You Heard It Here First --> Pathfinder 2e is the new unversal game system.


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just watched Mr. Bulmahn run the p2e "test game" on twitch.tv. And E. Mona popped in at the end. Good stuff.

I'm placing my bet now, I think Pathfinder 2e will become the dominant Universal Game System of the future. It's mechanics can be usable in any genre or time period. e.g. Fantasy, sci-fi, cyberpunk, modern, cthulhu, etc.

Buhlman is just that good.

I foresee Paizo employing a staff of a 1000 people to keep up with demand.

.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the grim darkness of the far future, there are only goblins.
I feel the Drift overtaking me! It is a good pain!


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes.... because the edition where they're specifically limiting everything to a specific setting is totally the one where it'll be universal?

Liberty's Edge

Is there a link to the Twitch thing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Necromancer Paladin wrote:
Yes.... because the edition where they're specifically limiting everything to a specific setting is totally the one where it'll be universal?

You say limiting, I say "How do the planes work? Oh, Boneyard sounds cool. That's where people go when they die? Neat."

It's not like they're printing their entire campaign guide as a chapter in the book.


Necromancer Paladin wrote:
Yes.... because

Are you saying I've lost the bet already? I had hopes of years going by before a tally was taken on p2e. sigh...

.

Grand Lodge

15 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So the Buhlman Universal Role Play System... ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mach1.9pants wrote:
So the Bulmahn Universal Role Play System... ?

As long as it's not too Generic.... ;)


14 people marked this as a favorite.
mach1.9pants wrote:
So the Buhlman Universal Role Play System... ?

BURPS


The Grand Nagus strikes again!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JRutterbush wrote:
Is there a link to the Twitch thing?

I found this --> p2e Playtest Video

.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Why would I ever use a class-based, magic-heavy d20 system as any kind of universal system?

Especially when there's tons of actual universal systems I could use instead with way less hassle.


TheFinish wrote:

Why would I ever use a class-based, magic-heavy d20 system as any kind of universal system?

Especially when there's tons of actual universal systems I could use instead with way less hassle.

Two quick reasons, so:

1. I can win my bet.
2. Paizo get's all the market share.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tensor wrote:
TheFinish wrote:

Why would I ever use a class-based, magic-heavy d20 system as any kind of universal system?

Especially when there's tons of actual universal systems I could use instead with way less hassle.

Two quick reasons, so:

1. I can win my bet.
2. Paizo get's all the market share.

Ah, but y'see my good man, I care not one whit for the first, and I'd absolutely despise the second!

So, I say thee nay! Nay, good sir!

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I love Paizo and had a lot of fun with Pathfinder... but D&D's audience is an order of magnitude larger.
I've commented before D&D isn't just the #1 RPG. It's the #1 and #2 and #3 RPGs all in one game system. There's the game of homebrew D&D, there's the game of the Forgotten Realms. And then there's Critical Role, which is pretty much a hit game in and of itself.

Pathfinder 2 will be a huge hit if it just makes a tiny dent in D&D's market dominance. But no way it will displace D&D. And there's less chance it becomes the universal game system...

That said...
I don't know if we'll see the same "one dominant system" of the early 2000s again. The d20 boom where every game was a modification of 3e D&D. I think gaming companies have moved in favour of simpler in house systems that require less hacking to customize.
If people want to play a d20 game, they'll play Pathfinder/ D&D. And if they want a different genre it's in part because they don't want to play PF/D&D. Because if you're taking a break from PF, you want a very different ruleset where there's less overlap in rules leading to confusion.


TheFinish wrote:
Tensor wrote:
TheFinish wrote:

Why would I ever use a class-based, magic-heavy d20 system as any kind of universal system?

Especially when there's tons of actual universal systems I could use instead with way less hassle.

Two quick reasons, so:

1. I can win my bet.
2. Paizo get's all the market share.

Ah, but y'see my good man, I care not one whit for the first, and I'd absolutely despise the second!

So, I say thee nay! Nay, good sir!

Alright, how about this:

Reason #1. Look at that guy, he's got that sissy, stringy, music thingy.
Reason #2. Look what I can do. *does a one-handed handstand*


Jester David wrote:

I love Paizo and had a lot of fun with Pathfinder... but D&D's audience is an order of magnitude larger.

I've commented before D&D isn't just the #1 RPG. It's the #1 and #2 and #3 RPGs all in one game system.

