There doesn't seem to be any reason why existing customers can't be supported with a discount toward the purchase of PF2 -- because what we're talking about is an upgrade and NOT REALY an entirely new product. I hope Paizo sees it that way -- and it would be nice if Paizo would make a statement, now, relating to my suggestion below:
We should have a way to make the transition from all the PF1 material we have purchased to PF2 with AT LEAST SOME SORT OF DISCOUNT. An effort should be made to help us preserve our original investment. I'd reply to the people who replied to my original posts on this topic -- but for some reason I can't due to what appears to be a limitation of the system.
The basic issue, here, is called customer support. How well Paizo supports its existing customer base. There should be a reasonable path forward from PF1 to PF2 -- both financially (minimally) but also in terms of following the same strategy for organizing the material.
A Core Rule book is a Core Rule book, Horror Adventures is Horror Adventures, Ultimate Magic is Ultimate Magic, ...
Consolidation by bringing material, for example, the Ultimate books into a smaller group of books would be great. BUT just guggling things around to sell new books for no other purpose is not fair to the customer base.
When Microsoft releases new Windows versions, for example going from Windows 7 to Windows 10, we generally get to use all that software we bought -- we don't have to buy it all again. Managing this feat in software is much harder than doing that for a set of books. I am just advocating that the way forward for PF2 be done in an existing customer friendly way.
yeah, uh, no. discount on PF2 won't do me any good. I don't intend to buy the books so that would be customer support that doesn't really support me as a PF customer
However, and that is a pipe dream I know, if Paizo really wants to support those, who like me, will be keep playing PF1and keep on milking us dry, I...
I'm sorry about that. I have no trouble staying on PF1, myself, except that here in Frisco, TX we are already having a hard enough time attracting PF1 players. Three comic book stores where groups play and we advertise report that D&D 5e is dominating.
My group decided to tough it out and stay with PF1 and continue to work hard to get players. This whole situation with PF2 is going to make finding these players that much harder. We really believe Pathfinder is the better game. D&D 5e is newer and, thus, more popular.
I'm taking a beating in some of these blogs, but I am trying to do what I think is best for the overall Paizo Pathfinder ecosystem. Maybe, for us, PF2 is needed. If I could, I'd stay on PF1 for about the next 3 years -- but, also, that could be approaching end-of-life for PF2.
The path would be clearer if Paizo gave us a discount to upgrade or discounted PF1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the "how much did anyone actually use 3.5 compatibility"...All the time.
There is a reason I refer to PF1 as 3P
Same here. I make extensive use of my 3.5 material to this day.
My Savage Tide party had fights with a Warblade (Book of Nine Swords), a Warlock (Complete Arcane), a Binder (Tome of Magic), a Dragonfire Adept (Dragon Magic), a Dragon Shaman (Player's Handbook 2), and a Battle Dancer (Dragon Compendium) not too long ago, and I have lost count of how many zillions of times I've pulled out stats from a 3.5 Monster Manual or other creature collection book over the past ten-plus years.
And that's not even touching on races, spells, feats, magic items, and many, many other things from 3.5 that make regular appearances in my games.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do you determine who gets the discount?
We should have a way to make the transition from all the PF1 material we have purchased to PF2 with AT LEAST SOME SORT OF DISCOUNT.
I bought a lot of material directly from Paizo. It shows up for my account. That's one way. For the PF1 books I bought, probably the most flexible way for them and me is to just issue credit toward PF2.
Another way would be to provide proof of purchases from Paizo materials bought elsewhere -- in the past this would be to cut out and send in the UPC code.
This hits the very same problems as the "how about free PDF with purchase of physical book" situation.
Let's begin with the fact that people won't cut their books. It just doesn't happen. You're dealing with a turbo-conservative customer base who cherish their physical books and would rather pay hundreds of USD for a complete dead tree Adventure Path rather than just use PDFs. Cutting books is a sacrilegious suggestion.
But there are receipts, you'll say. Let's hand out discounts based on receipts, electronic or physical.
