| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has enough input been taken from 1e people, who do not identify with or accept 2e?
The ship has sailed, man. Paizo has set course, and is well over the horizon. This voyage is not going where you suggest, regardless of any forum contemplation.
That said, I think the take-home over the PF2 playtest discussion and debate revealed one interesting thing about PF1: those people who have issues with it are a widely varied group who can't all be satisfied. Period. No matter what "problem" with PF1 you change, you're going to alienate someone. Sure, there are things I personally wouldn't mind "fixed", and there are things I personally wouldn't care if they were "fixed", and sure, I would likely have gladly invested long-term in a PF1.5 revision. But my sales would have been offset by other people who would have jumped ship.
Done is done.
I mean... they could either create this massive compendium of 10 years' worth of stat blocks for GMs who want to run older Adventure Paths (which isn't ideal from a business perspective for various reasons - supporting products, most of which are old sales rather than new sales, from an edition they're trying to phase out is most certainly not good for the bottom line), or they could create new books full of game material for their new game that synergize with their new Adventure Paths. They can't do both - the manpower just isn't there.
And do you know how large a product like that would have to be? Even if they sold it as PDF only, destroying a massive share of their market in the process, it would still have to cost easily a hundred dollars, if not far more. For a product that only people intent on running several 1e APs in 2e will even maybe have interest in. When they have a fanbase of people who will happily and eagerly do that for free on their very own website, allowing them to make products that aren't industry suicide.
I understand that you don't want 2e. But sometimes it's just not going to work out. Whether we like it or not, we're living in a state of capitalism, and that means needing to make money. Even if it doesn't please every one of the fans.
In the meantime... like I said, the fans will probably do this themselves soon enough. And then, you don't even have to pay for it. Sounds like a win-win situation to me. ^_^
1. Don't take my comments as black and white. There's always a middle ground.
2. I was thinking they could leverage 2e Bestiaries (as they are created) and reference them to replace the references 1e Bestiaries. I'd think there going to be a lot of overlap. Leverage it.
3. Help people extend the life of their 1e APs (at least see if there's a market) by enabling us to purchase 2e stat block conversions for material created as part of the APs.
The reason I keep asking for this is that many of us have so much material that we still could take years to use most of it. For me, this is very high priority. If it's a struggle to do that in 2e, 2e becomes a mute point.
So, I've got to get my money's worth out of all this 1e material one way or the other. Now, if it was easy for me to use that stuff side-by-side with the new 2e stuff -- then for me the market begins to open up for 2e. But, I can't throw money at 2e if it just looks like a wash-rinse-repeat scenario -- that spending gobs of money on it would be wasted when 3e comes out.
Win-win for me is to be able to purchase material hog wild without the fear that it suddenly can't be used.
The easier it is to go from 1e to 2e, the more people will go.
But, I understand. Internally, Paizo has to make a choice. It's possible people who love 1e won't embrace 2e. Maybe, 2e is for another generation. Maybe not.
I like to see progress. So, I wish 2e all the best in success.
If Paizo decides as a strategy to have 1e and 2e as separate communities, that's fine. I am ok with playing out 1e and buying more 1e material from Paizo until I've exhausted what I want to do there. As long as I keep getting players, I'm very happy.
I just thought that by leveraging 1e to provide APs that could be used with 2e that BOTH 1e and 2e become more attractive. In the beginning, 2e just won't have much material available -- and that will make it harder for 2e to get off the ground.
There's plenty of revenue making opportunities in that whole effort available. Lots of ways to win for everyone involved.
Has enough input been taken from 1e people, who do not identify with or accept 2e?The ship has sailed, man. Paizo has set course, and is well over the horizon. This voyage is not going where you suggest, regardless of any forum contemplation.
That said, I think the take-home over the PF2 playtest discussion and debate revealed one interesting thing about PF1: those people who have issues with it are a widely varied group who can't all be satisfied. Period. No matter what "problem" with PF1 you change, you're going to alienate someone. Sure, there are things I personally wouldn't mind "fixed", and there are things I personally wouldn't care if they were "fixed", and sure, I would likely have gladly invested long-term in a PF1.5 revision. But my sales would have been offset by other people who would have jumped ship.
Done is done.