Your not wrong, its been D&D way ahead of everyone else ... well since before AD&D. But briefly oh so briefly 4E dropped the ball and PF passed them by until 5E came out to once again take over the lead. So if people dream PF2 might once again challenge the big dog well it happened once, why not again?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As for a universal system, there are better ones out there for that. I have found don’t try and be everything to everyone one, you end up doing nothing great. I would rather PF2 made a great RPG for D&D style gaming.


Thurgon wrote:
Jester David wrote:

I love Paizo and had a lot of fun with Pathfinder... but D&D's audience is an order of magnitude larger.

I've commented before D&D isn't just the #1 RPG. It's the #1 and #2 and #3 RPGs all in one game system.
Your not wrong, its been D&D way ahead of everyone else ... well since before AD&D. But briefly oh so briefly 4E dropped the ball and PF passed them by until 5E came out to once again take over the lead. So if people dream PF2 might once again challenge the big dog well it happened once, why not again?

Because it only happened because the big dog dropped the ball and it's pretty clear now that didn't happen with 5E.

When something has as much brand dominance as D&D does in the RPG field, you really can't just compete with them by being good, even if you're better. As long as the dominant brand is good enough, people will stick with them.

Which doesn't mean everyone else is doomed - As far as I know, Paizo's still solvent, still turning a profit, still doing just fine as a company.


Thurgon wrote:
Jester David wrote:

I love Paizo and had a lot of fun with Pathfinder... but D&D's audience is an order of magnitude larger.

I've commented before D&D isn't just the #1 RPG. It's the #1 and #2 and #3 RPGs all in one game system.
Your not wrong, its been D&D way ahead of everyone else ... well since before AD&D. But briefly oh so briefly 4E dropped the ball and PF passed them by until 5E came out to once again take over the lead. So if people dream PF2 might once again challenge the big dog well it happened once, why not again?

But, can you do this? - > TOP 5 ROLEPLAYING GAMES--FALL 2017 <

.

It will be interesting to watch what effect BURPS, and the creation of p2e SpaceMaster, will have on Starfinder sales.

Liberty's Edge

Thurgon wrote:
Jester David wrote:

I love Paizo and had a lot of fun with Pathfinder... but D&D's audience is an order of magnitude larger.

I've commented before D&D isn't just the #1 RPG. It's the #1 and #2 and #3 RPGs all in one game system.
Your not wrong, its been D&D way ahead of everyone else ... well since before AD&D. But briefly oh so briefly 4E dropped the ball and PF passed them by until 5E came out to once again take over the lead. So if people dream PF2 might once again challenge the big dog well it happened once, why not again?

Pathfinder took the lead in sales as much because people stopped buying D&D books than because they switched to Pathfinder. It wasn't enough for Paizo to put out a well received game, WotC had to put out a poorly received one at the same time.

(Plus even the people still playing 4e could get all the material via the Character Builder reducing the need for the books.)

Right now, 5e is a *huge* hit that shows no signs of slowing or plateauing. It's not just big, it's bigger than it was during 4e or 3e or even 2e. (Potentially even outselling 1e!) So half the requirements that made Pathfinder the #1 game aren't there.
Pathfinder 2 wouldn't just need to sell as well as Pathfinder 1 did, it would need to sell several times more than Pathfinder 1 to even get *close* to catching up to 5e.

Other factors also make D&D hard to top. Twitch for one. D&D has a solid lock on streaming. Especially as there's no generic "D&D" tag; as far as Twitch is concerned, all games are "D&D". Twitch brings in a lot of new players, with streaming being a hugely important method of introducing the game to new players.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure Pathfinder will never be as popular as 5e. A crunchy, option filled system is just fairly niche when it seems like the majority of people just want something they can throw together for a beer and pretzels type of game.

I far prefer Paizo's approach, of course, and I'm glad it seems like they plan to stick to their guns rather than compete directly for D&D's market share. Even if Paizo were to turn around and try to make P2E into a super-casual 5E-esque game they'd never get 5E's fans to convert over and they'd just lose all of PF1's fans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree, Pathfinder doesn't need to beat 5e - 5e is massively bigger than 4e, 3.5e, 3e & maybe even 2e.

If Pathfinder can maintain or expand on it's historical sales it will be:
1) By far the 2nd biggest game in the market.
2) Doing quite nicely thank you very much.
3) Far, far beyond what anyone would have imagined they could have achieved when they brought out Pathfinder.


LanguageJunkie wrote:

Alright, how about this:

Reason #1. Look at that guy, he's got that sissy, stringy, music thingy.
Reason #2. Look what I can do. *does a one-handed handstand*

Sorry, you've thrown off the Emperor's groove.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder and 5e are very different. I would hazard a guess that Pathfinder is the leader of rules-heavy high-fantasy roleplaying systems.

