and would probably be pretty cost ineffective for Paizo, but it would certainly be a convenient.

But as things stand, things really aren't that convenient for hardcover purchasers, which is kind of the point. A book like the original print ACG that is changed almost beyond recognition may as well BE a doorstop for all the good it does you having to cross reference a 20 page errata document every time you read the book. As opposed to buying the product that is 1/4 the price and can be updated automatically so you have both printings for the price of one.

That kind of inconvenience dis-incentivizes someone to buy a first printing, and shaming them into doing so because they might prevent one from being made at all is not cool.

Maybe I misinterpreted Vic's tone, but that's what it sounded like.

[Torbyne]

I don't know the cost of printing 200+ color pages but getting a binder and page protectors to put it in... I'd estimate around 50 bucks beyond the cost of the PDF to do a full book. It is more durable, easier bookmark with tabs and easy to update or add printed FAQS to though.

[Nutcase Entertainment]

Sundakan wrote:

You know, somebody mentioned printing out stuff and putting it in a binder earlier, and that seems like an interesting idea to think about as far as an official product.

What if all the books came in binder form? Nice cover, but the pages are removable. Then hardcover users could have an easily moddable book like PDF users do, Paizo just needs to print off "Patch Pages" or make them available via PDF to insert into the binders.

I imagine most would object on aesthetic grounds, and would probably be pretty cost ineffective for Paizo, but it would certainly be a convenient.

But as things stand, things really aren't that convenient for hardcover purchasers, which is kind of the point. A book like the original print ACG that is changed almost beyond recognition may as well BE a doorstop for all the good it does you having to cross reference a 20 page errata document every time you read the book. As opposed to buying the product that is 1/4 the price and can be updated automatically so you have both printings for the price of one.

That kind of inconvenience dis-incentivizes someone to buy a first printing, and shaming them into doing so because they might prevent one from being made at all is not cool.

Maybe I misinterpreted Vic's tone, but that's what it sounded like.

That 20 pages of errata aren't for just 20 pages in the product, so you could still need 100+ "fixed pages".

Also, if no one is buying, it could be seen as "no one like it", which in turn can lead to "let's not waste energy on the errata".

[Torbyne]

Hopefully they look at PDF sales in addition to physical copies to indicate how well a product is received.

Honestly, the idea to buy PDF over physical wasn't something I just came up with, it was suggested/bragged about by other forum members. After feeling burned by some books I've bought I feel to share the sentiment.

[Nutcase Entertainment]

Torbyne wrote:

Hopefully they look at PDF sales in addition to physical copies to indicate how well a product is received.

Honestly, the idea to buy PDF over physical wasn't something I just came up with, it was suggested/bragged about by other forum members. After feeling burned by some books I've bought I feel to share the sentiment.

I know, and I agree

[Sundakan]

Nutcase Entertainment wrote:

That 20 pages of errata aren't for just 20 pages in the product, so you could still need 100+ "fixed pages".

Also, if no one is buying, it could be seen as "no one like it", which in turn can lead to "let's not waste energy on the errata".

Good. It may lead to higher levels of quality control in the initial release.

IME people who know (or at least think) they only have one shot to get things right tend to do a better job rather than thinking "We'll get it in the next pass". It's the same problem with a lot of AAA video game releases nowadays.

"It's broken on release, but we can just fix it with patches later! And add DLC for cut content!"

[Steve Geddes]

Sundakan wrote:

But as things stand, things really aren't that convenient for hardcover purchasers, which is kind of the point. A book like the original print ACG that is changed almost beyond recognition may as well BE a doorstop for all the good it does you having to cross reference a 20 page errata document every time you read the book. As opposed to buying the product that is 1/4 the price and can be updated automatically so you have both printings for the price of one.

That kind of inconvenience dis-incentivizes someone to buy a first printing, and shaming them into doing so because they might prevent one from being made at all is not cool.

Maybe I misinterpreted Vic's tone, but that's what it sounded like.

I agree with you that it's a definite downside of using hardcopies over PDFs. Furthermore, the more large-scale and significant the errata/FAQs are the more of a problem it is.