Unless, for example, PF2 sales are disapponting and Paizo needs a fallback position ... a new strategy. Then, done would not be done. Always got to watch out for that. I care about Paizo, so I bring it up.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless, for example, PF2 sales are disapponting and Paizo needs a fallback position ... a new strategy. Then, done would not be done. Always got to watch out for that. I care about Paizo, so I bring it up.Has enough input been taken from 1e people, who do not identify with or accept 2e?The ship has sailed, man. Paizo has set course, and is well over the horizon. This voyage is not going where you suggest, regardless of any forum contemplation.
That said, I think the take-home over the PF2 playtest discussion and debate revealed one interesting thing about PF1: those people who have issues with it are a widely varied group who can't all be satisfied. Period. No matter what "problem" with PF1 you change, you're going to alienate someone. Sure, there are things I personally wouldn't mind "fixed", and there are things I personally wouldn't care if they were "fixed", and sure, I would likely have gladly invested long-term in a PF1.5 revision. But my sales would have been offset by other people who would have jumped ship.
Done is done.
If I were running Paizo my fallback strategy would be to ditch Pathfinder and focus on Starfinder full time.
And if you actually *care* about Paizo, you should realize that if PF2e tanks, there won't be going back to PF1 (since it tanked already) or making a quick PF3 that's revised PF1 (see above). It's make it or break it, and as it stands, the income from PF1 must be small enough to not warrant a ROI on providing things you ask for.
It's the same situation as WotC found itself in - it never made an official "5e conversion to any earlier edition" product because there just wasn't enough money on the table to warrant the effort.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My instinct is actually the opposite of yours, Mark. I wouldn’t see any point in buying PF2 stuff if I was going to run PF1 adventures - I’d just run them in PF1.
For me, the only way I could really get on board with PF2 was to say goodbye to my old game and begin looking forward to the new (I now have empty shelves waiting for the next ten years of goodies).
I’m not trying to change your mind - we should all feel free to say what we want. It’s just an angle you may not have thought of - following the route you outline would probably make me less likely to buy PF2 stuff. Maybe Paizo have an eye on that too.
Step #1: PFS should match what WotC is doing with Adventure Leagues. I.e., relax player requirements for material ownership. --This is the one thing that would draw more "newbies" into the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless, for example, PF2 sales are disapponting and Paizo needs a fallback position ... a new strategy. Then, done would not be done. Always got to watch out for that. I care about Paizo, so I bring it up.
I agree with the bag-with-teeth.
I've said it elsewhen, but fallback to PF1-based anything isn't viable.
You've got to expect first-day-success with PF2. There will be people (like me) who are 90% expecting to not want to play PF2 but buy the Core and/or Bestiary in order to see if there's sufficient change from the playtest to make it attractive. Yay! Success!
Then there's the slow trickle-down of sales as (theoretically) people don't actually adopt the edition. It could take easily two years for that to become statistically evident.
Then you make your decision to "fall back", which takes another year to revise PF1. All the while, you're still bleeding money. Even if you just throw your hands up in the air and say "we're going back to PF1 exactly as it was", you need a year to get the product pipeline back up and running, redesigning new APs, adventures, etc.
And even if you do that, where you're at is three years after you introduced PF2, and five to six years after you recognized that PF1 sales aren't sufficient to thrive on, and having alienated a bunch of your subscribing customers, some of whom won't come back.
Not viable.
Also, I agree with the bag-with-teeth that probably their best bet would be to focus on Starfinder, which currently has its own niche.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Step #1: PFS should match what WotC is doing with Adventure Leagues. I.e., relax player requirements for material ownership. --This is the one thing that would draw more "newbies" into the game.
Step #1 in 2019 is: have some game streaming show that reaches the level of popularity remotely close to Critical Role. That's how you draw newbies and that's how WotC managed to open the hobby up.
I also think PF1 is done no matter what. Even if PF2 is a flop, not enough PF1 fans are going to hang around waiting for a rebirth.
I think the “apparent success that might not be actual success” issue Anguish points out from sceptical fans of Paizo giving it a try is even longer than for most games. I think a significant portion of the fan base think in APs. I suspect sales for the first six months will be stellar. First instalment of the second AP will be a crucial test, in my opinion.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Step #1: PFS should match what WotC is doing with Adventure Leagues. I.e., relax player requirements for material ownership. --This is the one thing that would draw more "newbies" into the game.Step #1 in 2019 is: have some game streaming show that reaches the level of popularity remotely close to Critical Role. That's how you draw newbies and that's how WotC managed to open the hobby up.
