I have no idea if this is econically feasable, but with the announcement of PF 2.0, are any of the Third Party publishers even thinking about taking the core ruleset, and re-releasing it as a new game - much like Paizo did with 3.5
As a player/GM, would you buy such a product? Or supplemntal things for 1st ed Pathfinder (under a new name) instead of 2.0?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I nominate Legendary Games to carry on the Pathfinder legacy with their own version called "Legendary". They've carried the banner for Mythic Adventures for years now.
I know the rulebooks are going to stay in print for quite a while, but still...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hrm, I'd certainly would continue to support Legendary Games if they did that (after all, I did buy more products from LG over the last three years than I did from Paizo - mainly their mythic content and expansions on kingdom building and all things fey-themed).
I suspect that Legendary Games, if they were to consider the idea of carrying on the 3.5 torch, may want to test the waters first with a Kickstarter of their own "setting," as it were, to determine how profitable would it be to them to continue making 3.5/Pathfinder 1.0 compatible content.
That being said, before they even consider that idea, I think they are going to want to wait until PF 2.0 is released before jumping the gun, so to speak. After all, they do maintain an amicable and respectful relationship with Paizo.
Honestly, I'd like to see Kobold Press, Legendary Games, and Rite Publishing, among other 3rd PP to continue with 3.5/PF 1.0 compatible content. They know how to mesh crunch and fluff together really well (most of the time), and they are generally good about updating their products in a timely fashion when they catch the errors (especially Rite Publishing and LG, from my experience). To be fair though, the majority of their products are foremost pdfs so it's far easier to correct those than a printed copy.
CB
I nominate Legendary Games to carry on the Pathfinder legacy with their own version called "Legendary". They've carried the banner for Mythic Adventures for years now.
I don't get it -- P2E is still going to be d20-based 3.5 w'tweaks, right?
Some of the classes will change a bit...they do that all the time anyway.
I nominate Legendary Games to carry on the Pathfinder legacy with their own version called "Legendary". They've carried the banner for Mythic Adventures for years now.I don't get it -- P2E is still going to be d20-based 3.5 w'tweaks, right?
Some of the classes will change a bit...they do that all the time anyway.
They mentioned 10th level spells, a complete change to the action economy,and making monsteres and NPCs more streamlined (probably like Unchained).
I nominate Legendary Games to carry on the Pathfinder legacy with their own version called "Legendary". They've carried the banner for Mythic Adventures for years now.I don't get it -- P2E is still going to be d20-based 3.5 w'tweaks, right?
Some of the classes will change a bit...they do that all the time anyway.
Ehh, the severity of the mechanics changes hinted at so far lead me to believe it'll still be d20 (natch), but not really 3.x.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yeah, it'd be stellar if someone Paizo'd Paizo and continued the line (or, dare I say, even a 3.875?)
I hope I'm wrong about New 'n' Pathy!. I hope it's amazingly fun. But if I'm not wrong, I can take my own advice and just ignore the new stuff. There's nobody kicking down the door and confiscating my Pathfinder books. : D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
i nominate drop dead studios or dreamscarred press.
Legendary Games already produces supplements and plug-ins for existing Paizo Adventure Paths. What I'm wondering is how feasible, financially and manpower-wise, it would be for someone like LG to convert the mechanical crunch of PF2E AP volumes into PFClassic supplements?
Lots of PFClassic gaming groups would probably be interested in not having to do that grunt work themselves, but would they be willing to pay for it (on top of the price for the PF2E AP volumes from Paizo)?
My question is if someone will create and support an organized play program that continues releasing new PF1 adventures.
It's big ask to do 20 adventures even of the scenario size per year, I know, but that's what I really
want- for PFS to not go away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It won't make financial sense. I doubt any 3pp of significant resources will continue to support Pathfinder once New 'n' Pathy! is out. There just won't be a point--the majority of potential customers will have either switched or abandoned Paizo.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I nominate Legendary Games to carry on the Pathfinder legacy with their own version called "Legendary". They've carried the banner for Mythic Adventures for years now.