If PF2 is too fanatical about simplification, it will throw this marketshare away completely, in exchange for trying to fight the behemoth that is WotC for the scraps.


Mekkis wrote:

Pathfinder and 5e are very different. I would hazard a guess that Pathfinder is the leader of rules-heavy high-fantasy roleplaying systems.

If PF2 is too fanatical about simplification, it will throw this marketshare away completely, in exchange for trying to fight the behemoth that is WotC for the scraps.

We should all work together to only increase Paizo's market share.

.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mekkis wrote:

Pathfinder and 5e are very different. I would hazard a guess that Pathfinder is the leader of rules-heavy high-fantasy roleplaying systems.

If PF2 is too fanatical about simplification, it will throw this marketshare away completely, in exchange for trying to fight the behemoth that is WotC for the scraps.

I really agree with this completely. There's a lot of 5ed inspired stuff they are testing, and I don't know why they would try to go for a heavily competed market space over one that they have a solid reputation with.


cfalcon wrote:
Mekkis wrote:

Pathfinder and 5e are very different. I would hazard a guess that Pathfinder is the leader of rules-heavy high-fantasy roleplaying systems.

If PF2 is too fanatical about simplification, it will throw this marketshare away completely, in exchange for trying to fight the behemoth that is WotC for the scraps.

I really agree with this completely. There's a lot of 5ed inspired stuff they are testing, and I don't know why they would try to go for a heavily competed market space over one that they have a solid reputation with.

They will not.

We will do it for them.

BURPS has 3pp written all over it.

.


Mekkis wrote:

Pathfinder and 5e are very different. I would hazard a guess that Pathfinder is the leader of rules-heavy high-fantasy roleplaying systems.

If PF2 is too fanatical about simplification, it will throw this marketshare away completely, in exchange for trying to fight the behemoth that is WotC for the scraps.

I hate to break it to you they really aren’t. Pathfinder is to D&D as the Yorkshire Terrier is to the Scottish highland terrier. They are almost identical and only dog experts can tell any different.

Both games are rules heavy and share 90% of the same names, classes and product identity. The suggestion that Pathfinder is fundamentally different is crazy. The fact that Pathfinder is a bit more rules heavy is not going to attract new players unless they are rpg afficionados. Pathfinder will have to dine out on 5e’s hand me downs.

Liberty's Edge

Agreed.
5e is only "rules light" when you compare it to a particularly heavy system like Pathfinder. When you increase the sample size to include pretty much any of the other top RPGs, then D&D still looks plenty crunchy.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Necromancer Paladin wrote:
Yes.... because the edition where they're specifically limiting everything to a specific setting is totally the one where it'll be universal?

You know the 3.0e and 3.5e books were "Greyhawk Infused", right?

From the basic descriptions of racial origins and traits to the deities clerics could worship to the name of tenser's floating disk, WotC had embedded their setting. With Pathfinder, Paizo stripped the mages' names off of various spells, and substituted Golarion's deities, but that was about it.

Now there's going to be updated setting info, with races more for Golarion, and some deity-specific feats and stuff. Whoopty-do. Golarion is a generic setting. It's not like this is getting Eberron Infused or something.


The Sword wrote:

I hate to break it to you they really aren’t. Pathfinder is to D&D as the Yorkshire Terrier is to the Scottish highland terrier. They are almost identical and only dog experts can tell any different.

Both games are rules heavy and share 90% of the same names, classes and product identity. The suggestion that Pathfinder is fundamentally different is crazy. The fact that Pathfinder is a bit more rules heavy is not going to attract new players unless they are rpg afficionados. Pathfinder will have to dine out on 5e’s hand me downs.

I hate to break it you but probably 90% of RPG sessions ever played are D&D or some varient.

To a first approximation, RPGs are D&D. To a 2nd approximation RPGs are D&D & Pathfinder.
Commercially & Culturally the differences between variants of D&D are much more significant than the differences between them & all the other RPGs that few people play.
To use your analogy, 90% of the playbase are dog experts.

'Dining on D&D's hand-me-downs' (A grossly unfair charicature but whatever) has seen Pathfinder sustain the 2nd biggest player base in RPGs for nearly a decade.

That spot remains theirs to lose & nothing I've seen from Starfinder or the Playtest suggest they are keen to do so.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
cfalcon wrote:
Mekkis wrote:

Pathfinder and 5e are very different. I would hazard a guess that Pathfinder is the leader of rules-heavy high-fantasy roleplaying systems.