The sad part there is that Critical Role actually started with Pathfinder, but it was so cumbersome they swapped to 5E. At which point the show became much more fun to watch as they stopped getting bogged down in minutiae :(
Organized Play Developer
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anecdotal story time:
Before coming to Paizo, I was a 3pp designer for multiple publishing companies. I love PF1. I worked on my first ENnie nominated product for PF1 right before I started work at Paizo, and I was (very briefly) devastated when I started work at the company and learned we were ramping up to announce a new edition.
BUT!
It started making a lot of sense to me as I kind of cast the scales from my eyes and started thinking about the last couple years.
Spheres of Might was a wildly well reviewed product with better production values than Spheres of Power and tremendous hype. When Spheres of Power came out in 2013 hardly anyone had even heard of Drop Dead Studios, but in 2017 DDS was well-established with a loyal fanbase. Despite all that, Spheres of Might brought in only about 75% of the pledges that the less well-known and less broadly advertised Spheres of Power brought in when it was a dark horse entry from a fairly obscure publisher.
I also worked on City of 7 Seraphs, which included many of the best up-and-coming designers and big industry names like Colin "Planescape-Baldur's Gate-daddy of kytons" McComb. We hustled our asses off at conventions all over the country and still struggled to bring that one over the finish-line.
My local game stores, which used to have up to a dozen tables of Pathfinder collectively, were slowly shrinking their Pathfinder sections, clearing out Pathfinder inventory, and hosting fewer and fewer Pathfinder tables. My own groups were shrinking and I had to host more 5E and Cypher System games to get people to stick around.
Now, that could have been the result of simple market shifts. There's a lot more great TTRPG gaming systems available today than there were a decade ago. Even after I started working for Paizo, I wasn't sure what was really "true" about the market (I develop adventures and do freelance design work, I don't work in marketing or finance). But then the playtest dropped and I realized that the game I loved was legitimately dying. People were calling me up or waving at me on the street "Mike! This new stuff is great! It only took us 15 minutes to make new characters today! Can't wait for the final version!" Players who I hadn't talked to in months were messaging me asking if I was going to be running playtest games. My one occasional home game suddenly swelled back up to 3 full tables of playtesters (and would have been 4 but I simply didn't have the time). I saw the lines of people at PaizoCon playing the playtest demo and then getting up only to run to the end of the line so they could play again ASAP. I got hate mail from people accusing me of taking some of my best 3pp ideas and running to Paizo with them to make a new edition (I didn't; the playtest book was mostly planned and written before I even started at Paizo and that's not my department anyways).
It really hit me that if even a quarter of the Pathfinder fans were having the same experience as I was (and the information I've heard from across the industry leads me to believe that the number was much greater than that), then this was it. Maybe PF1 would live on in a smaller and less ambitious format. Maybe I'd still get to write a few products for some third-party publishers who had a loyal enough fanbase to continue in the current system. But those days of each book selling better than the last and constant new tables of PF1 opening up were clearly over in my area, and my area is the greater Seattle area, one of the most gloriously nerdy regions in the nation. I literally have 6 successful gaming stores within 15 minutes of my house.
Now, I can't speak for what Paizo may or may not do in the future. I don't know for a fact that PF2 will or will not be successful. But I do know that I saw the playtest bring growth to a dwindling market. I have every reason to believe that PF2 will release to resounding success. And I can't really imagine a world where a company the size of Paizo would go back to a 20-year-old rules set that they'd already decided was due for retirement. Anything could happen, of course, but I've seen this industry from the perspective of over half a dozen different publishing companies and I was deeply embedded in my local community and saw how Pathfinder was simply falling away. I don't think PF1 will "die" completely anymore than D&DA, D&D 3.5, or any of those other editions that people still play. But I do think it's time as a viable cornerstone rules set of a successful franchise has passed, and if for some reason PF2 doesn't do as well as I expect it will, my experience in the industry and knowledge of its history leads to me believe that Paizo still wouldn't pivot back to PF1, but would more likely move on to another revamped rule set, or shift to a different focus.
Thanks very much for the perspective, Michael (Mike?) I’ve heard similar things about the market over the last few years from a few 3PP that I’m reasonably close to.
