|
Pretty much where I am at. With the launch of 2E, I will have a complete game in 1E, that will likely see minimum revision in the future. If they can spend the time to post the full set of rules to the PRD, that will be a great boon to future games.
I'd put the odds of that happening at somewhere between 0% and 1%.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, they seem to be chasing the 5th Ed crowd, "D&D Lite".
All I ask is that they leave a PF1 PRD for those who want to play the old rules.
I don't see it quite that way. I do not believe that Paizo is "chasing the 5th Ed crowd" through any attempt to also be "D&D lite." 5E has already won that battle, and it is their war to lose. Instead, I do think that (1) Paizo does want an opporunity to clean up, clarify, and simplify the 3.X rules while incorporating ten years of Pathfinder innovations, and (2) target a subset of players of 5E, but those who want (a) greater character customization options, and (b) those who want a higher more epic level fantasy.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much where I am at. With the launch of 2E, I will have a complete game in 1E, that will likely see minimum revision in the future. If they can spend the time to post the full set of rules to the PRD, that will be a great boon to future games.I'd put the odds of that happening at somewhere between 0% and 1%.
I don't give a shit about the odds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Never tell TOZ the odds!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
err.. I have a name, you know, you can use it.
on the topic of
as a business they best be paying attention to what 5e is doingare you sure? look at what Marvel Studios has done over the last decade with their Cinematic Universe. Now THAT was a game changer. Look at all the businesses that tried their best to emulate that model and see how fast they crashed and burned. Was it in Universal's best interest to try to start their cinematic universe and crashland twice over the last, what?, 5 years? Was it in WB's best business interest to try to start their DC cinematic universe with Green Lantern, only to fail spectaculary and then to start it again with those awful Snyder movies?
Sometimes the best one business can do is to look at what the competitors do and just go in a different direction than to try and copy their success
WB's Arrowverse has done the same thing as the MCU and id doing dmned well in its nitch. The fact DC's movies can't is a management issue, not a flaw in the product they failed to emulate. DC simply did suck job of copying and did it wrong.
I m not saying for Paizo to copy 5e, but you can bet they are watching it. And one thing 5e has over PF is ease of use, its easy to teach and pick up. 3.x is not and never has been.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To invalidate "it was a game changer", you have to proof it did not change things.
"game changer" has a definition way past 'it changed things' so it's a disingenuous argument. It's NOT a simple change but one that is "an event, idea, or procedure that effects a significant shift in the current manner of doing or thinking about something." In this situation, it'd means that it fundamentally alters how people play RPG's as a whole and NOT a simple change in a single one. A game changer is the introduction of cell phones to communication: the newest Iphone is a change but not a "game changer".
So I'm still think that "game changer" and "everybody hated it" are equally as false but you only seem indignant about one of them and don't seem to mind the incorrectness of the other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much where I am at. With the launch of 2E, I will have a complete game in 1E, that will likely see minimum revision in the future. If they can spend the time to post the full set of rules to the PRD, that will be a great boon to future games.To me, they seem to be chasing the 5th Ed crowd, "D&D Lite".
All I ask is that they leave a PF1 PRD for those who want to play the old rules.
I'm really looking forward to the new rules (and don't think of them as Lite at all, rather depth without unnecessary complexity).
However I too hope they keep the 1st Edition PRD, as well as finish updating it with the later books which are still not up on the PRD.
Because I plan to play and run both games.
While I am very interested in PF2, I agree with that sentiment. I will get the last few PF1 books (Paizo and 3PP) that I want, and will have a complete Lord Mhoram's PF1 set to play from. I still play 1st ed AD&D sometimes too. It's nice to have the stuff on hand like that.
To me, they seem to be chasing the 5th Ed crowd, "D&D Lite".
All I ask is that they leave a PF1 PRD for those who want to play the old rules.
I'm guessing they will do that for the oldsters...they are still publishing the rulebooks fro P1E, so I imagine that they will probably have the PRD up somehow...though I'm not sure how they will differentiate between the PRD for 1e and the PRD for 2e.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I somehow can't agree with having a 'complete game', not with all the design space still left. 3/4 of a complete game, maybe
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I somehow can't agree with having a 'complete game', not with all the design space still left. 3/4 of a complete game, maybe
I specifically mean in the "complete collection" sense. Sorry for the confusion.