For starters, you get:
- people who never got a receipt for the books (happens all the time when you buy at cons or in countries where there no obligations to provide the customer with receipt or when you are purchasing second hand);
- people who have a receipt ... but it's in some arcane language. Say, Russian, and everything is in Cyrilic;
- people who threw their receipts away 10 years ago and now they see that they are in worse situation than those who bought their books from Paizo or kept their receipts;
- some of the above might get their receipts from the store they bought the books in - but if the store closed, they're out of luck.
Suddenly, you have a massive headache, because you can't easily provide these people with discount, and there will be fire because of that. Your customer service will be dealing with a meltdown.
Worst case scenario, you'll deny the discount to some short fused American citizen, and he'll sue. And heavens have mercy upon you if he or she wins.
And once the smoke clears, you notice a looming large army of pissed off retailers, because not only do you continue selling those awful PDFs and incentivizing subscriptions, but now you've given another perk for taking sales away from them. Another short-fused retailer decides he's done with you and throws PFS out of his store, the only in 100-mile radius. People sigh and switch to D&D organized play.
I'm not even touching the "should there be discounts and why" topic, I'm just showing you that it's logistically not doable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still trying to understand why Paizo owes us conversion templates/documents to convert PF2 stuff to PF 1 stuff. There's literally almost 10 years of PF1 stuff and that's not enough?
I don't want to begrudge other people getting and having their new shiny thing fully supported. Much like I got Pathfinder 1 shiny and fully supported all those years ago.
And the idea that PF should devote resources from producing PF2 stuff to keep producing PF1 stuff is...well "delusional" isnt a word I like to throw around as it comes across as insulting so I'll just say maybe...not based in any sort of practical reality?
And this is coming from someone who has no intention of moving to PF2. It's not that I don't like the system (haven't SEEN the system yet and will make an informed decision when I get my hands on the playtest) it's just that I literally have a complete system with something like 22 -24 (by the end of the run) AP's and countless other Pathfinder adventures not to mention the 3.5 adventures that were produced INCLUDING AGE OF WORMS and SAVAGE TIDE.
Basically even though I'm not moving to PF2 I'm fine with other people getting what they want because I'm not a selfish entitled twit.
EDIT: and I want to be clear, I'm not calling anyone HERE a selfish entitled twit. I'm saying the behavior can be perceived as such and I'M not that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
backwards compatibilty is a must. we came to Paizo exactly because of this. We stayed because of the qality of the setting and adventures, but we wouldn't be here in the first place if it weren't for 3.5 compatibilty. Take that away and all that's left is adventures that we can't even use.I honestly really, really hope they don't cave in to this mentality and weaken the game overall as a result.
You might have come for backwards compatibility, but many others didn't. I came for the APs, for instance. Others have said they came from starting in 5e because they wanted more customization and complexity. I'm sure I've seen several other stated reasons in the last few days.
But it's time in many people's minds to stop letting ourselves be tied down to a dusty old system from almost 20 years ago.
If you're just looking to still use old adventures, well, in the playtest Jason is mostly converting on the fly. So maybe it will still be fairly useable in that regard.
I see backwards compatibility as a way to use NEW content with the OLD system.
I get the impression the many folks you're representing play an AP from start to finish, then the game ends and they never revisit the old characters. Thus, they're free to change systems between adventures.
But I'm involved in a long-term multi-GM game that spans decades. Converting to a new system comes with a cost, and if the new system doesn't preserve much/most of the old system's feel, then the new system may not have enough appeal.
Admittedly, this kind of long-term game is in the minority, but it is as valid a game as any other. And enough compatibility has been with us from 2e to 3e to 3.5e to PF1e. There might be enough compatibility in PF2e. We'll just have to see. Spell system changes can be pretty sweeping in their effect.
backwards compatibilty is a must. we came to Paizo exactly because of this. We stayed because of the qality of the setting and adventures, but we wouldn't be here in the first place if it weren't for 3.5 compatibilty. Take that away and all that's left is adventures that we can't even use.I honestly really, really hope they don't cave in to this mentality and weaken the game overall as a result.