As a consumer (who didn’t want the change) I found it hard to accept that my circle of friends doesn’t say much about the mood of the overall market. It’s good to hear from people with a broader perspective (I could maybe rustle up one or two hundred people to poll, but it would be a hideously biased sample. Where people actually put their money is a far more meaningful measuring stick).
I’m sure many people tell you they’re jealous of your job with Paizo. I can’t get over the fact you have six gaming stores within a quarter of an hour. :(
Step #1: PFS should match what WotC is doing with Adventure Leagues. I.e., relax player requirements for material ownership. --This is the one thing that would draw more "newbies" into the game.Step #1 in 2019 is: have some game streaming show that reaches the level of popularity remotely close to Critical Role. That's how you draw newbies and that's how WotC managed to open the hobby up.
Not really. ('net shows are just icing catering to the "already converted".)What WotC did was let players get into Adventure Leagues by waiving requirements to own the PhB and any one other source of their choice. So, the player could play any straight-class or dual multiclass character of their choice in a "Living" system with feats and other options out of those two books, and not pay a dime. One guess where all the kids went.
--WotC marketing did what every smart drug-dealer does: give out free samples to hook your customer hooked.
Unless, for example, PF2 sales are disapponting and Paizo needs a fallback position ... a new strategy. Then, done would not be done. Always got to watch out for that. I care about Paizo, so I bring it up.Has enough input been taken from 1e people, who do not identify with or accept 2e?The ship has sailed, man. Paizo has set course, and is well over the horizon. This voyage is not going where you suggest, regardless of any forum contemplation.
That said, I think the take-home over the PF2 playtest discussion and debate revealed one interesting thing about PF1: those people who have issues with it are a widely varied group who can't all be satisfied. Period. No matter what "problem" with PF1 you change, you're going to alienate someone. Sure, there are things I personally wouldn't mind "fixed", and there are things I personally wouldn't care if they were "fixed", and sure, I would likely have gladly invested long-term in a PF1.5 revision. But my sales would have been offset by other people who would have jumped ship.
Done is done.
If I were running Paizo my fallback strategy would be to ditch Pathfinder and focus on Starfinder full time.
And if you actually *care* about Paizo, you should realize that if PF2e tanks, there won't be going back to PF1 (since it tanked already) or making a quick PF3 that's revised PF1 (see above). It's make it or break it, and as it stands, the income from PF1 must be small enough to not warrant a ROI on providing things you ask for.
It's the same situation as WotC found itself in - it never made an official "5e conversion to any earlier edition" product because there just wasn't enough money on the table to warrant the effort.
So, your pet is Starfinder. Mine is PF1. No, I don't really care about Starfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anecdotal story time:
Before coming to Paizo, I was a 3pp designer for multiple publishing companies. I love PF1. I worked on my first ENnie nominated product for PF1 right before I started work at Paizo, and I was (very briefly) devastated when I started work at the company and learned we were ramping up to announce a new edition.
BUT!
It started making a lot of sense to me as I kind of cast the scales from my eyes and started thinking about the last couple years.
Spheres of Might was a wildly well reviewed product with better production values than Spheres of Power and tremendous hype. When Spheres of Power came out in 2013 hardly anyone had even heard of Drop Dead Studios, but in 2017 DDS was well-established with a loyal fanbase. Despite all that, Spheres of Might brought in only about 75% of the pledges that the less well-known and less broadly advertised Spheres of Power brought in when it was a dark horse entry from a fairly obscure publisher.
I also worked on City of 7 Seraphs, which included many of the best up-and-coming designers and big industry names like Colin "Planescape-Baldur's Gate-daddy of kytons" McComb. We hustled our asses off at conventions all over the country and still struggled to bring that one over the finish-line.
My local game stores, which used to have up to a dozen tables of Pathfinder collectively, were slowly shrinking their Pathfinder sections, clearing out Pathfinder inventory, and hosting fewer and fewer Pathfinder tables. My own groups were shrinking and I had to host more 5E and Cypher System games to get people to stick around.
Now, that could have been the result of simple market shifts. There's a lot more great TTRPG gaming systems available today than there were a decade ago. Even after I started working for Paizo, I wasn't sure what was really "true" about the market (I develop adventures and do freelance design work, I don't work in marketing or finance). But then the playtest dropped and I realized that the game I loved was...
I think really the effect we're seeing with PF1 and PF2 (and 5e) is the "new-and-improved" effect. All the stuff that's preceived as being old drops off and the new takes up its place.
