| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What made Pathfinder successful? Was it a unique game? No. It is a duplicate of the existing Fantasy Roleplaying genre. The campaign world is well written, but not significantly unique.
Was it a new game system? No. Paizo didn't invent the d20 game system. They purchased the rights to the OGL material from WotC.
So, why was it so successful? Is it better than 3.5, 4.0, 5.0? I would argue it is, but since it is a duplicate of 3.5, it really isn't in and of itself what made it successful.
Pathfinder is successful because Paizo promised the rules wouldn't change! Those who are serious gamers were sick of buying new editions and having to constantly re-write characters. We wanted continuity, not useless rule changes.
Now, lo and behold, Paizo is breaking its promise and creating a new edition.
So here's my question? Why should I buy-in to another edition?
The whole point was the character I wrote in 2009 should still be playable in 2059.
Paizo has done a great job producing new material and maintaining a strong player base.
Can they keep that momentum once they catch the "new edition syndrome"?
Ken
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is successful because Paizo promised the rules wouldn't change!
Can you point to this statement?
Because I found this.
Probably my question was unclear, I apologize since I am a non-native speaker. I just wanted to know if never changing the ruleset completely like the OTHERS did with "the world's oldest rpg" was something that was part of the company mission, or if the future might hold such possibility. I just wanted to know if it's a "maybe who knows what the future will bring, we will think about it in due time" or a "we will never do that, we were born to continue an EGG tradition and we will stick to the roots of the game, we prefer to keep releasing quality stuff for a consolidated ruleset maybe with some - unearther aracana-like options - but we will never change the core rules, as they're part of our foundation".It's a little bit of all that you wrote. There is a good chance that someday in the future, we will probably do a new edition of Pathfinder if there seems to be a reason to do so and a market of people who would want to buy it. But as Vic said, we are one year in! You don't start making wedding plans when your baby is one year old. You don't pick out a burial plot. :) There will most likely come a time in the future when we will start to think about that. Until then, we are enjoying creating new stuff for the rules that are just getting up and running! One thing you can be sure as long as I own the company is that we will always follow the EGG tradition and stick to the roots of the game. That is who we are and what we believe in.
-Lisa
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you read their blog posts and announcement for pf2e, then you should have a pretty clear idea why paizo is making a new edition.
When starfinder came out I immediately though oh, this must be preview for pf2e. Just like that starwars RPG that wotc released right before 4ed, but I was still surprised by the announcement of the new edition because paizo had been so adamant in the past that they weren't going to make a new edition.
I have now lived through numerous editions of numerous rpgs. Every time people say the same things. I already invested in this game, why should I change? I like the rules as they are, why are you ruining my game?
Each new edition, some of the old timers refuse to change, some quit, some go to different game systems, and some to the new edition. There's still people out there playing 1st edition d&d. All the rules for pf1e aren't going to disappear when pf2e comes out. So keep on playing and having fun.
10 years is a long time for an RPG to stick with one edition. D&d has released new editions every 2-6 years. Honestly it is amazing pathfinder lasted this long.
Now if paizo makes pf3e 2 years later, then we should all be complaining, but I'll be happy if they make a new edition once per decade. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
Pathfinder is successful because Paizo promised the rules wouldn't change!Can you point to this statement?
Thanks for sharing what you found. You know, I searched all through my e-mails with my friends from back when I was first promoting Pathfinder. I had repeatedly stated that the creators were saying they had no intention of changing the core rules. But, I did not find a specific quote from them. I know there were a lot of discussions both on forums and webcasts and in group discussions. The intention was clearly there. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a quote like that, but I'm pretty sure there is one out there, somewhere because it was a major selling point for PF.
The point of Pathfinder, after all, was to keep a Core system so that the constant edition changing wouldn't ruin anymore games. Pathfinder Society itself seemed to be based on that very idea, constant compatibility.
I realize, of course, that priorities change and there are fresh ideas out there that people want to try. That's nice, but it doesn't change the reason people bought into Pathfinder to begin with.
Do I think 2E will be terrible? No. I am hopeful it will be pretty good. Do I think 2E was necessary? Absolutely not. There is just no need for it. I've played RPGs since the early days and I can tell you that there is no such thing as the perfect system and one man's "fix" is another man's "folly".