You might have come for backwards compatibility, but many others didn't. I came for the APs, for instance. Others have said they came from starting in 5e because they wanted more customization and complexity. I'm sure I've seen several other stated reasons in the last few days.
But it's time in many people's minds to stop letting ourselves be tied down to a dusty old system from almost 20 years ago.
If you're just looking to still use old adventures, well, in the playtest Jason is mostly converting on the fly. So maybe it will still be fairly useable in that regard.
I see backwards compatibility as a way to use NEW content with the OLD system.
I get the impression the many folks you're representing play an AP from start to finish, then the game ends and they never revisit the old characters. Thus, they're free to change systems between adventures.
But I'm involved in a long-term multi-GM game that spans decades. Converting to a new system comes with a cost, and if the new system doesn't preserve much/most of the old system's feel, then the new system may not have enough appeal.
Agreed. I'm in the same boat, more or less. And yes, it is absolutely about using new content with the old system and not vice versa
backwards compatibilty is a must. we came to Paizo exactly because of this. We stayed because of the qality of the setting and adventures, but we wouldn't be here in the first place if it weren't for 3.5 compatibilty. Take that away and all that's left is adventures that we can't even use.I honestly really, really hope they don't cave in to this mentality and weaken the game overall as a result.
You might have come for backwards compatibility, but many others didn't. I came for the APs, for instance. Others have said they came from starting in 5e because they wanted more customization and complexity. I'm sure I've seen several other stated reasons in the last few days.
But it's time in many people's minds to stop letting ourselves be tied down to a dusty old system from almost 20 years ago.
If you're just looking to still use old adventures, well, in the playtest Jason is mostly converting on the fly. So maybe it will still be fairly useable in that regard.
I see backwards compatibility as a way to use NEW content with the OLD system.
I get the impression the many folks you're representing play an AP from start to finish, then the game ends and they never revisit the old characters. Thus, they're free to change systems between adventures.
But I'm involved in a long-term multi-GM game that spans decades. Converting to a new system comes with a cost, and if the new system doesn't preserve much/most of the old system's feel, then the new system may not have enough appeal.
Admittedly, this kind of long-term game is in the minority, but it is as valid a game as any other. And enough compatibility has been with us from 2e to 3e to 3.5e to PF1e. There might be enough compatibility in PF2e. We'll just have to see. Spell system changes can be pretty sweeping in their effect.
I'm honestly trying to understand and I'm not being funny or snarky here.
You're going to continue running a PF1 game BUT implementing parts of PF2 into your PF1 game? You're talking about Classes, Feats, Spells etc correct?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm honestly trying to understand and I'm not being funny or snarky here.You're going to continue running a PF1 game BUT implementing parts of PF2 into your PF1 game? You're talking about Classes, Feats, Spells etc correct?
You're cool. Its just a discussion.
At this point it is too early to know what we (four GMs) will do. We're not going to rush into a decision.
But one reason we migrated to PF1e was so that one of the GMs would have access to new canned adventure material. It is extra work for a GM to convert an adventure from one system to another and not all GMs want to do that. So to that GM, if we didn't change to PF2e, then they would desire PF2e adventures to be easily converted to PF1e.
I write my own adventures, so I personally don't care about PF1e/PF2e compatibility in the same way as that GM. I only care about picking a system that lets me tell the story I want. That story involves a lot of continuity with past stories and characters who still make appearances. I care about PF1e/PF2e compatibility in that if the new invalidates the past then I'd rather not change systems.
Then there are two other GMs will their own feelings on the matter. The game system we ultimately choose has to work for all of us.
In a sense, running a old system that isn't supported is actually easier in that nobody is changing the system on you with each new release of a book. On the flip side, these games are complex enough that you need automation to run/play them. An unsupported system generally doesn't get continued development of its automation/tools.
You see, a long-term continuing game has lots of complications that a group that plays a series of unconnected adventures doesn't face.