If PF2 is too fanatical about simplification, it will throw this marketshare away completely, in exchange for trying to fight the behemoth that is WotC for the scraps.

I really agree with this completely. There's a lot of 5ed inspired stuff they are testing, and I don't know why they would try to go for a heavily competed market space over one that they have a solid reputation with.

Paizo have explicitly stated that they’re not trying to occupy WotC’s space. They’ve said that would be bad for them, bad for WotC and bad for gamers everywhere.

Just because “streamlined” and “easily accessible” were design goals for both games doesn’t imply they’ll be implemented the same way. (Action/bonus action/move your speed and three actions are both simpler and more streamlined than the PF model. They are quite different solutions though).


As soon as the term "universal" comes into play.....I loose all interest. Now keep in mind what I have seen so far is more than enough to make me loose interest....I started out willing to look at the playtest....but the spoilers that have been released so far, move to far from 1stE for me to be interested. I will probably buy splat books dealing with things that have not been covered in 1E (Arcadia and such) and convert it to 1stE....but beyond that I have lost all interest.


graeme mcdougall wrote:
The Sword wrote:

I hate to break it to you they really aren’t. Pathfinder is to D&D as the Yorkshire Terrier is to the Scottish highland terrier. They are almost identical and only dog experts can tell any different.

Both games are rules heavy and share 90% of the same names, classes and product identity. The suggestion that Pathfinder is fundamentally different is crazy. The fact that Pathfinder is a bit more rules heavy is not going to attract new players unless they are rpg afficionados. Pathfinder will have to dine out on 5e’s hand me downs.

I hate to break it you but probably 90% of RPG sessions ever played are D&D or some varient.

To a first approximation, RPGs are D&D. To a 2nd approximation RPGs are D&D & Pathfinder.
Commercially & Culturally the differences between variants of D&D are much more significant than the differences between them & all the other RPGs that few people play.
To use your analogy, 90% of the playbase are dog experts.

'Dining on D&D's hand-me-downs' (A grossly unfair charicature but whatever) has seen Pathfinder sustain the 2nd biggest player base in RPGs for nearly a decade.

That spot remains theirs to lose & nothing I've seen from Starfinder or the Playtest suggest they are keen to do so.

You’re not breaking anything to me. I’m well aware that Pathfinder in any incarnation is a variant of D&D in a very literal sense.

Let me clarify my hand me down comment. PF1s success came from Paizo inheriting a disgruntled 3rd ed player base who were charmed by age of worms etc.That no longer applies. The new wave of RPGers are generally people who give D&D a go (because of media link in, accessibility, brand name etc). They are not aficionado’s by any stretch of the definition. I’ve just finished the third session for a brand new group of players and their reference points are board games like Lords of Waterdeep or Arkham, computer games, TV, films and novels. Definitely not other RPGs. Incidentally this is the first new group in four years I have onboarded because trying to do so for Pathfinder last time was so traumatic I swore never again. Even with 5E’s ‘simplified’ system it took a good 30 mins per character to walk them though it. Hence prompting my original comment about 5e not being rules light.

PF2 has a really fine line to tread. Make it too different and they won’t inherit 5e players looking for something to migrate to. Too similar and they won’t feel the need to. For me Starfinder was a bitter disappointment with a lacklustre AP and with PCs that felt neutered without tech. The exact opposite of 5e at the time. The same
goes for ruins of Azlant, that felt so generic it could have been set anywhere (Compare it to Tomb of Annihilation). They need to get the same creativity and wonder that made PF1 PCs feel awesome and Adventure Path’s be so playable. A part of me wonders whether they can do this in light of the last three years products.


Fair enough I guess. I found Starfinder to be a fun game which seems to have got off to a really good start in terms of popularity. I mean, as a sci-fi game I expect the tech to make up a big part of the fun of playing the character - if it had all the complexity of Pathfinder then added the tech on top it would be over-whelming.

My feeling is that 1st time players are best introduced via pre-gen characters but I guess mileage may vary, some players might insist on creating characters from scratch.

I've not played ruins of Azalant but it's 1 of, what, 20+ APs, along with a ton of the modules (This is my favourite line & what I run most).
Plenty of recent APs have been well recieved by players.