While I am very interested in PF2, I agree with that sentiment. I will get the last few PF1 books (Paizo and 3PP) that I want, and will have a complete Lord Mhoram's PF1 set to play from. I still play 1st ed AD&D sometimes too. It's nice to have the stuff on hand like that.
I just grabbed the War for the Crown pack for Roll20 today. :)
I somehow can't agree with having a 'complete game', not with all the design space still left. 3/4 of a complete game, maybe
I meant it as collection as well. And I agree with you. Some of the third party design work (The Spheres of Might and Power, DSP's Psionics, Akashic and Path of Wor Work, New Path Compendium to name a few) show just what kind of thing can be explored in that space.
Hey, there! Since the beginning, many, many, many, many (SO MANY THREADS. SO MANY LONG THREADS.) have wished for a "cleaned up language" version of PF, along with similar rules being combined where it made sense. So there's that.
Part of cleaning up the language is doing things like more carefully defining rules terminology and statuses. Another part of it is taking the same numbers, but defining them into better categories that allow for more streamlined use and expansion. For example:
+5 Sword!
...is now Skill With Sword (+3) plus Sword Quality (+2).
Rage Powers! Ki Points! Random Feature!
...is now Feat <type>.
Though the underpinnings are appearing to change, and they are, I imagine much of it is a CPA's know-how in shuffling the numbers. They're cleaning things up to make a firmer foundation, but doing so in a way to allow for complexity.
Just with fewer tripping hazards.
In fact, I think I'll go start a thread to see if anyone's interested in helping me uncover where things have been "shifted" and "cleaned" but are fairly similar overall. I'm a dork. I like this sort of thing. :D
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There were many reasons why gamers moved from D&D to Pathfinder (which is the whole foundational playerbase we emerged from):
a) DMs weren't ready to allow their libraries to become obsolete/incompatible and wanted to play great quality adventures they already owned (i.e. I could run Age of Worms very easily in PF or 3.5)
b) Players weren't ready to give up on "playing the same solo", which is to say pouring over tons of options (feats, traits, etc) effectively having hours of gaming without a gaming group
c) Gamers disliked the discontinuous rule changes (which vary from changing verisimilitude to seeming CRPG-like to..)
Fast-forward to today and 90% of new gamers or returning gamers are onboarding to 5e as opposed to Pathfinder. It makes total sense as 5e is:
a) Easier to learn
b) Has a much lower investment cost to own the breadth of rules
c) Easier to play at parity w/fellow gamers as less system mastery is required
It doesn't have hundreds of hours of "solo play" where you can build and tweak characters on your own.
Pathfinder is left with a remnant share of the market at this point, those who:
a) Are running Pathfinder today to continue using 3.5e/PF content with minimal conversion headaches
b) Like playing the metagame of character building
c) Found a sacred cow slaughtered in 4e or 5e that impedes their migration
The problem with a new edition that isn't really compatible with the old is that it:
a) Makes continuing use of 3.5e/PF content difficult
b) Has radically less options at launch to support countless hours of character building/metagame play
c) May slaughter a sacred cow or two beloved by various segments
There's a real juicy opportunity for a 3.85e (or whatever) since it continues to serve a market segment (however small it may now be) and it could improve accessibility because gaming groups can limit it to "just 3.85e and up material" if that was their desire.
It's kind of crazy, actually. Pathfinder has been in a fortunate position to stand on the shoulders of 3.5e and capture that audience. By making a discontinuous edition, they are essentially heading into the new territory of launching a brand new game - like launching Numenera or 13th Age. Or rather more like launching the Conan RPG since it now has a pre-existing setting getting (new) rules.
Undoubtedly, Starfinder was a litmus test to gauge risk of such decisions. Paizo has data for what launching a discontinuous rulebook brings in month-over-month sales from a loyal audience. Missing is data for sustained sales or supporting book sales. It's also unclear what the trailing products for a Core 2e offering might be. Is the same playerbase that owns $1000s of 1e going to spring for a similar outlay in 2e? i.e. are we all going to buy the 2e version of the Cheliax book? If not who is?
It's a tough position to be sure.. the risk of failure is greater than that of success at this stage.