PF LEGENDS!!! Or PFL for short!
It *could* be done, but I'm not sure what the realistic market for it would be, for these reasons:
1. Paizo isn't putting the game entirely out of print for the foreseeable future; they are still going to be producing and selling the softcover pocket editions and PDFs.
2. Even if they did, the existence of robust online versions of the PF rules in Paizo's own PRD, d20pfsrd, Archives of Nethys, and HeroLab makes "out of print" kind of a moot point. Yes, the Hypertext SRD did exist back in 2008, but the integration of online rules and how much people use them is radically different today than it was a decade ago.
Could all of those venues close down? Sure, eventually. But given that the 3.5 Hypertext SRD is still available online now, that seems unlikely.
Now, if you're asking whether we would want to do our own RE-revision of 3.5 and make our own PFL game, that's a rather different proposition, but it again somewhat begs the question of whether people would switch from core PF 1st Ed. to PFL.
Isn't the point that some people DON'T want to switch? If so, why would they switch to our near-facsimile of PF1 rather than to PF2? I guess the fact that people have bought a lot of our books revising and expanding various parts of PF1 already kind of answers that question. Yes, there is appetite for 3PP variation from core PF1 mechanics.
Would enough people want it to make it worthwhile?
Maybe.
Lisa and Vic were certainly wayyyyy better capitalized 10 years ago than LG is now, with a vastly larger built-in subscription audience thanks to the years publishing Dragon and Dungeon. That said, as a smaller company we don't necessarily have to sell 10,000 copies of something to make it a worthwhile investment.
What I can say for certain is this: Legendary Games is going to keep producing Pathfinder stuff over the next year and a half. Exactly what and how much, and how long we continue after PF2 comes out is impossible to say right now, but it will depend in large part on what sales are like over that same time period.
We shall see!
Thaniks for the comments Jason. I honestly didn't think it would be econically viable. But I stuck with the core system from 3.0 to 3.5 to PF1.. and the changes to PS2 seem larger than any one of those steps. But on the other hand I have entire subsystem replacements in my PF game - Spheres, Psionics, Initiator sysetms as well as Talented and Legendary versions of classes. I'm sure that PF2.0 won't have that big a change in and of itself.
I was just going "The sky if falling" reaction to change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the point that some people DON'T want to switch? If so, why would they switch to our near-facsimile of PF1 rather than to PF2?
I could posit an answer, at least for me: Because I might not like the direction that Paizo went with New 'n' Pathy!, while your revision might clean up some of the solvable problems while leaving the core goodness intact.
You know, like Paizo did when WotC did a dumb thing.
Yeah I was kind of wondering (and Jason touches on this is), is there any 3rd party publisher that has the resources to continue, and actually make a profit? Paizo succeeded for a lot of reason where others didn't. It's not clear to me that is going to be possible.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I was kind of wondering (and Jason touches on this is), is there any 3rd party publisher that has the resources to continue, and actually make a profit? Paizo succeeded for a lot of reason where others didn't. It's not clear to me that is going to be possible.
The economics for a smaller 3PP are different enough that it can very well be economically viable to carry on with it. Take LG for instance. Our best-selling product ever, Ultimate Rulership, has sold 1,890 copies as of March 1st of this year. In 3PP terms, that's a colossal success. For a company with Paizo's scale, without having any direct insight to their sales figures, I'd venture to say that a book selling under 2,000 copies would not be considered a colossal success. :)
Really, depending on how you do it and the specifics of what goes into it (how much do you spend on layout or maps or artwork, etc.), a 3PP product that sells 100 copies probably pays for itself. If it sells 200, you can probably call the book a hit. This isn't a hard and fast rule, as some books (like adventures and monster books) cost more to produce than others, but take it as a loose rule of thumb.
Having a complete rulebook with all of everything in it that could functionally replace, say, the CRB and APG as the beating-heart products of PF1, that would be a challenge assuming you're not just going cut-and-paste but are actually doing significant core revisions. More likely you'd release things piecemeal, rather than a single silver bullet core book.