On the "how much did anyone actually use 3.5 compatibility"...
A lot, actually, but probably not in the way you're thinking.
Try to think of a game that has a lot of history and continuity. If you were to change the magic system such that Wizards had a narrow spell list narrowly focused on the power of the mind, then the continuity of the game is disrupted. If magic missiles suddenly started to sunder weapons, then the continuity of the game is disrupted.
The line between the effect and the implementation isn't always a smooth interface where one side can change without messing up a player's/GM's conception of the game world.
Changes to the action sequence are easy to absorb. Changes to a magic system can be far more disrupting when certain classes live and breath those mechanics.
...There doesn't seem to be any reason why existing customers can't be supported with a discount toward the purchase of PF2 -- because what we're talking about is an upgrade and NOT REALY an entirely new product. I hope Paizo sees it that way -- and it would be nice if Paizo would make a statement, now, relating to my suggestion below:
We should have a way to make the transition from all the PF1 material we have purchased to PF2 with AT LEAST SOME SORT OF DISCOUNT. An effort should be made to help us preserve our original investment. I'd reply to the people who replied to my original posts on this topic -- but for some reason I can't due to what appears to be a limitation of the system.
The basic issue, here, is called customer support. How well Paizo supports its existing customer base. There should be a reasonable path forward from PF1 to PF2 -- both financially (minimally) but also in terms of following the same strategy for organizing the material.
A Core Rule book is a Core Rule book, Horror Adventures is Horror Adventures, Ultimate Magic is Ultimate Magic, ...
Consolidation by bringing material, for example, the Ultimate books into a smaller group of books would be great. BUT just guggling things around to sell new books for no other purpose is not fair to the customer base.
When Microsoft releases new Windows versions, for example going from Windows 7 to Windows 10, we generally get to use all that software we bought -- we don't have to buy it all again. Managing this feat in software is much harder than doing that for a set of books. I am just advocating that the way forward for PF2 be done in an existing customer friendly way.
yeah, uh, no. discount on PF2 won't do me any good. I don't intend to buy the books so that would be customer support that doesn't really support me as a PF customer
However, and that is a pipe dream I know, if Paizo really wants to support those, who like me, will be keep playing
On another thread and maybe this one, someone pointed out that all of the PF2 rule books will be available on the web for free as I think PF1 is. Took me a while to follow that. I had forgotten about that. I'm not used to using the books that way. I prefer owning the PDFs, but never-the-less that pretty much resolves my issues.
Another thing that has come up is that another member seems to have confirmed that complexity in PF1 might explain why it's currently much harder for us here in Frisco, TX to attract players and why D&D is dominating at least at the comic book stores where we play -- and it's by a long shot. At Madness Comics, they have about 15 tables for D&D 5e and on another day run 1 or 2 tables for Pathfinder Society.
Is something being done in PF2 to make it more able to compete with D&D 5e, such as an effort to make some parts of it simpler without hurting playability?
I had really felt PF1 was awesome, and I'm distressed that we are having such a hard time attracting players to what I see as an obviously superior game system to D&D 5e -- even the quality of the books is better. I picked up D&D books at two different stores to try to sort this out -- at both places I found major printing or binding issues with the books. At one store, the section headings printed inside the Player's Handbook were blurry and I thought it was on purpose until I saw another copy at another store. At the other store, the binding was messed up such that the pages about an inch out from the bind had become kind of crinkly, again, for the Player's Handbook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still trying to understand why Paizo owes us conversion templates/documents to convert PF2 stuff to PF 1 stuff. There's literally almost 10 years of PF1 stuff and that's not enough?
I don't want to begrudge other people getting and having their new shiny thing fully supported. Much like I got Pathfinder 1 shiny and fully supported all those years ago.
And the idea that PF should devote resources from producing PF2 stuff to keep producing PF1 stuff is...well "delusional" isnt a word I like to throw around as it comes across as insulting so I'll just say maybe...not based in any sort of practical reality?