Problem is that if new isn't really very good, people lose their facination with it really fast -- it doesn't have staying power.
If you look at other forums, you can find PF1 fans with some fairly solid grievances with both PF1 and PF2 -- but the overriding theme is that what's been done is to throw the baby out with the bath water with what's been done to PF1 and there's a strong feeling that PF2 is an inadequate replacement.
PF1 has a very carefully honed out lineage. Parts of PF2 feel like a random direction. Some of it looks interesting. I will look at the final result when it comes out.
I'd say, though, that the biggest problem with PF1 was that Paizo came out with too many rule books and frustrated GMs. Too many rules in too many different places. Consolidation of all those books has become a banner in the PF1 community.
Also, I had a curious exchange with another GM, who said he specifically left PF1 because of the continuous stream of rule book releases -- but he said now that it's stopped he's more interested in PF1 than ever.
Could be that even though rule book consolidation is strongly desired that even without it that people will learn to manage.
I think Paizo completely missed the mark for why PF1 interest declined -- and potentially also why there's a community that really pretty much doesn't like PF2. I'm not clear where everything stands with Starfinder. I'm doing an Iron Gods campaign (and ponder now-and-then whether that was a mistake but I don't think so) -- but for me growing up with D&D, I just really want Pathfinder (i.e. mostly fantasy realm) even though I'm a scifi fan. Yet, I can see a lot more potential for really good Starfinder stories that just can't be done in single world Pathfinder. But, what if magic in Pathfinder was used to travel to different worlds?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The sad part there is that Critical Role actually started with Pathfinder, but it was so cumbersome they swapped to 5E. At which point the show became much more fun to watch as they stopped getting bogged down in minutiae :(Step #1: PFS should match what WotC is doing with Adventure Leagues. I.e., relax player requirements for material ownership. --This is the one thing that would draw more "newbies" into the game.Step #1 in 2019 is: have some game streaming show that reaches the level of popularity remotely close to Critical Role. That's how you draw newbies and that's how WotC managed to open the hobby up.
A lot of people seem to echo the thought that too many rule books were released for PF1 and that more than anything caused its decline.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Refering to the Core Rulebook, I think another issue that caused PF1's decline was failing to come out with a revision of any sort for 10 years.
What should have been done at year 4 or 5 was to come out with an incremental revision to PF1 that made the game system easier to GM and improved game playability. Should have refreshed the game with an all new book cover to recapture interest.
A big plus for Paizo is that since they publish PDFs for their current material (WotC only seems to do this for the older editions but not 5e), Paizo is doing a great service to the VTT community. It's enabling me to run PF1 games (actually to entire campaigns each with different people), where I just could find enough people to play in-person at local game stores even with colorful advertising. Online, I can get new players in about two hours or sometimes less.
So, Paizo definitely has this part right.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, your pet is Starfinder. Mine is PF1. No, I don't really care about Starfinder.Unless, for example, PF2 sales are disapponting and Paizo needs a fallback position ... a new strategy. Then, done would not be done. Always got to watch out for that. I care about Paizo, so I bring it up.Has enough input been taken from 1e people, who do not identify with or accept 2e?The ship has sailed, man. Paizo has set course, and is well over the horizon. This voyage is not going where you suggest, regardless of any forum contemplation.
That said, I think the take-home over the PF2 playtest discussion and debate revealed one interesting thing about PF1: those people who have issues with it are a widely varied group who can't all be satisfied. Period. No matter what "problem" with PF1 you change, you're going to alienate someone. Sure, there are things I personally wouldn't mind "fixed", and there are things I personally wouldn't care if they were "fixed", and sure, I would likely have gladly invested long-term in a PF1.5 revision. But my sales would have been offset by other people who would have jumped ship.
Done is done.
If I were running Paizo my fallback strategy would be to ditch Pathfinder and focus on Starfinder full time.
And if you actually *care* about Paizo, you should realize that if PF2e tanks, there won't be going back to PF1 (since it tanked already) or making a quick PF3 that's revised PF1 (see above). It's make it or break it, and as it stands, the income from PF1 must be small enough to not warrant a ROI on providing things you ask for.
It's the same situation as WotC found itself in - it never made an official "5e conversion to any earlier edition" product because there just wasn't enough money on the table to warrant the effort.