Could a 3PP make money with a 3.875 core product like PFL?
Probably yes.
Would it become prominent enough to incite migration for PF1 players who decide they don't want to move to PF2 and form a critical mass?
Who knows?
Given the uncertainty, is it worth the risk, and the opportunity cost of spending that time/effort/resources on product for other systems (including PF2)?
That's the real question.
It's not that you couldn't make a viable product out of 3.875 PFL that would make you some money and create something useful for a certain core of fans.
It's about whether you'd make more or less doing that vs. the universe of other potential options. For some people, 3PP is just moonlighting and freelance, but if you're someone for whom it's your for-real day job, you've gotta figure out the best direction for your business. An option can't just be a decent option. It needs (whenever possible, and knowing that you'll guess wrong sometimes) to be a better option than the alternatives. Dem bills gots ta get payed.
I'm thinking if I keep playing PF1 I will take all third party, core and other 3.5 based games and optional rules, and copy/paste and write into a series of documents (not even released as it would be a mess for IP and copyright) for Lord Mhoram's Pathfinder Fantasy Heartbreak.
Jason,
Those are fair and valid points. Perhaps instead of doing a Pathfinder Legends, maybe releasing, between now and the summer of next year, LG's ideas of how to fix some of the biggest problems that PF currently has (for example, the whole Perception/Stealth silliness or the confusion with bardic performances and bardic masterpieces). You guys "fixed" the Mythic Adventures, how hard could it be to do the rest? ;)
I'm kidding about how easy it is, but I am serious that releasing a quarterly product that provides a different take or perhaps optional solutions to those kind of problems may very well be something worthwhile for those who are unlikely to switch to PF 2.0.
I am obviously not suggesting tackling every poorly worded feat or broken spell out there, just the issues that more likely to see gameplay use (like Mounted Combat) or could use further simplification or clarity (like what should Knowledge skills used for identifying stuff about monsters really reveal that is balanced). I'd certainly would be interested in supplements like that.
I don't know how well received that would be by others.
CB
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pffft!
This is such a non issue. Why?
1) We have 17-18 months before PF2.0 is even released.
2) Nothing prevents gamers from continuing to play PF1.0, and the sheer volume of material available is staggering. So what if there are no longer going to be any new Paizo PF1.0 splatbooks published?
3) 3rd-part publishers can not only continue publishing PF1.0 material as long as it's profitable to do so, but they can also publish multiple versions of a single product. Look at Green Ronin. I recall some of the Freeport books being available in DD3.5 version, PF version or another option (was it a system-neutral d20 version? Something like that.).
I mean, if the only thing that really changes is monster stat blocks, doing multiple versions of the same adventures or adventure paths can't be all that hard. Sure, they'll play differently with different action mechanics and spellcasting options and the like, but new books don't have to be totally system-neutral to be readily used in alternate game systems.
Jason, have you ever thought about joining up with another 3p to help make your version of legendary PF? I ask because discussion has come up before of Legendary Games teaming up with Drop Dead Studios to make their own game using the spheres system as a base. With the talent from LG's writers combined with the unique design space of spheres, it could be an amazing new revitalization!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am still designing classes and content for PF 1.0E. Even after 2.0 releases, I'll probably end up making versions of the classes for both 1.0 and 2.0.
As for a Pathfinder 1.5? I don't see it as necessary. Remember that Paizo had to create Pathfinder because 4th Edition wasn't released under OGL and that Wizards of the Coast stopped printing copies of 3.5E's rule books. Neither of these are the case for Pathfinder transitioning to a 2nd Edition.
I am still designing classes and content for PF 1.0E. Even after 2.0 releases, I'll probably end up making versions of the classes for both 1.0 and 2.0.
As for a Pathfinder 1.5? I don't see it as necessary. Remember that Paizo had to create Pathfinder because 4th Edition wasn't released under OGL and that Wizards of the Coast stopped printing copies of 3.5E's rule books. Neither of these are the case for Pathfinder transitioning to a 2nd Edition.