FWIW, I feel like the reason the changes are so significant of late is a function of the growing complexity of Pathfinder - each new gadget introduced to the system has thousands of class features, feats and other gizmos to interact with, written by dozens of authors over ten-plus years. It doesn't surprise me that it is common for a book to be released and for the designers to notice unintended consequences more than used to be the case (I seem to remember Paizo's errata policy of updating the printings being lauded as visionary back when the CRB was first reprinted. No doubt, there would have been similar complaints if they were as far-reaching as some of the latest FAQs/errata changes have been). If I'm right about that then the chance of the Starfinder core rules being substantially revised soon after release is probably slimmer.

I do think you misinterpreted Vic's tone - I think he was providing information for prospective purchases as to Paizo's policies rather than trying to shame people into buying copies of books they will regret. That's partly based on the many, many statements from him and other Paizonians over the years to the effect that they are comfortable with people accessing the rules in any of the various ways that is possible - hardcovers from Paizo, from FLGS, from amazon or via PDF. They do after all make the rules available online pretty promptly and the PDFs of the rulebooks are very, very cheap. So I don't think they're in the business of driving up revenues at every opportunity.

[PathlessBeth]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Yeah, the auto-update thing is a definite advantage of PDFs over hard copies. Not really any way around that though (other than to not update either, which seems perverse).

I just wanted to point out that it doesn't cost any money to keep abreast of changes, that's all. The information is provided free of charge. (The cost of reprinting the book is a function of the medium, not a result of paizo policy).

It costs time, convenience, and energy. Moreover, if someone is already comfortable referencing all the rules from Paizo's website, then they have no reason to buy the rulebooks at all. In some sense, everyone who buys Paizo's rulebooks is doing it for convenience. Referencing a hardcover book alongside a poorly-formatted errata PDF is not convenient, negating one of the primary reasons for buying the book in the first place.

It can always be made worse. I ran a 3.5 session awhile back where I was using creatures from the Monster Manual II (written for 3.0). During the session, I had to seperately reference the book, the errata PDF, and the 3.0-3.5 conversion document (which includes rules updates for the MMII, but does not take the MMII errata into account.) Both the conversion document and the errata are free, but it is very inconvenient to use mid-session compared to just having the book, and it means doing a fair amount of extra book-keeping mid-session in a game that already has a lot of book-keeping. It was enough of a hinderance to my ability to run the session smoothly that I basically quit using the MMII. I'm glad Paizo hasn't done anything like that so far.

Getting back to what Vic said, though: if enough people decide not to buy first printings that there are no second printings, then that's your problem, not ours. It is unrealistic to expect customers to give you money if they don't feel they want the product you are selling. If your buisness depends on people buying the first-printings of hardcovers, then it is your job to convince customers we should buy it. We already know that buying Paizo products helps Paizo, but if everyone stopped buying Paizo products, it isn't us who would go out of business.

[Steve Geddes]

137ben wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Yeah, the auto-update thing is a definite advantage of PDFs over hard copies. Not really any way around that though (other than to not update either, which seems perverse).

I just wanted to point out that it doesn't cost any money to keep abreast of changes, that's all. The information is provided free of charge. (The cost of reprinting the book is a function of the medium, not a result of paizo policy).

It costs time, convenience, and energy. Moreover, if someone is already comfortable referencing all the rules from Paizo's website, then they have no reason to buy the rulebooks at all. In some sense, everyone who buys Paizo's rulebooks is doing it for convenience. Referencing a hardcover book alongside a poorly-formatted errata PDF is not convenient, negating one of the primary reasons for buying the book in the first place.

Sure.

I can't imagine any plausible counter to the claim that hardcovers do worse than PDFs when it comes to reprints/updates. The fact the rules get updated is a definite downside of buying hardcovers, if you care about having the most up-to-date printing.

[BigDTBone]

Steve Geddes wrote:

137ben wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Yeah, the auto-update thing is a definite advantage of PDFs over hard copies. Not really any way around that though (other than to not update either, which seems perverse).