I don't even run or play Starfinder. I'm just capable of seeing its market position and value despite not being in any way emotionally attached to it.
In fact, that you equate positive assessment of a game with emotional attachment makes it easier to understand your train of thought. Somebody is trying to take your beloved pet away. Your emotions cloud any judgment other than "Paizo must be wrong in their reasoning for this".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I were running Paizo my fallback strategy would be to ditch Pathfinder and focus on Starfinder full time.So, your pet is Starfinder. Mine is PF1. No, I don't really care about Starfinder.
That's overly reductive. The bag-with-teeth wouldn't be making that decision out of enjoyment for one game over another. It'd be the only way to keep the company afloat.
I found Starfinder grating. Probably more than the PF2 playtest. But I'd make the same decision, because there's no future for PF1 at the scale Paizo needs.
Refering to the Core Rulebook, I think another issue that caused PF1's decline was failing to come out with a revision of any sort for 10 years.
What should have been done at year 4 or 5 was to come out with an incremental revision to PF1 that made the game system easier to GM and improved game playability. Should have refreshed the game with an all new book cover to recapture interest.
Have you heard of the Strategy Guide?
Have you heard of the Strategy Guide?Refering to the Core Rulebook, I think another issue that caused PF1's decline was failing to come out with a revision of any sort for 10 years.
What should have been done at year 4 or 5 was to come out with an incremental revision to PF1 that made the game system easier to GM and improved game playability. Should have refreshed the game with an all new book cover to recapture interest.
Yes, what does that have to do with anything I've said?
Another area where Paizo has absolutely gotten it right is the quality of the published materials.
I think WotC has completely blown it in this area. Last year I went to a book store and picked up two copies of the Player's Handbook. One copy had a severe binding issue, and the other a severe printing issue. Aside from that, I didn't feel the material was well presented -- not like it was for previous editions.
One thing, though, is that sometimes I think the illustrations in the Paizo books are too cartoonish. This is especially a turn off for me with Starfinder.
I'll say, though, that many other times the illustrations are just fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I’m really going to miss is the Adventure Path line. While I love the archetypes and options in Player Companions, it is also the source of a lot of bloat. The core line was already running weak, with Wilderness feeling particularly uninspired. I didn’t pay particular attention to the campaign setting line, but the setting probably isn’t going away for the most part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I’m really going to miss is the Adventure Path line. While I love the archetypes and options in Player Companions, it is also the source of a lot of bloat. The core line was already running weak, with Wilderness feeling particularly uninspired. I didn’t pay particular attention to the campaign setting line, but the setting probably isn’t going away for the most part.
Yes, I totally agree. I think the idea with all that supplemental material was that it would add a flavor to the campaign. Problem is players just absolutely wanted to bring it in from other campaigns -- so it became polution.
Maybe, if handled well by the GM and limited, this type of material isn't so bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I wonder about is again an issue with the artwork. How do you appeal to such a wide age demographic?
I know guys still playing who are probably in their 60s, now. If Gary Gygax were still alive ... he'd be even older than that.
But, then, you've got young teenagers, too.
I guaranty that what appeals to today's teenagers does NOT appeal to the older group and visa versa. I also have no doubt that the artwork desired by all the age groups in between is greatly varied as well.
Tough situation ...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I’m really going to miss is the Adventure Path line.
Didn't James Jacobs say he was finishing up the first volume of the first 2e Adventure Path just the other day? I'm not sure the AP line will miss a month.
I mean, speaking of marketing the "we release high quality adventures regularly" is Paizo's main competitive advantage over their contemporaries, so if anything they're going to lean on APs even more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I meant I’ll miss APs for PF1. I really didn’t like what I saw of PF2 in the playtest, though I’m open to reviews when the real version comes out, I’m doubtful the end product will be something I would enjoy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I were running Paizo my fallback strategy would be to ditch Pathfinder and focus on Starfinder full time.So, your pet is Starfinder. Mine is PF1. No, I don't really care about Starfinder.That's overly reductive. The bag-with-teeth wouldn't be making that decision out of enjoyment for one game over another. It'd be the only way to keep the company afloat.
I found Starfinder grating. Probably more than the PF2 playtest. But I'd make the same decision, because there's no future for PF1 at the scale Paizo needs.
I think PF1 could have had a future if it was handled differently. I think something like PF1.5 would have a better chance of success than PF2.