Right. You can just say "this product is for use with the PF1 rules"- or however the compatibility team let's you do that.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right. You can just say "this product is for use with the PF1 rules"- or however the compatibility team let's you do that.I am still designing classes and content for PF 1.0E. Even after 2.0 releases, I'll probably end up making versions of the classes for both 1.0 and 2.0.
As for a Pathfinder 1.5? I don't see it as necessary. Remember that Paizo had to create Pathfinder because 4th Edition wasn't released under OGL and that Wizards of the Coast stopped printing copies of 3.5E's rule books. Neither of these are the case for Pathfinder transitioning to a 2nd Edition.
They've announced that PF2 will have its own new compatibility logo and license, so it should be easy enough to distinguish which version is which.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The people at your favorite Torch Carrier Third Party Company might, however, actually, like Pathfinder Second Edition, and prefer to publish for that.
Remember that Pathfinder also came about, because people at Paizo didn't like D&D Fourth Edition, and its licensing issues that made going for the new system commercially risky. These conditions may not exist for Pathfinder Second Edition.
... and that Wizards of the Coast stopped printing copies of 3.5E's rule books. Neither of these are the case for Pathfinder transitioning to a 2nd Edition.
Mhh, I do not think it is co$t effective for Paizo to do another print run of their old books once PF 2.0 is officially released. The real question is whether they will allow OBS or other similar store to sell POD versions of 1.0 books, maybe cheaper B&W softcovers?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the issues with a 3PP producing some sort of 3.875 is, most of the 3PPs worth carrying it on realize the problems ingrained in 3.X that were never addressed and in order to make a product they can stand behind would by necessity have to make a product that is not 3.875.
I'm haven't even seen the playtest rules yet, so I think thinking 'bout jumping the ship is jumping the gun.
I mean, at this point no one can offer anything but gut impulses, unfounded opinions, and speculation. I've got plenty of all three, but I hope to replace them with data before making any decisions.
Mhh, I do not think it is co$t effective for Paizo to do another print run of their old books once PF 2.0 is officially released. The real question is whether they will allow OBS or other similar store to sell POD versions of 1.0 books, maybe cheaper B&W softcovers?
we DO plan to keep paperback Pocket Editions of First Edition rulebooks in print as long as enough people are buying them, so even in the era of Pathfinder Second Edition, First Edition adherents should be able to find their preferred version of the game in print without too much trouble.
I'm also a big fan of Legendary Games. Their Legendary Classes are some of the best class designs/redesigns available. If they decided that making some further rules changes in a 3.875 version of PF was a viable project, perhaps some of the financial risk could be mitigated by crowdfunding such as a Kickstarter campaign.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The people at your favorite Torch Carrier Third Party Company might, however, actually, like Pathfinder Second Edition, and prefer to publish for that.
Companies also go where the money is. Current edition Pathfinder 3pp sales have been plummeting for a while now; I actually know several 3pp companies who were already pulling out of the Pathfinder market before this announcement was made, and Pathfinder Kickstarter funding has been trending consistently down. Meanwhile, both Starfinder and 5E have been wildly successful, with growing consumer bases and really strong 3pp sales.
Realistically, some of the most popular 3pp companies out there right now might actually be able to stay in business specifically because PF 2E is coming out, from a combination of boosted sales from the market that doesn't want to convert, and from the opportunities inherent in a new edition being released.|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Companies also go where the money is. Current edition Pathfinder 3pp sales have been plummeting for a while now; I actually know several 3pp companies who were already pulling out of the Pathfinder market before this announcement was made, and Pathfinder Kickstarter funding has been trending consistently down. Meanwhile, both Starfinder and 5E have been wildly successful, with growing consumer bases and really strong 3pp sales.The people at your favorite Torch Carrier Third Party Company might, however, actually, like Pathfinder Second Edition, and prefer to publish for that.