I do think that Paizo didn't intend to create a 2nd edition when they started. It was in clear opposition of why they were making this system.
Do I think they are bad people for doing so? No, of course not. It's just a game and it's their business.
Again, I just don't think it is necessary and I think they are trying very hard to make it sound like it is.
Ken
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Paizo did not purchase the rights from WotC. OGL is a perpetual, open, royalty-free license.
OGL allowed the publication of supplements referencing the rules, but did not allow republication of the rules or alteration of the rules. Republication required express permission of WOTC (now Hasbro).
I seem to recall Pazio saying they "secured the rights from WOTC to republish existing rules." That was very important because otherwise the OGL clearly stated they couldn't do so without that permission. Perhaps there wasn't a financial aspect to that agreement, but I think there was a contract.
Ken
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Now if paizo makes pf3e 2 years later, then we should all be complaining, but I'll be happy if they make a new edition once per decade. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
I do agree with you. It has been 10 years and if it is another 10 years, then that's not so bad.
But, it still comes down to "why do they need to?" I've just not seen an explicable reason given yet that logically supersedes the "more money" explanation.
The minor adjustments to the rules thus far do not seem very important to me, but to be fair I haven't playtested it yet. I am going to pre-order the playtest and give it the same chance I gave 3rd Edition D&D.
I loved 3E. I hated 4E. So, maybe I'll love PF 2E, but at some point I have to ask myself, "Do I really care?"
Ken
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The intention was clearly there. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a quote like that, but I'm pretty sure there is one out there, somewhere because it was a major selling point for PF.
Again, I just don't think it is necessary and I think they are trying very hard to make it sound like it is.
Ken
Perhaps you didn't actually click the link, but the quote from the Paizo CEO was dated 2010.
That's not something they're saying now. That is something they said more than seven years ago.
It is something they have said since the very beginning
Fnord.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Now if paizo makes pf3e 2 years later, then we should all be complaining, but I'll be happy if they make a new edition once per decade. That seems pretty reasonable to me.I do agree with you. It has been 10 years and if it is another 10 years, then that's not so bad.
But, it still comes down to "why do they need to?" I've just not seen an explicable reason given yet that logically supersedes the "more money" explanation.
The minor adjustments to the rules thus far do not seem very important to me, but to be fair I haven't playtested it yet. I am going to pre-order the playtest and give it the same chance I gave 3rd Edition D&D.
I loved 3E. I hated 4E. So, maybe I'll love PF 2E, but at some point I have to ask myself, "Do I really care?"
Ken
Devils advocate... what is in any way wrong with ‘more money’? They ARE a business, not a public utility.
|
Also because there's no such thing as the perfect RPG, it means that endlessly iterating will allow you to find and play an RPG that captures something you and your group will like to play.
Maybe 2e will be for you, maybe it won't.
But it definitely will be for someone, and maybe more someones than the current edition is and that's worth trying.
|
|
But then they could publish 'Pathfinder the lost Edition' with less edition warring because it isn't new, it's old.Why 2E?
Because if they went straight to Pathfinder 3e people would get really confused about the missing edition.
Are you new here?
There is literally no way to stop nerds arguing over rules. To many it's the primary game they're invested in, with the actual roleplaying game entirely secondary to that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Paizo did not purchase the rights from WotC. OGL is a perpetual, open, royalty-free license.OGL allowed the publication of supplements referencing the rules, but did not allow republication of the rules or alteration of the rules. Republication required express permission of WOTC (now Hasbro).
I seem to recall Pazio saying they "secured the rights from WOTC to republish existing rules." That was very important because otherwise the OGL clearly stated they couldn't do so without that permission. Perhaps there wasn't a financial aspect to that agreement, but I think there was a contract.
Ken
You've totally got it wrong there, Ken. I think you maybe mixing the OGL with the bastardised GSL issued, eventually, with 4E - the tardiness and restrictiveness being a reason lots of publishers didn't support 4E. The OGL gives you the entire 3E core rules to do with what you want, thus there are dozens of games based on them. Pathfinder is just one.