I just wanted to point out that it doesn't cost any money to keep abreast of changes, that's all. The information is provided free of charge. (The cost of reprinting the book is a function of the medium, not a result of paizo policy).

It costs time, convenience, and energy. Moreover, if someone is already comfortable referencing all the rules from Paizo's website, then they have no reason to buy the rulebooks at all. In some sense, everyone who buys Paizo's rulebooks is doing it for convenience. Referencing a hardcover book alongside a poorly-formatted errata PDF is not convenient, negating one of the primary reasons for buying the book in the first place.

Sure.

I can't imagine any plausible counter to the claim that hardcovers do worse than PDFs when it comes to reprints/updates. The fact the rules get updated is a definite downside of buying hardcovers, if you care about having the most up-to-date printing.

Steve, I think what you are glossing over with this (and similar) replies is that most of the people you are talking to WANT hardcovers. Full stop. Given their druthers, they would buy the hardcover and love it and never look back. Indeed, many of us did that for 2 - 3 years. But we just got burned too many times. You can't drop $40 on a book to only have editing errors make it difficult to use on day one, then at the exact time that those issues get cleared up a good portion of the book gets functionally changed. In many cases those two overlap. You have an interesting option that isn't clearly written so you avoid using it then when they fix it they rewrite it to be virtually unrecognizable. After the 4th, 5th, 6th time you spend that kind of money you start to feel taken for granted/advantage of. Vic's statement about "no second run if you don't buy the first," really reinforces that feeling of being taken for granted. (Really though, the entire subscription model is centered around literally taking sales for granted, so that probably influenced his attitude here.)

Long story short, people want books, but they want good books that hold up after the first print. We understand the nature of books. You don't have to explain how books are static entities to us. We are saying we wish they would do better on the first go, and that we feel our trust in their QC has been violated too frequently to buy any book from them sight unseen or first run. Trust us, we wish it were different.

[Steve Geddes]

My apologies for the lack of clarity. I wasn't explaining what books were, I was agreeing with 137ben.

My only point of disagreement in this thread is that it doesn't cost money to access the information when a reprint comes out. Other than that, I'm not disagreeing with anyone (nor glossing over anything).

[BigDTBone]

Steve Geddes wrote:

My apologies for the lack of clarity. I wasn't explaining what books were, I was agreeing with 137ben.

My only point of disagreement in this thread is that it doesn't cost money to access the information when a reprint comes out. Other than that, I'm not disagreeing with anyone (nor glossing over anything).

No worries. What was coming across from your post (which I now understand isn't your position) is that you thought people wanted books to be as flexible/updateable as electronic formats. I was just trying to affirm that people just want books that don't NEED to be flexible/updateable regardless of whether there is a free option for doing so.

[GreyWolfLord]

Well, perhaps they will have an SFRD or (StarFinder Reference Document) or something similar to the PRD?

Personally, I don't regret any of the PF hardcovers I have gotten, but a lot of that is when I do need to reference something current, as long as it's open and been uploaded online, I can reference the electronic version online rather easily and quickly (I'm on the forums already...aren't I?).

IF something IS THAT pressing that I need it in the hardcover (which normally it isn't), they invented something I've seen some of my players use at times, which is printing it out, cutting it out, and taping into their books.

Not that it is for everyone, but I don't think the fear of errata should be something that should be utilized as a dissuasion from buying the Star Finder rules.

[J-Bone]

Its going to be absolutely awesome!

[MMCJawa]

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Well, perhaps they will have an SFRD or (StarFinder Reference Document) or something similar to the PRD?

They have I think confirmed they will be working with 3rd party folks, so I assume this will be the case.

[Torbyne]

MMCJawa wrote:

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Well, perhaps they will have an SFRD or (StarFinder Reference Document) or something similar to the PRD?

They have I think confirmed they will be working with 3rd party folks, so I assume this will be the case.

The Starfinder team can neither confirm nor deny that they have either confirmed or denied an interest or already existing agreement to host core materials online as a resource document at this time. :P

[Jason S]

It really depends on how many new fans Starfinder can create.