Ultimately, they need to sell 2e Cheliax books in order to sustain themselves at the current scale as pure $ from 2e Core only goes so far. That means taking the road where they compete for new players who don't own 1e Cheliax books. If 2e were compatible with 1e, that would dramatically impact those sales.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5th Edition D&D = streamlined rules (advantage/disadvantage is a game changer)and what a game changer it is. simplifying to the extrem, sucking the joy out of everyone who ever looked at a RPG book with interest. seriously, though. the advantage system is one of the biggest minuses in my book for 5th E
Well, I have looked at my share of RPG books with interest over the last 35 years, and don't find the advantage/disadvantage system all that bad, and it certainly hasn't sucked any joy out of me. In fact I'm currently playing in a Pathfinder campaign where the GM has adopted this system to replace various situational bonuses or penalties, such as flanking, or attacking invisbly. I find this highly interesting, and it has greatly influenced the build of my swashbuckler character.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo has data for what launching a discontinuous rulebook brings in month-over-month sales from a loyal audience.
Oh, they have data all right. But it may be misleading.
Sure, one of my groups is currently trying Starfinder. So yeah, we've got two cores. And yeah, I bought some pawns. And yeah, we've bought (not subscribed) to the first AP.
But... we're (very likely) done when this is over.
We tried it, and Paizo can look at the numbers and say "wow, Anguish's group spent more on Starfinder than Pathfinder in January!". Sure. But projected spending for the rest of forever is... well, the remaining AP modules.
Point is - and yes, I know my example is anecdotal - they don't have long-term data. Are we going to try PF2? Almost definitely. Are we going to adopt it? Remains to be seen. So yeah, risky.
Well, I have looked at my share of RPG books with interest over the last 35 years, and don't find the advantage/disadvantage system all that bad, and it certainly hasn't sucked any joy out of me. In fact I'm currently playing in a Pathfinder campaign where the GM has adopted this system to replace various situational bonuses or penalties, such as flanking, or attacking invisbly. I find this highly interesting, and it has greatly influenced the build of my swashbuckler character.
Everyone at our tables loves advantage/disadvntage. It smooths play, makes it faster and makes players try epic stuff they would not dare to in 3.x. Such as flinging ones self off ceiling to try and impale dragon, you can only kind see, 40 feet below in the water. In 3.x you would need 3 or more buffs, and magic items and then everyone at the table yelling other buffs you forgot, to have tiny, tiny Chance. With A/D, you have a chance ( totally nailed that dragon btw). IMO, PF 2 could do far, far worse.
Oh, they have data all right. But it may be misleading.
It could be misleading, but here is the issue. They re losing sales, their player base is shrinking and will keep doing so. They are not getting enough new folks and have lost many 3.x folks, such as myself.
All game systems age, 10 years is well past time most companies would have made a new edition, its 18 years old at this point. And we all know it shows its age.
Sure, they re gonna lose folks with PF2, but if they do not change, those die hards will be ll they have and they re too large a company to live off that.
I somehow can't agree with having a 'complete game', not with all the design space still left. 3/4 of a complete game, maybe
So, what's missing in your view, then? For example, we currently have, 40 classes, I think. By your calculation there should be "design space" for about 13 more. Like what? I'm curious.
|
We have about 25 classes and some alternates, Spontaneous caster equivalents, and opposing classes.
Then we have some more classes that do something just like the other classes before, but with different toys. Oh, and we have combo classes that used to be call Besalt classes in old 3.5 books.
Yeah, I believe some of the multitude of "classes" can be represented more readily as Archtypes or saved for future revisions.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It could be misleading, but here is the issue. They re losing sales, their player base is shrinking and will keep doing so. They are not getting enough new folks and have lost many 3.x folks, such as myself.
Their 2017 sales were higher than 2016. Obviously Starfinder helped that, however as recently as February, Lisa Stevens commented that Pathfinder Core Books have continued to sell and that it has been at a remarkably steady rate over the last few years.
Outside the industry, all we have access to are relatively poor estimates of market share. In a growing market (which RPGs seem to be at the moment) you can lose market share while still expanding.