We haven't seen plummeting sales on Pathfinder products at Legendary Games, though our experience may not be representative of all 3PPs. Some individual products haven't done particularly well, but others have, and that variation is pretty much always the case.
I definitely have seen a change in Kickstarter backing. When we did Legendary Planet 3 years ago, PF backers outnumbered 5E backers by something like 3:1.
Trail of the Apprentice was somewhere in the neighborhood of 50/50, as was the Forest Kingdom Campaign Compendium.
Alien Bestiary was roughly even between PF and 5E, with more support for Starfinder (not surprising, since it was a sci-fi product).
The just-completed Pirate Campaign Compendium had 5E outnumbering PF backers by about 2:1.
Realistically, some of the most popular 3pp companies out there right now might actually be able to stay in business specifically because PF 2E is coming out, from a combination of boosted sales from the market that doesn't want to convert, and from the opportunities inherent in a new edition being released.
This is also true, and a separate but related point. If a large number of companies pull out of the PF1 marketplace, those that remain in it have less competition for the gaming dollars of people who still want that material, both competition from Paizo itself as well as other competitors. Thus, even if the pool shrinks, you could make up for it with a bigger share of the pool.
Whether the math works out in your favor depends on how big a share and how small the pool, but it can work.
|
I was going to do a thread about this, but thankfully I found this. I hope to continue stuff for PF1e, but I'm seeing that since the announcement of PF 2.0 that a few Third Party groups are announcing their own variations to the system that they're looking to release. There's also a couple that are completely dropping PF altogether and going all 5e or another system that they publish already.
I'm hoping to still come out with adventures and maybe even an adventure path, but my concern on support for these if so many different companies are looking to branch off and do their own thing.
I noticed some of the talk regarding a 3rd party pathfinder AKA DnD version 3.85 and I think it's a beautiful idea.
I discovered 3rd edition through the Neverwinter Nights game in my teens and always wanted to try 3.5 but watched it recede into irrelivence with the release of 4E, only to see Paizo pick up the torch. Now that I'm in my late twenties and getting ready to see 3.X fade away again I'd just love for there to be another explosion of 3.X creativity to keep the dream alive.
If some company does this, works hard at it and seeks out player feedback, I would support them in a heartbeat.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all about Kobold Press, Dreamscarred Press, and Rogue Genius Games to keep putting out quality 3PP for Pathfinder Classic.
|
|
Each publisher will do as they think best, of course. But I've been trying to tell everyone that Ramen Sandwich Press intends to stay the course with Pathfinder. Our Kickstarter to launch a line of location modules for PF probably began at an inauspicious time, but if the campaign funds (and at this point, I'm pretty sure we will) we'll stick with 1E all the way until the official launch of 2E, then publish conversion notes for the existing modules. After that we plan to publish new modules in 2E, but we're going to keep our finger in the wind to judge whether 1E will remain popular enough to keep serving that audience.There's also a couple that are completely dropping PF altogether and going all 5e or another system that they publish already.
I'm hoping to still come out with adventures and maybe even an adventure path, but my concern on support for these if so many different companies are looking to branch off and do their own thing.
That's fair. The problem I'm looking at is as a freelancer, with so many companies looking to drop 1e and go 5e, PF 2.0, do their own thing with their own RPG system, or go with another established system altogether, it's going to make things difficult. You can only learn so many systems before it burns you out.
I hope your KS goes well.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our friends over at Purple Duck are turning their setting into their own Pathfinder 1e-based RPG.
Yeah I was kind of wondering (and Jason touches on this is), is there any 3rd party publisher that has the resources to continue, and actually make a profit? Paizo succeeded for a lot of reason where others didn't. It's not clear to me that is going to be possible.The economics for a smaller 3PP are different enough that it can very well be economically viable to carry on with it. Take LG for instance. Our best-selling product ever, Ultimate Rulership, has sold 1,890 copies as of March 1st of this year. In 3PP terms, that's a colossal success. For a company with Paizo's scale, without having any direct insight to their sales figures, I'd venture to say that a book selling under 2,000 copies would not be considered a colossal success. :)
Really, depending on how you do it and the specifics of what goes into it (how much do you spend on layout or maps or artwork, etc.), a 3PP product that sells 100 copies probably pays for itself. If it sells 200, you can probably call the book a hit. This isn't a hard and fast rule, as some books (like adventures and monster books) cost more to produce than others, but take it as a loose rule of thumb.