For me, I will probably end up buying the Starfinder core rules, I will play maybe 1-2 sessions of Starfinder (out of 9-10 sessions during a convention) if it has organized play. But that's about it. It's a diversion for me and Pathfinder is where it's at.

For me, you can create great stories and interesting PCs in almost any setting, so it's not really necessary for me to learn a new ruleset just to make new stories.

[Jester David]

My worries about Starfinder come from worries about science fiction/fantasy RPGs in general.

I love Eclipse Phase. Mostly the setting, as the rules are a little too heavy. But they did a FATE conversion as part of their last Kickstarter and I did a one-shot of that.
It immediately ran into problems as, after the players found a derelict starship, they immediately said "we scan for lifeforms" and wanted to lock onto it with a tractor beam. As the setting is harder science, they didn't know what was or was not possible. It took a while to understand the lack of artificial gravity, FTL, sensors, etc.
Straight fantasy tends to be easier: it works like medieval Europe, except with magic that is spelled out in the classes, and races that are typically common tropes.

Licensed sci-fi RPGs have a much easier time, since you don't need to explain everything. The tech and tropes are established in the movie or TV show. My table just ran a game of Star Wars, and while there was some debate over "the rules" most were solved through movie citation (occasionally supplemented by TV episodes).

This is an issue for Starfinder, and it will have to find a way to overcome how to quickly and succinctly explain the rules of the universe without saying "here is a 600-page book: read it."
RPGs have to assume only one person own and has read the rulebook - the gamemaster - and everyone else is relying on their knowledge. The GM needs to communicate the tech options, the races, the world, etc, all on top of the game rules. There'll be a constant communication of expected in character knowledge.

At this point, Starfinder sounds far less generic. The little that has been said has focused as much on the settings as the rules. Unlike Pathfinder, which is a generic ruleset the GM can use with an established setting or use to make their own. I doubt the Starfinder rules will be able to cover such broad disparities in tech levels as Firefly to Star Trek to Star Wars: it doesn't sound like people will be expected to use Starfinder to run a game in their homebrew setting or as the ruleset for a Trek game.
(I'm not even sure what 3PP will do if they can't touch the IP...)
This will be a tricky barrier to entry.

[Flynn Greywalker]

My opinion, it will initially split Paizo into two equal sized teams. It will also grow the resources into two mirror teams. However, as you will see calls going out, they are looking for third party writers to help with developing the new Pathfinder material so that James can focus his team truly onto the new system. And, with a ScyFy Fantasy based system, there is so much more you can do material, class, ability, feat, and trait wise than if you are limited into one world.

They can also come up with in between material (like spell jammers) that would explain the transition from fantasy Golarion to its disappearance. That can be another whole system of rules, that incorporates the Core Rulbook and other books along with additional core rules for spell/space and Ethereal/Astral Plane travel using ships of the line (true ships and not star ships).

[David knott 242]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Yeah, the auto-update thing is a definite advantage of PDFs over hard copies. Not really any way around that though (other than to not update either, which seems perverse).

I just wanted to point out that it doesn't cost any money to keep abreast of changes, that's all. The information is provided free of charge. (The cost of reprinting the book is a function of the medium, not a result of paizo policy).

If you really want to keep an older version of a PDF, you can always rename the original file that you have so before downloading the new version so that the new version won't overwrite it -- then you have both versions available. I think I have only ever done that when I knew that the changes were of the nature of deleting whole chapters for various reasons.

[Liz Courts]

Removed an off-topic post. Please keep this about Starfinder, thanks!

[Vic Wertz]

Flynn Greywalker wrote:

My opinion, it will initially split Paizo into two equal sized teams.

Not even close. Keep in mind that we release 5 to 10 products each month, so a monthly Starfinder product represents just 10-20% of our total output. Out of Paizo's 56 employees (about 20 to 25 of which are in RPG editorial, depending on how you count) only 3 are likely to spend even close to half their time on Starfinder in the next year.

[quibblemuch]

Well, if Starfinder takes place in a multiversed interpretation of quantum mechanics, the answer would be "yes on all counts."