I have no idea on the reality of where things will go from here (and Paizo obviously have much better idea of that than any of us). However, over the last few years, there has been a lot of 'doom and gloom' talk about Pathfinder sales based on a decline in market share which is probably overstated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately, they need to sell 2e Cheliax books in order to sustain themselves at the current scale as pure $ from 2e Core only goes so far. That means taking the road where they compete for new players who don't own 1e Cheliax books. If 2e were compatible with 1e, that would dramatically impact those sales.
It's obviously too early to know specifics, but my understanding is that they're not going to be reprinting the various campaign setting books they've produced recently as the majority will be usable just fine in PF2.
I suspect we'll be getting sourcebooks on Galt, Geb-Nex, Isger, Rahadoum, Razmir, etcetera. That way they'll still be catering to the PF1 crowd (the campaign sourcebooks often have very little in the way of mechanics anyhow so it wont really matter what game you play).
No doubt over time they will return to some of those places, just like they have done in PF1 where something gets an initial, cursory approach which is then fleshed out later.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Their 2017 sales were higher than 2016. Obviously Starfinder helped that, however as recently as February, Lisa Stevens commented that Pathfinder Core Books have continued to sell and that it has been at a remarkably steady rate over the last few years.
Outside the industry, all we have access to are relatively poor estimates of market share. In a growing market (which RPGs seem to be at the moment) you can lose market share while still expanding.
I have no idea on the reality of where things will go from here (and Paizo obviously have much better idea of that than any of us). However, over the last few years, there has been a lot of 'doom and gloom' talk about Pathfinder sales based on a decline in market share which is probably overstated.
Hopefully that's true. It's really hard to get a good picture from the outside. We can look at sales on Amazon (showing 5e dominating) and such, but that only represents sales on those platforms, and Paizo does a significant amount of sales directly as well as digitally. Those won't show up in any numbers but Paizo's internals which they aren't sharing. Also that 5e is more popular doesn't say anything about absolute numbers.
The idea of Tabletop RPGs being a growing market right now is just mind-boggling to me. I've internalized over the decades that RPGs are a dying niche and have been for some time. Maybe it's a bit of a bubble, when 3rd ed came out there was the D20 Boom and then that deflated later. And earlier I think the WoD created a bit of a boom, and particularly with LARPs (by expanding to a new demographic, I think WoD attracted a lot more women than most RPGs did). We could be in another bubble based on 5e as well as the higher profile of RPGs (but in particular D&D) with things like Stranger Things being such a hit. I'd love for it to be a continuing trend and RPGs get bigger and better than ever and grow forever, but I'm skeptical. But having a game that can get newer (and younger) players into it is absolutely vital.
I remember some years ago WotC, made a joke about making a My Little Pony RPG. They totally should have made that for real. Expanding the market from mainly old nerds and teenage boys would be a great thing for the hobby. And something with a strong emphasis on imagination can totally appeal to young girls (although maybe the Bronys would be the main market in that case, not sure). Perhaps a more collaborative game without a focus on combat. How to do that, I have no clue.
So a growing market would be a good opportunity for Paizo to revise the game to be more attractive to new players (while hopefully keeping most of us old ones), as well as get their brand out there. D&D has a huge advantage by being the name synonymous with RPGs to the general public. We need an expanded awareness of Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully that's true. It's really hard to get a good picture from the outside. We can look at sales on Amazon (showing 5e dominating) and such, but that only represents sales on those platforms, and Paizo does a significant amount of sales directly as well as digitally. Those won't show up in any numbers but Paizo's internals which they aren't sharing.Their 2017 sales were higher than 2016. Obviously Starfinder helped that, however as recently as February, Lisa Stevens commented that Pathfinder Core Books have continued to sell and that it has been at a remarkably steady rate over the last few years.
Outside the industry, all we have access to are relatively poor estimates of market share. In a growing market (which RPGs seem to be at the moment) you can lose market share while still expanding.
I have no idea on the reality of where things will go from here (and Paizo obviously have much better idea of that than any of us). However, over the last few years, there has been a lot of 'doom and gloom' talk about Pathfinder sales based on a decline in market share which is probably overstated.
The comment about 2017 sales being higher than 2016 was explicitly stated in the playtest FAQ.
The comment from Lisa about steady sales of CRB titles is somewhere on the forums..
EDIT: Here is Lisa's post.
I remember some years ago WotC, made a joke about making a My Little Pony RPG. They totally should have made that for real.