Having a complete rulebook with all of everything in it that could functionally replace, say, the CRB and APG as the beating-heart products of PF1, that would be a challenge assuming you're not just going cut-and-paste but are actually doing significant core revisions. More likely you'd release things piecemeal, rather than a single silver bullet core book.
Could a 3PP make money with a 3.875 core product like PFL?
Probably yes.Would it become prominent enough to incite migration for PF1 players who decide they don't want to move to PF2 and form a critical mass?
Who knows?Given the uncertainty, is it worth the risk, and the opportunity cost of spending that time/effort/resources on product for other systems (including PF2)?
That's the real question.It's not that you couldn't make a viable...
I don't think I phrased that well. I am sure making a profit off of 3rd party sales will be still a thing after 2E officially launches. I am just skeptical that another party can keep Pathfinder going in the same way as Pathfinder kept 3.5 going. Pathfinder has a hell of a reach compared to most games...I can walk into practically any Barnes and Noble and find a PF book, plus you have PF Society, etc. I am skeptical a 3rd party product would be able to compete competitively long term with Paizo and DnD, and keep the system alive in the long term, outside of a very niche product, like some of the DnD 1E clones.
Kobold Press
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking only for Kobold Press, it seems unlikely that the PF1 audience is going to retain critical mass for us, because it won't have 1st party support, and that's crucial. I've wanted a rules update for some time, and a 10 year run is excellent for any system.
Despite having released not one but TWO PF1 hardcovers in the last 6 months, the kobolds are quite looking forward to seeing the PF2 beta at Gen Con. Heck, some kobolds got to play the Beta with Jason at GaryCon, so our curiosity is definitely engaged.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I noticed some of the talk regarding a 3rd party pathfinder AKA DnD version 3.85 and I think it's a beautiful idea.
There's an inherent difficulty in that concept, though.
If you've been reading playtest feedback—or even if you haven't, but you just know a bunch of gamers—you will know that there's a spectrum of desire here. On one end, there are players want no changes whatsoever; on the other, there are players who want changes to anything and everything to be considered. Most people are somewhere in between.
Paizo has staked out a spot on that spectrum. Playtest feedback might move us one way or the other a little bit, but as far as broad strokes go, the playtest will show you where we stand. (In our opinion, it's not all that far from 1st Edition.)
Any "3.85" concept has to have SOME changes—otherwise, it's just First Edition, and there's no point republishing that, because we're keeping it in print in softcover and PDF. So 3.85 cannot capture the "no changes" audience. A successful 3.85 publisher would therefore need to capture a viable number of people who think 1E needs to change, but who also think that 2E is changing too much. Are there enough of those to form a viable audience for your work?
Even if there are enough, here's where it gets really challenging: By definition, that group of people has strong opinions about what they want. But they will not be of a single mind—that is, even if they generally agree on how much things should change, they won't necessarily agree on what should change, or on how each of those things should be changed. There's not some magic set of precise changes you can make to capture them all. Some of the choices you make will lose some of them. Can you make enough of the right decisions to keep enough of them (assuming there were even enough of them to start with)?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as d20pfsrd stays online with Pathfinder Classic I'll have all I'll need for years to come. Sure, I'd like to see some of the current 3PP's continue making good products for PF Classic, but I know that's pretty much a pipe dream.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the PF1 books are still being printed and the srd is still online, you could reasonably just extend the life of PF1 by buying a backlog of third party books. There's enough of that to represent another decade of PF1 releases and that's just the objectively good ones. The only thing desirable from Paizo would be Campaign Setting books and PF2 and PF1 can just share those since they're mostly Golarion fluff.