[Jason Nelson]

Torbyne wrote:

MMCJawa wrote:

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Well, perhaps they will have an SFRD or (StarFinder Reference Document) or something similar to the PRD?

They have I think confirmed they will be working with 3rd party folks, so I assume this will be the case.

The Starfinder team can neither confirm nor deny that they have either confirmed or denied an interest or already existing agreement to host core materials online as a resource document at this time. :P

They've talked to a number of 3PP folks about the possibilities ahead, but there is as yet no confirmation that I have seen about what shape or form a SFRD and/or compatibility license may take and how it will interact with the PRD and PF comp license.

[Tacticslion]

Jason Nelson wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

MMCJawa wrote:

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Well, perhaps they will have an SFRD or (StarFinder Reference Document) or something similar to the PRD?

They have I think confirmed they will be working with 3rd party folks, so I assume this will be the case.

The Starfinder team can neither confirm nor deny that they have either confirmed or denied an interest or already existing agreement to host core materials online as a resource document at this time. :P

They've talked to a number of 3PP folks about the possibilities ahead, but there is as yet no confirmation that I have seen about what shape or form a SFRD and/or compatibility license may take and how it will interact with the PRD and PF comp license.

I will note that, personally, the existence of an SFRD will be a major factor in how I interact with this project. I want it to succeed very much so, but I also want it to be able to create new opportunities, rather than horde them. It's something that I feel very strongly about, and am willing to add more support to a project, company, or system who uses it than not.

[Vic Wertz]

Jason Nelson wrote:

They've talked to a number of 3PP folks about the possibilities ahead, but there is as yet no confirmation that I have seen about what shape or form a SFRD and/or compatibility license may take and how it will interact with the PRD and PF comp license.

I'll just say that, as one of the primary voices in this discussion, I'm very satisfied with what we have done in this respect with Pathfinder, and currently expect that this particular apple isn't likely to fall far from the tree.

[Dale McCoy Jr]

Vic Wertz wrote:

I'll just say that, as one of the primary voices in this discussion, I'm very satisfied with what we have done in this respect with Pathfinder, and currently expect that this particular apple isn't likely to fall far from the tree.

*Applause* we love you too, Vic!

[GreyWolfLord]

Vic Wertz wrote:

Jason Nelson wrote:

They've talked to a number of 3PP folks about the possibilities ahead, but there is as yet no confirmation that I have seen about what shape or form a SFRD and/or compatibility license may take and how it will interact with the PRD and PF comp license.

I'll just say that, as one of the primary voices in this discussion, I'm very satisfied with what we have done in this respect with Pathfinder, and currently expect that this particular apple isn't likely to fall far from the tree.

Awesome, didn't expect that to be stated in that way at this point, but thanks for stating it!

I'm pretty pumped up about what I've heard about Star Finder thus far!

[Theliah Strongarm]

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

Jason Nelson wrote:

They've talked to a number of 3PP folks about the possibilities ahead, but there is as yet no confirmation that I have seen about what shape or form a SFRD and/or compatibility license may take and how it will interact with the PRD and PF comp license.

I'll just say that, as one of the primary voices in this discussion, I'm very satisfied with what we have done in this respect with Pathfinder, and currently expect that this particular apple isn't likely to fall far from the tree.

Awesome, didn't expect that to be stated in that way at this point, but thanks for stating it!

I'm pretty pumped up about what I've heard about Star Finder thus far!

Me too!

Sounds like I should go back to mowing lawns on top of my day job!

[gharlane]

I don't think it will fail or split Paizo in half. For one thing, many people who just play pathfinder will probably grab aspects of Starfinder.

And, since it's in the future, you don't have the problem you get with things like Starjammer, where some players feel that now planetary adventures have been made to look irrelevant in the face of the mighty Elven Armada. STarfinder is in the future-- it has no impact on Pathfinder itself.
Which is actually a pretty smart decision.

[Theliah Strongarm]

gharlane wrote:

I don't think it will fail or split Paizo in half. For one thing, many people who just play pathfinder will probably grab aspects of Starfinder.