There's always PonyFinder
|
I remember some years ago WotC, made a joke about making a My Little Pony RPG. They totally should have made that for real. Expanding the market from mainly old nerds and teenage boys would be a great thing for the hobby. And something with a strong emphasis on imagination can totally appeal to young girls (although maybe the Bronys would be the main market in that case, not sure). Perhaps a more collaborative game without a focus on combat. How to do that, I have no clue.
...
There's an official MLP RPG out there. And there are dozens of "strong emphasis on imaginations/collaborative" RPGs out there, many of those aimed at younger gamers. No Thank You Evil by Monte Cook Games springs to mind.
And as for expanding Pathfinder, these days? I think the key are game session shows such as Critical Role and Dragons and Stuff/Things. They gather millions of viewers on YouTube/Twitch and fit right into the visual culture.
The problem? Critical Role, the biggest show right now, the that got traditional media talking kicked off using Pathfinder. They switched to 5e because it was less cumbersome.
Lisa Stevens commented that Pathfinder Core Books have continued to sell and that it has been at a remarkably steady rate over the last few years.
That's just the poor binding/ridiculous size of the Core Rulebook requiring Pathfinder players to regularly need to replace it. Notice how Bestiary 1 isn't selling at the same rate! It never had the binding issue!
There's an official MLP RPG out there. And there are dozens of "strong emphasis on imaginations/collaborative" RPGs out there, many of those aimed at younger gamers. No Thank You Evil by Monte Cook Games springs to mind.
Ah, neat. I wasn't aware of either of those. Hopefully they catch on and widen the demographic.
And as for expanding Pathfinder, these days? I think the key are game session shows such as Critical Role and Dragons and Stuff/Things. They gather millions of viewers on YouTube/Twitch and fit right into the visual culture.The problem? Critical Role, the biggest show right now, the that got traditional media talking kicked off using Pathfinder. They switched to 5e because it was less cumbersome.
I was only partly aware of these shows until I returned to this forum for PF2 talk, but I agree. Twitch is just huge, and I've seen that they've had some very successful RPG streams, but they mostly seem to be 5e. And Youtube is also ginormous, and has room for many niches. If they're getting shut out of that niche than it'll be a problem. Didn't know about Critical Role starting with PF and going 5e. That's got to have hurt. That might have helped convince Paizo that it was time to update. Having comedians and porn stars and Vin Diesel playing D&D does give them a boost. Maybe Paizo needs to recruit The Rock to counter Diesel...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lisa Stevens commented that Pathfinder Core Books have continued to sell and that it has been at a remarkably steady rate over the last few years.That's just the poor binding/ridiculous size of the Core Rulebook requiring Pathfinder players to regularly need to replace it. Notice how Bestiary 1 isn't selling at the same rate! It never had the binding issue!
That vaguely reminds me a bit of the conversations I had with a game store owner way back when PF originally released. I go in to get the CRB like the first week and mentioned that I heard it had already sold out of the first printing. "Oh, they just didn't print enough of them. It's just a fad, 4th Edition is great and everyone is playing it. I love my 4th ed game." A few months later I was in there and he was like "Eh, I guess some people like Pathfinder, but really, it doesn't matter which edition you use, it's all about the GM. I'm going to be starting up a 2nd ed game soon. You can have fun with any edition. But Pathfinder isn't really anything special." Then like a year later I'm in there and HUGE Pathfinder display. "Pathfinder is great! I sell so much of it, I put out the APs and have them next to the setting books and flip maps and just helps sell them all. And then they can just sign up for PFS. It's a huge success." I haven't been in there in years, but I'd guess he's likely all over 5e these days.
Later I found that his initial issue with Pathfinder mostly seems to have been that he was pissed off at Piazo for selling direct and having subscriptions which he felt stole his sales. Your joke about excuses for the sales reminded me of that and gave me a (thin) excuse to share that story.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I somehow can't agree with having a 'complete game', not with all the design space still left. 3/4 of a complete game, maybeSo, what's missing in your view, then? For example, we currently have, 40 classes, I think. By your calculation there should be "design space" for about 13 more. Like what? I'm curious.
easy answer. Look outside the eurocentric fantasy tropes to other cultures and many new options open themselves. I feel with the Occult classes a first step in that direction has been taken, but there's obviously more to be mined. A little bit of creativity might be needed, but honestly it is not that hard to do. The Ozelotl, Jaguar Warrior, Class I mentioned in the New Classes thread took me full two minutes to come up with and with a little more thought behind it than just a first reaction I can see a niche for that class that is not filled currently.