You've totally got it wrong there, Ken. I think you maybe mixing the OGL with the bastardised GSL issued, eventually, with 4E - the tardiness and restrictiveness being a reason lots of publishers didn't support 4E. The OGL gives you the entire 3E core rules to do with what you want, thus there are dozens of games based on them. Pathfinder is just one.Also, Paizo did not purchase the rights from WotC. OGL is a perpetual, open, royalty-free license.OGL allowed the publication of supplements referencing the rules, but did not allow republication of the rules or alteration of the rules. Republication required express permission of WOTC (now Hasbro).
I seem to recall Pazio saying they "secured the rights from WOTC to republish existing rules." That was very important because otherwise the OGL clearly stated they couldn't do so without that permission. Perhaps there wasn't a financial aspect to that agreement, but I think there was a contract.
Ken
Yup, Ken's recollection of this is incorrect, as is his understanding of the OGL.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because Paizo is pretty sure they will have a better game in 3 years if they publish a new edition than if they don't. Also, because eventually the huge pile of "if only he had done this" is going to start weighing on the designers who will want another crack at some stuff.
It's one of those situations where Paizo has a lot more info available to them regarding sales, future book pitches, general feedback, etc. Just because everything seems fine on your end, doesn't actually make it so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's still people out there playing 1st edition d&d. All the rules for pf1e aren't going to disappear when pf2e comes out. So keep on playing and having fun.
Try to find a local group playing 1E D&D on a semi-regular basis. I dare you. I've wanted to play that again for two years, and have still not found anyone who does it. It's already hard for me to find a group that still plays Pathfinder and not 5E D&D. People, generally speaking, always want the newest, shiniest thing. So once PF2 comes out, it's going to be even harder for people who prefer PF1 to find a group that uses that system.
In a few years, anyone new wanting to get into PF1 will have to find a secondhand rulebook, and diehard fans of 1E wanting something new for their system of choice will have to scrounge about for third party content. Which is something I thought I would be able to avoid by playing Pathfinder.
I'm not completely against the new edition. I'm not foaming at the mouth and plotting to bring down the wrath of Rovagug on Paizo and anyone who supports their decision like some people seem to be. But as someone who has played every edition of D&D and enjoys Paizo's take on 3.5 the most, I am disappointed that my favorite system will soon no longer have any official support.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, it's this thread again. Suffice to say, a combination of:
* 3.x is a shaky foundation to build a "forever game" on. The system is broken backwards and forwards and held together with duct tape. Even new players can immediately point out places where the rules work badly and could be improved.
* Paizo is losing customers to 5E so even without a new edition, there won't be Pathfinder 1 content forever because Paizo will eventually just go out of business.
Also, Paizo did not purchase the rights from WotC. OGL is a perpetual, open, royalty-free license.OGL allowed the publication of supplements referencing the rules, but did not allow republication of the rules or alteration of the rules. Republication required express permission of WOTC (now Hasbro).
I seem to recall Pazio saying they "secured the rights from WOTC to republish existing rules." That was very important because otherwise the OGL clearly stated they couldn't do so without that permission. Perhaps there wasn't a financial aspect to that agreement, but I think there was a contract.
I suspect you’re remembering the clause of the OGL which prohibits you from advertising your game as “compatible with ....” without permission from the publisher.
If you check your PF rulebooks/promotional stuff, you’ll note that they don’t purport to be compatible with D&D. (They did claim to work well with the 3.5 edition of the worlds oldest Roleplaying game, whatever that is).
Why 2E?
Because if they went straight to Pathfinder 3e people would get really confused about the missing edition.
I thought it was because 2A-2D was already taken by WotC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, it's this thread again. Suffice to say, a combination of:
* 3.x is a shaky foundation to build a "forever game" on. The system is broken backwards and forwards and held together with duct tape. Even new players can immediately point out places where the rules work badly and could be improved.
It's got a lot going for it, but it certainly does need some cleaning up. 18 years of the basic framework gives a lot of time to find it's breaking points.
* Paizo is losing customers to 5E so even without a new edition, there won't be Pathfinder 1 content forever because Paizo will eventually just go out of business.
While I more or less agree with this, I think you might be overstating things. Pathfinder is no longer number one, but I believe they're in a solid second place, and there is room for more than one game around. But they are certainly losing some existing and potential players. Having a good system that both keeps the majority of existing players and brings back others who left and brings in more new ones is just the best of all worlds. Hell of a balancing act though.