And, since it's in the future, you don't have the problem you get with things like Starjammer, where some players feel that now planetary adventures have been made to look irrelevant in the face of the mighty Elven Armada. STarfinder is in the future-- it has no impact on Pathfinder itself.
Which is actually a pretty smart decision.

I'm not saying that will it split Pathfinder in half, I'm saying that will it split Paizo in half.

[memorax]

I'm not sure it will cause any real schism within the PF community. That being said I'm not sure it will be as successful as PF was imo. For one Paizo can no longer rely on tapping the market of fans who felt betrayed by Wotc switch to 4E. That ship has sailed. As well and since no one really want to address this. How does Paizo plan on getting a significant amount of the fanbase to buy a rehash of a rehash a second time. Fans will be wondering why they should re-invest in something they already have. I think it's going to need more than the Paizo logo to sell as well as PF did imo.

I'm willing to buy the core and take a look through it. If I turn to the feat section. then see the same boring options of Dodge, Point blank Shot Snap shot etc. As well as the same flaws ported over from Pathfinder. As long prep time for a DM and problems with high level play. It probably going to be returned the lgs the next day. It's great they want to maintain backwards compiability.

I need more than that to re-invest into Starfinder. At the very least enough new material to make me want use Starfinder first. My other Sci-fi rps second. So far I'm seeing nothing that's going to make me want to use Starfinder first. I'm probably not the only one who feels the same way. I could be wrong and hope to be wrong.

[Jaçinto]

I already pointed out many concerns I had with Starfinder, and that I am hoping it will be good, but Pathfinder itself has so many issues that can kill this game if they are brought over.

I've talked to some people that simply won't be getting this due to shelf space. Also there is the "If I want to play a science fantasy game, I will play a game with a system made for it." I have also talked to a game store owner here that said if it is using Pathfinder's system, he won't play it and there is a good chance he wont even stock it on his shelves.

There are simply too many issues in Pathfinder's design that, if ported over, will make this game fail. For instance, class balance. If it has "Play wizard to win." the game kinda sucks. If it has the "Magic is entirely better and easier than tech and is readily available" problem, then that kills the entire space fantasy thing right there. Saying you can just bring in monsters from pathfinder bestiary means they also have to bring in the skills and feats and abilities that are simply terrible, which means it could just be a re-skin of pathfinder. Thus, another failure. If they port over the current terrible crafting system and skill system (ie: I have no knowledge of this language. I put a point in linguistics. I am totally fluent in a single day. Knowledge local lets me somehow know about every city and culture everywhere, even if I have never been there before and even if I get transported to another world.) That is going to make a lot more people that I have talked with just ignore this game.

I have heard some people say that if they don't open the play test up, and not just have it be invite only, then again they game will suck as they won't be hearing really what problems people have with Pathfinder. Thus, they won't even bother reading the book. This one is a big issue for me.

Really, for Starfinder to be good, they really need to start listening to the problems of Pathfinder. Do not make this game just a D&D 3.5 mod or a Pathfinder re-skin. There are huge problems with it. This is their chance to start fresh and really fix the glaring problems in Pathfinder. If they don't do it, this game is dead save for the diehard fans that will just gobble up anything Paizo churns out.

Then there is one glaring issue that Pathfinder is known for that I hope Starfinder does not do. Churning out a massive about of rulebooks that not only keep adding things nobody will ever use, but change rules or playstyles people have been enjoying that force house ruling or rules-lawyering. Player wants to do X. Now it used to be fine but now they made an entire book based around X with a bunch of feats that breaks that simple action down into an entire class build required to execute. The players never do X again because the requirements limits their choices in other ways. There are people that don't see new books in Pathfinder as "Lets see the new options" but rather "Lets see how they are stomping on my favourite class or playstyle this week." And this is another thing that has been souring people on Starfinder. They don't want to make a character, then have a new book come out that either makes them totally obsolete, make them unplayable, or make them ultra mega godly and thus play single player.