Could a lot of those classes also be made with archetypes? probably. Just like Samurai and Ninja, that would be not that hard to do, but the message of "the eurocentristic class is the real, pure one, the others are just archetypes of the same theme" is nothing I particulary like.
Then, of course, there is still space for a functional, playable PC Noble/Aristocrat/Diplomat class, that I don't think exists right now other than putting that concept on the engine of other classes. Same goes for a Merchant themed class.
Others came up with the idea of seafaring classes, which I agree is interesting design space mostly not used right now.
So, yes, there's still design space left if you have the will, the imagination and rule mastery to make it happen
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What would a Kinteicist need that wasn't covered in the game before? Or the Occultist?
Somehow Paizo managed to finde places that the Occult classes can inhabit that most of us hadn't thought about before.
I don't see how that can't be the same with classes from other cultures. Let your imagination run wild
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gotta admit, the Occult classes don’t feel unique to me. A number of them are just reworkings of other classes. I suppose the kineticist was one that couldn't just be an archetype of another class, but then I thought that school powers/domains should have been written to be at will from the start, so maybe it could have.
Ah so your concept of what the game needs that makes it only 3/4 complete doesn't actually include any specific ideas or even an off the top of your head consideration of why it isn't a concept that can already be emulated sufficiently well?What would a Kinteicist need that wasn't covered in the game before? Or the Occultist?
Somehow Paizo managed to finde places that the Occult classes can inhabit that most of us hadn't thought about before.
I don't see how that can't be the same with classes from other cultures. Let your imagination run wild
nope, I have a couple of ideas for that class and for a couple of others. Actually, I'm working on ideas to create mechanics for some of the classes, especially the Ozelotl, that are new and unique. I'm just not sure I'm ready to share those ideas yet (since it is very early) or if I want to share them for free.
Just in case those classes ever make it out of the homebrew into published products, I play it close to my vest, atmIn the meantime, what do YOU think could make classes like that special?
You don't need to. I was just interested what you think a class like that (for example) would look like
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My thoughts on the matter of PF 2E:
This game was created for a reason: so that people who thought D&D 3.5 was the best fantasy RPG system ever made could go on playing a game very much like that one.
It was designed to accurately depict the diversity of options in a world with monsters and magic, not to simplify it. For people who want simple rules, there's Monopoly and Checkers.
The audience for tabletop, pen and paper RPG's is overwhelmingly Gen Xers and Baby Boomers. There are some young gamers, but most Millennials and iGen kids play CCG's and video games. It's what they grew up with, like D&D is what we grew up with. Young RPG gamers already have D&D 5E, and there's not enough market there for a competitor.
Pathfinder's market, to put it bluntly, is the people who have been playing it for the last 10 years. So those are the people the new game needs to please. Fix broken rules, add some cool new stuff, streamline and control the number of options so they don't become overwhelming, and make it so optional rules are optional (i.e., not required in any published adventures).
But I think if they try to make too many changes to the fundamentals of the game, they will find that Pathfinder becomes just another fantasy RPG rules system in, as Roland the Gunslinger would say, a world that has moved on.
I am equal parts saddened and excited by news of 2E. Paizo may want to be a little bit concerned. I relocated across the country in 2015. I have several editions of D&D and all the Pathfinder APs, hardcovers, campaign settings, and player companions from the beginning. That move was painful. For me, 2E marks the final, utter death of physical books. By the time 2E releases I will have a kindle (and audible) for the regular books I care about. I have a tablet with a PDF viewer for my game hobbies going forward. I've been buying physical product since the 70s, so this represents a big change for me, though I did test this process with Starfinder. If Paizo had (or someday has) a simplified, pathfinder-centric digital tabletop, I'd be completely set (as long as I could buy pawn-like add-ons for APs).
I have no idea whether my gaming will actually survive this transition. I may just end up not gaming at all, but it won't be because of a new edition. The group I was gaming with is in the process of fracturing due to a couple more cross-country moves, so only time will tell on that front.