I keep hearing people say "you can probably keep playing existing APs for decades," and, well...that depends on how often you play. We go through, on average, 2 APs a year. We're about halfway through what Paizo currently has out. It'll last us a few years, sure, but not decades.
And while I'm interested in PF2 and will pick it up, I might not switch over for awhile in my home games, just due to the fact that it's going to take awhile for them to re-accumulate all the options (classes, etc.) that were available in PF1. If I have a game I want to play a psychic in and psychic isn't out for PF2 yet, I'll probably just want to run the game in PF1, even if I like the PF2 rules.
I'm not expecting them to keep producing PF1 APs, but I'd like to be able to convert the PF2 ones in the event that my group decides we'd like to play that particular AP in PF1. Does Paizo "owe" me a conversion guide? Nah, but it would be enormously helpful.
EDIT: Upon reading some other threads, I think I might be using the term "conversion guide" differently than some. I'm not talking about a guide that converts all monsters or is basically just rewriting the adventure in PF1--I can either find or convert the monsters/NPCs myself--but a document with some general guidelines for conversions, with an eye to what's different between the two editions.
|
I keep hearing people say "you can probably keep playing existing APs for decades," and, well...that depends on how often you play. We go through, on average, 2 APs a year. We're about halfway through what Paizo currently has out. It'll last us a few years, sure, but not decades.
You do also realize that 3PP are a thing, right? Some of their adventures are just as good (if not better) than the stuff that Paizo puts out. Even just adding in the cream of the crop of 3PP products, the amount of available material for PF1 would be magnified twelvefold.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep hearing people say "you can probably keep playing existing APs for decades," and, well...that depends on how often you play. We go through, on average, 2 APs a year. We're about halfway through what Paizo currently has out. It'll last us a few years, sure, but not decades.You do also realize that 3PP are a thing, right? Some of their adventures are just as good (if not better) than the stuff that Paizo puts out. Even just adding in the cream of the crop of 3PP products, the amount of available material for PF1 would be magnified twelvefold.
Given that I've written for several of them, I definitely do. :-)
But not as many of them put out complete adventure paths, as opposed to single modules or rules content--though they do certainly exist. I intend to look into those as well (as we'll probably outpace Paizo eventually regardless), but that doesn't mean I want to stop getting Paizo APs. Our campaigns are all assumed to be set in the same continual Golarion timeline, and though I'm not averse to jumping universes sometimes, I do like the Golarion setting and want to keep playing in it, which a 3PP obviously can't use.
also, I suspect many 3PP will jump on the PF2 bandwagon in the coming years and will focus less on PF.
(which is a pity, because this would be the time to take the torch and run with it to become the new Paizo)
Agreed.
|
|
I keep hearing people say "you can probably keep playing existing APs for decades," and, well...that depends on how often you play. We go through, on average, 2 APs a year. We're about halfway through what Paizo currently has out. It'll last us a few years, sure, but not decades.You do also realize that 3PP are a thing, right? Some of their adventures are just as good (if not better) than the stuff that Paizo puts out. Even just adding in the cream of the crop of 3PP products, the amount of available material for PF1 would be magnified twelvefold.Given that I've written for several of them, I definitely do. :-)
But not as many of them put out complete adventure paths, as opposed to single modules or rules content--though they do certainly exist. I intend to look into those as well (as we'll probably outpace Paizo eventually regardless), but that doesn't mean I want to stop getting Paizo APs. Our campaigns are all assumed to be set in the same continual Golarion timeline, and though I'm not averse to jumping universes sometimes, I do like the Golarion setting and want to keep playing in it, which a 3PP obviously can't use.
I don't see why something being labeled an "adventure path" makes it any better than an equivalent sized adventure that's NOT labeled as an adventure path. Or even a non-equivalent sized adventure.
I'd rather play one great short adventures than one mediocre "adventure path".
As for jumping universes, it's pretty easy to transplant most adventures into whatever setting. People have been doing it since there were published settings.