Sorry for the long post that is likely badly formatted. If it bothers you, blame the Crown Royal I have been drinking.

[thejeff]

Jaçinto wrote:

I already pointed out many concerns I had with Starfinder, and that I am hoping it will be good, but Pathfinder itself has so many issues that can kill this game if they are brought over.

I've talked to some people that simply won't be getting this due to shelf space. Also there is the "If I want to play a science fantasy game, I will play a game with a system made for it." I have also talked to a game store owner here that said if it is using Pathfinder's system, he won't play it and there is a good chance he wont even stock it on his shelves.

There are simply too many issues in Pathfinder's design that, if ported over, will make this game fail. For instance, class balance. If it has "Play wizard to win." the game kinda sucks. If it has the "Magic is entirely better and easier than tech and is readily available" problem, then that kills the entire space fantasy thing right there. Saying you can just bring in monsters from pathfinder bestiary means they also have to bring in the skills and feats and abilities that are simply terrible, which means it could just be a re-skin of pathfinder. Thus, another failure. If they port over the current terrible crafting system and skill system (ie: I have no knowledge of this language. I put a point in linguistics. I am totally fluent in a single day. Knowledge local lets me somehow know about every city and culture everywhere, even if I have never been there before and even if I get transported to another world.) That is going to make a lot more people that I have talked with just ignore this game.

I have heard some people say that if they don't open the play test up, and not just have it be invite only, then again they game will suck as they won't be hearing really what problems people have with Pathfinder. Thus, they won't even bother reading the book. This one is a big issue for me.

Really, for Starfinder to be good, they really need to start listening to the problems of Pathfinder. Do not make this game just a D&D 3.5 mod or a Pathfinder...

On the other hand, there are a lot of people who like Pathfinder and might be interested in Starfinder only if they don't change the basic paradigm too much.

[memorax]

Very true. Yet I think they need to offer more than just a reskinned version of PF. I think it's not going to be a easy sell to some fan. Why even by the core. Wait for the free SRD and take what one needs from it. I already have PF it I want to play 3.5. I don't need another clone with different art.

[Jaçinto]

You like the trap feats and feat tax?

[Nyan Cat]

Begun, the Paizo Edition Wars haz?

[Darth Yesterday]

Choose wisely, you must.

[Yesterday Prime, Autobot Leader]

I for one, welcome our new Decepticon Overlords.

[memorax]

Jaçinto wrote:

You like the trap feats and feat tax?

If your talking to me. No I dislike both. Yet it part of PF. If backwards compaibiity is one of their main goals. Then they will be part of the rules.

[Theliah Strongarm]

I'll probably get Starfinder Core Rules, just to take a look at it, then I'll post here when I've decided how good it is.

[Ambrosia Slaad]

Vic Wertz wrote:

Jason Nelson wrote:

They've talked to a number of 3PP folks about the possibilities ahead, but there is as yet no confirmation that I have seen about what shape or form a SFRD and/or compatibility license may take and how it will interact with the PRD and PF comp license.

I'll just say that, as one of the primary voices in this discussion, I'm very satisfied with what we have done in this respect with Pathfinder, and currently expect that this particular apple isn't likely to fall far from the tree.

As a followup: Has there been any decision on whether the Starfinder and Pathfinder compatibility licenses will be mutually exclusive? Can a single product contain rules/conversions for both systems?

[Bluenose]

Jaçinto wrote:

I've talked to some people that simply won't be getting this due to shelf space. Also there is the "If I want to play a science fantasy game, I will play a game with a system made for it."

If the basic system was solid enough I'm not sure that would be a problem. FFGs Star Wars does science fantasy with a system that also does Warhammer Fantasy. There are Savage Worlds options for fantasy, hard SF, and science fantasy.

Though I do note that imo the one thing the more successful science fantasy RPGs have in common is that they're relatively rules-light (certainly compared to Pathfinder). 'Hard SF' games are the ones which provide lots of crunch. And I'm not sure whether that means there's a gap in the market that makes it more likely to succeed, or that higher crunch science fantasy games have never really worked well and don't last long.