I think there's ample space for PF2 to stake a place for itself around 5e. Very, very few Pathfinder fans expect it to outsell 5e or view that as a condition for success.
It will be looking to attract a mix of new players, lapsed Pathfinder players who burned out on some of the inherited 3.5 jank, 5e players who want to experiment, people who came in via Starfinder etc

A poorly recieved D&D (4e) was certainly a factor in getting Pathfinder kick-started but Paizo also had a lot of good will from their work on the magazines & their adventures & campaign setting already. It certainly isn't all that's sustained them in 9 long years since the release -
thecompany & the game have their own merits, too.

Time will tell, I guess.


Tensor wrote:
mach1.9pants wrote:
So the Buhlman Universal Role Play System... ?

BURPS

I need links of examples of possible artwork for BURPS?


Tensor wrote:
mach1.9pants wrote:
So the Buhlman Universal Role Play System... ?

BURPS

Ok, but the name BURPS has already been used, at least twice three times:

BURPS by Maverick Games Company (1987)
BURPS by Rebecca Angel (2011)
BURPS by Games 4 Geeks (2017)


But this is a different B. So all is ok.


Well personally i feel that the game is better being tied to a single setting as a base, as it gives a good place to reference and give examples on how the rules work in practice and then you can just shift it to more generic fantasy after.

A few of the problems that pops up when the rules tries too hard to be generic to the point the point of reference falls off and examples becomes too vague to be used.


Jester David wrote:

Agreed.

5e is only "rules light" when you compare it to a particularly heavy system like Pathfinder. When you increase the sample size to include pretty much any of the other top RPGs, then D&D still looks plenty crunchy.

Total, to me 5th Ed is like 3rd Ed Lite, so lighter in comparison to 3rd Ed/PF1, but still complex. I think PF2 could thread the needle of being more complex (more options, crunch) than 5th Ed, but still lighter than PF1.


I think PF2 has to more simple but they don't need to go as far as 5E.

They could keep micro feat for example and conceptually some things in 3.X are easier than 5E anyway (4 encounters instead of 6-8, 3 saves instead of 6)

If they clean up the execution of a few things and fix the numbers porn they can keep the more options side of things and have a good game.


Zardnaar wrote:

I think PF2 has to more simple but they don't need to go as far as 5E.

They could keep micro feat for example and conceptually some things in 3.X are easier than 5E anyway (4 encounters instead of 6-8, 3 saves instead of 6)

If they clean up the execution of a few things and fix the numbers porn they can keep the more options side of things and have a good game.

Yes, though it looks like large numbers are in, due to + level (proficiency) and the 4-tiered success/failure system.


graeme mcdougall wrote:

I agree, Pathfinder doesn't need to beat 5e - 5e is massively bigger than 4e, 3.5e, 3e & maybe even 2e.

If Pathfinder can maintain or expand on it's historical sales it will be:
1) By far the 2nd biggest game in the market.
2) Doing quite nicely thank you very much.
3) Far, far beyond what anyone would have imagined they could have achieved when they brought out Pathfinder.

3rd biggest game. I like to remind people that the 1st biggest game isn't D&D and is completely random as to what it is.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Zardnaar wrote:
They could keep micro feat for example and conceptually some things in 3.X are easier than 5E anyway (4 encounters instead of 6-8, 3 saves instead of 6)

It's just an unimportant aside, but I think 6 saves is easier (and simpler) than 3. I wish PF2 was going with that - the extra layer of labelling saves fortitude/will/reflex doesn't really add anything except for jargon.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
They could keep micro feat for example and conceptually some things in 3.X are easier than 5E anyway (4 encounters instead of 6-8, 3 saves instead of 6)
It's just an unimportant aside, but I think 6 saves is easier (and simpler) than 3. I wish PF2 was going with that - the extra layer of labelling saves fortitude/will/reflex doesn't really add anything except for jargon.

Yeah, when you think about it, especially as there is no choice as to which ability score to use, might as well cut to the chase and just use Dexterity, no need for a separate Reflex score.


3.X wasn't a universal system, but could do a passable imitation of one if you squinted just so.

From what little we've seen of PF2, however, I'm not convinced that it would be viable for non-Golarion based fantasy let alone other genres.

Universal systems (HERO, GURPS, or BRP) tend to utilize exception-based designs as this makes it relative easy to convert to different genres and settings by simply altering certain rules while leaving the basic engine unchanged.

That's not really possible in a modular design though as the individual pieces don't necessarily form a complete system once key pieces are altered. I do think we might see sister games in the same mould as Starfinder, but don't think they'd really support crossovers or have much in the way of interchangeability.

1 to 50 of 51 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / You Heard It Here First --> Pathfinder 2e is the new unversal game system. All Messageboards