I keep hearing people say "you can probably keep playing existing APs for decades," and, well...that depends on how often you play. We go through, on average, 2 APs a year. We're about halfway through what Paizo currently has out. It'll last us a few years, sure, but not decades.You do also realize that 3PP are a thing, right? Some of their adventures are just as good (if not better) than the stuff that Paizo puts out. Even just adding in the cream of the crop of 3PP products, the amount of available material for PF1 would be magnified twelvefold.Given that I've written for several of them, I definitely do. :-)
But not as many of them put out complete adventure paths, as opposed to single modules or rules content--though they do certainly exist. I intend to look into those as well (as we'll probably outpace Paizo eventually regardless), but that doesn't mean I want to stop getting Paizo APs. Our campaigns are all assumed to be set in the same continual Golarion timeline, and though I'm not averse to jumping universes sometimes, I do like the Golarion setting and want to keep playing in it, which a 3PP obviously can't use.
I don't see why something being labeled an "adventure path" makes it any better than an equivalent sized adventure that's NOT labeled as an adventure path. Or even a non-equivalent sized adventure.
I'd rather play one great short adventures than one mediocre "adventure path".
As for jumping universes, it's pretty easy to transplant most adventures into whatever setting. People have been doing it since there were published settings.
I didn't say anything about adventures being "better." I have a personal preference for longer adventures (levels 1- at least 15). I'm not implying anything about adventure quality at all.
And sure, that can be done with some reskinning, and sometimes I'll do that too. I don't view playing 3PP adventures and playing Paizo APs as being mutually exclusive. I mean, I'll probably continue playing Paizo APs regardless of the effort it takes for me to convert them when I would like to, but it would be nice if that process were as straightforward as possible.
|
|
And I will never be on board a system that uses a vastly different ruleset and philosophy for creating NPCs than for creating PCs.That's cool. But then, if you like to spend lot of time building NPC from scratch so everything adds up by the rules, you should be happy that you have to do exactly that, for countless hours,building an NPC in PF takes what? 5 minutes? not counting equipping which might duble the time if I'm not entirerly sure what to give him.
I don't get where you get the countless hours of building PF NPCs from. It's not rocket science. It is when those 5-10 minutes, 15 when the NPC is really complicated come on top of the prep time I already have to do anyway where it becomes time consuming
Try Half an hour to an hour if it’s not something in the NPC Codex. Even longer for levels 10+
And if you have 5 NPC stat blocks in an adventure that’s 2.5 - 5 hours of prep time on NPCs alone. Heck one of the biggest reasons I almost exclusively run APs is that prep time is moved to Paizo and I spend money to offload that effort. But I have files full of campaign ideas that I would run myself if I could reduce the prep time to a reasonable amount.
Assuming I want to run a 4 hour session, I don’t want to spend more than 4 hours in prep time for that session.
Assuming I want to run a 4 hour session, I don’t want to spend more than 4 hours in prep time for that session.And I will never be on board a system that uses a vastly different ruleset and philosophy for creating NPCs than for creating PCs.That's cool. But then, if you like to spend lot of time building NPC from scratch so everything adds up by the rules, you should be happy that you have to do exactly that, for countless hours,building an NPC in PF takes what? 5 minutes? not counting equipping which might duble the time if I'm not entirerly sure what to give him.
I don't get where you get the countless hours of building PF NPCs from. It's not rocket science. It is when those 5-10 minutes, 15 when the NPC is really complicated come on top of the prep time I already have to do anyway where it becomes time consuming
on this I agree. that's why I hope future APs are easy to convert back to PF
I'm admittedly getting a little annoyed by the "3PP is a thing" arguments. Yes, there is and continuously will be third-party material. And yes, Paizo stuff isn't of perfectly consistent quality either.
But the variation in quality is still a lot less. So far, Ascension Games is the only 3PP publisher I have a comparably good opinion of. I only have time to sort through so much of it. And there's that 3PP adventures in particular will necessarily require adapting to a setting I already know and like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still trying to understand why Paizo owes us conversion templates/documents to convert PF2 stuff to PF 1 stuff. There's literally almost 10 years of PF1 stuff and that's not enough?