Paizo has only rarely disappointed me with their product or their approach to things. I will be purchasing the digital version of the new version at least in the beginning. I won't be in a position to contribute to the play test though.
The group I was gaming with is in the process of fracturing due to a couple more cross-country moves, so only time will tell on that front.
Your group might be able to get together via Virtual Table Top (VTT) gaming.
Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds both have licensing deals with Paizo so that you can run your Pathfinder games via their sites.
Roll20 is also perfectly usable without a subscription or purchasing new materials, since you can use the free version and upload your own maps, tokens, etc.
I will probably buy the core rulebook as a physical book, and everything else (if any) digitally. If there will be no backwards compatibility between the editions (meaning all 1E sourcebooks are useless for 2E) I will probably not buy any rulebooks beyond the core, and will just buy any Golarion world books that come out, as well as the novels (if any) and comics. I don't have enough opportunities to game anymore to drop hundreds of dollars on a new system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have played AD&D 2e, D&D 3.0, 3.5, 5e, PF1e, Shadowrun 2e, Mechwarrior 2e, Star Frontiers, Rifts, Star Wars D20, and Stormbringer. I can tell you that in my personal experience, there is always some understandable hesitation when it comes to new editions. As you can see I play, and prefer older editions as they are what I've played most of. Of all the different games I've tried, my least favorite was 5e.
The rule set was way too simplified, and I felt stifled when it came to character customization and development. I actually convinced that group to convert over to PF1e by bringing my books over to the DM's house so he could familiarize himself with them and people actually enjoyed the experience even more. Of all the people in that group, only myself and one other player were experienced. The rest were either brand new, or fairly new to the game.
I have never had a problem explaining the rules to someone from any of the games I've played, in a manner they could understand. To say that games like PF1e are confusing with the level of rules and restrictions they have compared to 5e... I'd have to disagree.
In regards to advantage/disadvantage:
I had a 6th level Cleric with the Trickery Domain in 5e. His core personality trait was he lied about nearly everything. Deception rolls were a regular from him. He only received a +5 bonus to them (at 6th level and being focused in bluffing). Even with advantage, I didn't feel like he was as good a liar as I felt like he could be.
After converting him over to PF1e, he had a +14 to his Bluff skill after all modifiers from Feats, Traits, etc.
(NOTE: He wasn't much in a straight up fight in either rule set. He wasn't designed for that though.)
I'd take that +14 over a second die any day. Especially when there are items/abilities you can get that allow you to reroll failed rolls. hero point systems (which was touched on in PF1e) can be desiged to give you that ability as well.
Spend a hero point to reroll this failed roll. Crit failed? Hero point to make it a fail and not a crit fail, or two hero points to reroll. Failed by 1 point? Hero point to get that 1 point and succeed.
Anyhow, the point I made is a new edition may not be bad, as long as we don't lose the ability to feel like our characters are as truly customized and can grow the way we intend them to.
|
|
I will probably buy the core rulebook as a physical book, and everything else (if any) digitally. If there will be no backwards compatibility between the editions (meaning all 1E sourcebooks are useless for 2E) I will probably not buy any rulebooks beyond the core, and will just buy any Golarion world books that come out, as well as the novels (if any) and comics. I don't have enough opportunities to game anymore to drop hundreds of dollars on a new system.
Just to point out, the Rulebooks will incorporate Golarion into them, rather than be setting agnostic.
Divorce from the tried and true (and weathered) half-orc, half-elf, gnome, halfling paradigm. Bring in the tengu, the wayang, the nagajii and... *shudder* kitsune..Show a system that has learned from its mistakes and grows with the setting that it has developed over the years, build a whole new paradigm that fully extols and supports the new system 2.0 in a way that 1.0 sometimes could not.
Perhaps a massive marketing campaign boldly featuring the slogan, "And NO ELVES!"
Now, that is something that's never been done before.
I know at least one person who would jump ship for that game.
I never understood the 'rules bloat' discussion. You don't like a new rule? fine, don't use it. they are optional.
just like PF2 should have been
Someone stealing your PF1 books?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
KenderSomeone stealing your PF1 books?I never understood the 'rules bloat' discussion. You don't like a new rule? fine, don't use it. they are optional.
just like PF2 should have been
I think I threw up a little in my mouth... :P