And my understanding is that this is a boom time for tabletop RPGs. D&D 5 is taking most of the newcomers. One of the biggest things D&D has is brand recognition, but an easy to use system helps quite a bit. So this actually seems like a good time to get a new edition out there, participate in this renaissance of RPGs.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sales of the PF CRB have remained steady since 5E’s release and revenue in 2017 was the highest ever.
People shouldn’t conflate losing market share with losing sales. One of 5E’s great successes has been attracting new people into the market (and many gamers don’t have the brand loyalty that a lot of Paizo forumgoers do - a predominantly 5E customer can still be a net increase to Paizo revenue).
I suspect sales of PF1 was probably going to decline and that Paizo have timed their move well, but that’s irrelevant.
The PF2 FAQ made clear that the motivation for a new edition wasn’t financial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sales of the PF CRB have remained steady since 5E’s release and revenue in 2017 was the highest ever.
People shouldn’t conflate losing market share with losing sales. One of 5E’s great successes has been attracting new people into the market (and many gamers don’t have the brand loyalty that a lot of Paizo forumgoers do - a predominantly 5E customer can still be a net increase to Paizo revenue).I suspect sales of PF1 was probably going to decline and that Paizo have timed their move well, but that’s irrelevant.
The PF2 FAQ made clear that the motivation for a new edition wasn’t financial.
Good points. I likely overstated things by saying losing customers. It might be more accurate to say they aren't gaining them as quickly as they could. With 5e eating into potential. But as you mention, D&D (with the help of stuff like Stranger Things and the various streams and podcasts) is bringing new people into the hobby. Those are potential Pathfinder customers. An improved system can attract more of them.
I'm not sure I really buy the idea that it's not financial. Everything in business is at least partly financial, that's kind of the point of business. But I don't mean that in a bad way though. In this case I don't think it's a quick money-grab, or milking the customers for all they have, or a desperation move. But more that things could be even more successful in the long run with a more elegant system. And prevent stagnation. Improving the product and making what customers want, ultimately is best for both the customers and the business. And when the business goes well, they have more resources to improve the game, and a bigger safety net to allow them to do more experimental products.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As long as they don’t just leave a significant chunk of their existing customer base out in the cold in search of new customers. Like the ‘new coke’ debacle.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole point was the character I wrote in 2009 should still be playable in 2059.
And it will be, just as a PC created during the days of AD&D is still playable with groups who play AD&D.
But, it still comes down to "why do they need to?" I've just not seen an explicable reason given yet that logically supersedes the "more money" explanation.
The Pathfinder of 2018 is not the same as the Pathfinder of 2009, nor is the Paizo of 2018 the same as the Paizo of 2009. Paizo via Pathfinder attempted to apply numerous band-aids and patches to the core 3.X system, which was itself repeatedly hospitalized and patched for its duration. Paizo gave classes a face lift, added traits, archetypes, numerous new core classes, hybrid classes, alternative racial features, super alternative core classes to patch sub-par ones, and so much everything else. However, there is only so much bloat that an old, leaking boat can handle.
So it's fairly clear that Paizo wants the opportunity to take a step back from everything, catch their breath, take everything awesome about Pathfinder in, and then re-focus their efforts into a more cohesive product. What I think we are seeing with PF2 is Paizo's opportunity to make Pathfinder its own thing and more than just a patched-up 3E D&D clone. While we can disagree about whether you or I "need" an update to Pathfinder, I suspect that the developers of Paizo felt like they "needed" to update Pathfinder for their own sake (and sanity).
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it's fairly clear that Paizo wants the opportunity to take a step back from everything, catch their breath, take everything awesome about Pathfinder in, and then re-focus their efforts into a more cohesive product. What I think we are seeing with PF2 is Paizo's opportunity to make Pathfinder its own thing and more than just a patched-up 3E D&D clone. While we can disagree about whether you or I "need" an update to Pathfinder, I suspect that the developers of Paizo felt like they "needed" to update Pathfinder for their own sake (and sanity).
The bolded part is clearly nonsense. People at Paizo clearly have no regard for their sanity. They are around Cosmo on a daily basis and work with Pett.