If some (major?) changes were made to PF2, it might have a good chance -- but if it goes out like I think it will when released, I fear will have some success and it will be short lived. My guess is welcome to 4e world. Not what I want, but that's what I think will happen. It's why I've been blogging so much. I don't want that to happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't even know exactly what 2nd edition looks like.
Who knows what they kept from the play test.
Who knows what they kept from the play test.
I sure hope the rogue makes it- PF2's rogue was the most awesome rogue I've ever seen in an elfgame. So I hope there is a rogue class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What things did almost no one like? I didn’t see much love for attunement and basic race abilities being feat based.
You don't even know exactly what 2nd edition looks like.
Who knows what they kept from the play test.
We might all be pleasantly surprised -- and I hope we are. I really hope I'm put into a position of where I'm torn between whether I want to do a PF1 or PF2 campaign -- and that I will always have enough players available for either option.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the near term I figure the difference between "running a PF1 or a PF2 campaign" is going to come down to "do people want to play stuff that isn't yet available in the new edition."
Like people want to play grippli mediums, caligni kineticists, cecaelia spiritualists, or just somehing less exotic like a changeling witch then obviously we're going to use the version that has those things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I for one am glad Paizo has been around long enough to build a 2nd edition, and I'm confident they'll take everything they've learned over the last ten years (both good and bad) and make a new kick ass edition.
No, I don't expect it to be everything I and everyone else wants and more, but they've earned my respect so I'm excited to see what they have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the near term I figure the difference between "running a PF1 or a PF2 campaign" is going to come down to "do people want to play stuff that isn't yet available in the new edition."
I’m more afraid people will take the middle ground and go 5E. If I’m going to pick up a newer system and leave PF1, then I might as well pick up the option that’s more popular and has more options.
Now, maybe in 5 years when 5E is feeling old and bloated, PF2 may be in a nice mature place to pick up some players, but who knows if Paizo can survive that long or if Hasbro won’t have already published an even better 6E by that point.
I think 5e's biggest problem is the Magic Gathering (also by WotC). Game store owners have told me MG makes a lot more money for them than really RPG in general.
I don't think it has to be that way. I remember the days when stores were loaded with AD&D modules. We used to buy them like other people buy CDs or DVDs.
I think a lot of the RPG market is untapped, at least in game stores.
However, Paizo has a very respectable and diverse selection of RPG products for sale online -- and, again, I applaud their publishing PDFs for all(?) their books, APs, modules, etc.
WotC seems to rely mostly on sales through game and book stores. WotC, I think, has a horrible website. Paizo's, except for a hiccup last year(?), has been awesome.
I feel that RPG is much more a priority with Paizo than WotC, so I'm with Paizo as much as I can be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but we aren't going back to the days before Magic: The Gathering, when campaign settings grew on trees and adventures are as plentiful as blueberries, the can has been opened.
It's like complaining that television is ruining this country. Maybe it is, but people aren't giving up their TVs.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
CCGs have kicked every other hobby's butt in the early 90s, but they too have failed to expand much beyond their core target and thus currently sustain themselves (rather handily) at a somewhat constant demographic of ... young and middle-aged, mostly American, men. Back in 1995-2000 you've had dozens of CCGs duking out to be the next Magic: The Gathering, these days it's mostly still M:tG, Yu-Gi-Oh, Pokemon and the occasional "killer game" (say, Spoils or WoW TCG) that ultimately fails to knock MtG out and the industry is back at square one.
It's video games first and board games second that relegated RPGs to their less-than-glorious days, both offering similar experience without all the barriers necessary to have fun (getting somebody to GM, burrowing past fat books of rules etc.) coupled with the fact that while video and board games have increasingly managed to become mainstream and socially acceptable, RPGs have only recently begun expanding beyond the (shrinking) circle of middle-aged American men (of the "I remember Against The Giants!" variety) and young American men (of the "So this char is like Weiss Schnee from RWBY meets the Hunter from Bloodborne" style).
The halcyon days of RPGs are coming back, since WotC managed to finally get right what it takes to open the hobby up. Pathfinder has to adapt to try and capture the rising tide, because it can't sustain itself on a demographic that's dwindling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, one fundamental problem with trying to figure out what people want is that you don't hear from people who don't already want your stuff.
I'm only marginally connected to the PF community, so let me offer this semi-outsider perspective.