I don't want to begrudge other people getting and having their new shiny thing fully supported. Much like I got Pathfinder 1 shiny and fully supported all those years ago.
And the idea that PF should devote resources from producing PF2 stuff to keep producing PF1 stuff is...well "delusional" isnt a word I like to throw around as it comes across as insulting so I'll just say maybe...not based in any sort of practical reality?
And this is coming from someone who has no intention of moving to PF2. It's not that I don't like the system (haven't SEEN the system yet and will make an informed decision when I get my hands on the playtest) it's just that I literally have a complete system with something like 22 -24 (by the end of the run) AP's and countless other Pathfinder adventures not to mention the 3.5 adventures that were produced INCLUDING AGE OF WORMS and SAVAGE TIDE.
Basically even though I'm not moving to PF2 I'm fine with other people getting what they want because I'm not a selfish entitled twit.
EDIT: and I want to be clear, I'm not calling anyone HERE a selfish entitled twit. I'm saying the behavior can be perceived as such and I'M not that.
Paizo doesn't "Owe" us anything.
That's not what anyone is saying.....(errr....ok it's what only a few are saying).....if Paizo want's to keep getting my money after the switch to 2E.....they are going to however need to come up with something I'm actually willing to spend my money on (which is not likely 2E products).For the last ten years, buying the base lines and AP's has been automatic for me....
I have only begun to question that the last few releases (UW, etc...)
Now with this announcement (2E) I may actually be able to cut back my spending with Paizo considerably....as I thus far see nothing that makes me want to switch from 1st Edition.
So if Paizo wants to keep getting my money...they are going to need to come up with something outside of 2E to do so ;)
I think I mentioned it before, but HC editions of 3.5 APs and PF APs might not be completely off the table if Paizo sees that there's still a market and money to be made, but I dont think chance are high, to be honest
I think I mentioned it before, but HC editions of 3.5 APs and PF APs might not be completely off the table if Paizo sees that there's still a market and money to be made, but I dont think chance are high, to be honest
Honestly, based on past experience....I don't see that happening.
when a company decides to go in a direction....it goes in that direction.They don't do this "off the cuff" or without months of forethought....and I'm sure Paizo gave this due consideration.
They made the decision they did because they felt like the community members they would loose....were smaller than the community members they would gain.
That's just business.....it's the exact same decision WofC made when they did the 4E thing.
At least Paizo hasn't pulled the shenanigans WoTC did with allied contributors.....so respect there....
But when all is said and done, I'm likely not interested in moving to 2E, and they are not likely to be interested in supporting 1E.....so relationship over ;)
I think I mentioned it before, but HC editions of 3.5 APs and PF APs might not be completely off the table if Paizo sees that there's still a market and money to be made, but I dont think chance are high, to be honestHonestly, based on past experience....I don't see that happening.
I don't really see it too, but one can dream and hope. And stranger things have happened.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And when they did the 5E thing, which is running circles around Pathfinder as it stands.That's just business.....it's the exact same decision WofC made when they did the 4E thing.
Exactly.
People like to paint this as "Family" or "Community".....the reality is for them it's a business.....and if they think their business is best served by ignoring the desires of a cross section of the community....to gain the following of a larger cross section of the community....that's exactly what they will do.
Stop wasting your time whining and appealing to community ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And when they did the 5E thing, which is running circles around Pathfinder as it stands.That's just business.....it's the exact same decision WofC made when they did the 4E thing.
Sad to say I agree with and am still shocked by that. I've seen this at the three comic book stores where we play here in Frisco, TX -- and the store personnel report that, too.
I really think PF1 is great and just fine -- but the majority of RPG players want something simpler and that's D&D 5e.
But my group is committed to Pathfinder. I'm afraid we need PF2, regardless of how much I spent on PF1.
I will continue to use PF1 as much as I can. I still love it.
I'm guessing I missed something amusing :P