1. Broad strokes, I don't care about one company over another. Paizo seems cool, I'm happy to support them. WotC seems fine overall too. I had no quarrel with Hasbro, or TSR, or any other company that has been involved. The only real jerk move I've seen is making 4e non-OGL, and WotC seemed to have learned its lesson.
2. I (and many others) do care about popularity in the sense that games are more accessible if you can find people who already know how to play. I learned about PF from a friend, and honestly he nerfed a lot of the complexity to make it accessible to the rest of us (who were familiar with D&D). Minus that, if I had to go into the wild to forage for a group to play with, it's really unlikely I would be playing PF.
3. Despite the previous paragraph, I think PF's complexity is something to be embraced, not watered down. You can always play with fewer rules but it's hard to add more. PF fans like the optimization and wide array of options, it should just be acknowledged as "D&D but with more rules for those who like that kind of thing." I think replacing D&D as the name brand medieval-themed TTRPG would have happened already if it would have ever happened.
4. I think the negative impact of PF's complexity can be ameliorated by technology. Products that help people build characters or guide GMs in what skills/rolls are involved are easy to build now (much easier than 20 years ago). Online resources such as the SRD are helpful, but still behave like a good paper encyclopedia rather than a well designed online resource. Purely as an example of what online can do that paper cannot: bidirection crossreferencing. What the Dodge feat does is easy to unidirectionally reference. What other feats or traits gives an AC bonus is difficuly to crossreference on paper, but easy online.
Stuff.
+5 Insightful.
I don't want to just whack the favorite button. I'd rather express that I think your insight is helpful, and directly thank you for taking the time to share it.
Sorry, but we aren't going back to the days before Magic: The Gathering, when campaign settings grew on trees and adventures are as plentiful as blueberries, the can has been opened.
It's like complaining that television is ruining this country. Maybe it is, but people aren't giving up their TVs.
That's a gross over simplification and not at all what I'm saying. Magic: The Gathering is popular and more power to it. RPG could and should have a better presence.
CCGs have kicked every other hobby's butt in the early 90s, but they too have failed to expand much beyond their core target and thus currently sustain themselves (rather handily) at a somewhat constant demographic of ... young and middle-aged, mostly American, men. Back in 1995-2000 you've had dozens of CCGs duking out to be the next Magic: The Gathering, these days it's mostly still M:tG, Yu-Gi-Oh, Pokemon and the occasional "killer game" (say, Spoils or WoW TCG) that ultimately fails to knock MtG out and the industry is back at square one.
It's video games first and board games second that relegated RPGs to their less-than-glorious days, both offering similar experience without all the barriers necessary to have fun (getting somebody to GM, burrowing past fat books of rules etc.) coupled with the fact that while video and board games have increasingly managed to become mainstream and socially acceptable, RPGs have only recently begun expanding beyond the (shrinking) circle of middle-aged American men (of the "I remember Against The Giants!" variety) and young American men (of the "So this char is like Weiss Schnee from RWBY meets the Hunter from Bloodborne" style).
The halcyon days of RPGs are coming back, since WotC managed to finally get right what it takes to open the hobby up. Pathfinder has to adapt to try and capture the rising tide, because it can't sustain itself on a demographic that's dwindling.
Good point.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And to drive home the point about just how big game session streaming has become,Critical Role's kickstarter for an animated film featuring Player Characters from the series is headed for an eyeball-watering 4 MILLION USD funding in less than 24h with some 25k people backing the project.
That's Hollywood money. Small Hollywood money, but at this point they've surpassed the budget of 2014's multiple Oscar-winning live-actor film Whiplash.
And it's going to have Dungeons and Dragons all over it.
That's how you open the hobby up and draw new people in who want to have this kind of fun Matt Mercer and Marisha Ray have. Adjusting Crane Wing, clarifying mounted combat and smoothing out some tiny rough edges of PF1 won't get you that, all it will do is keep a bunch of people with you who will inevitably drop out as their kids, medical bills and mortgages dry out their entertainment budget while their closest opportunities for gaming are increasingly limited to 5e.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Call me a cynic but I doubt Paizo can get that money without a small miracle. PF1 wasn't accessible to anyone unwilling to sit down and read the book, and with all its simplifications PF2 still won't be unless there are radical changes in the final version. You don't need to know a damn thing about how 5e works to follow along with what's happening in Critical Role or the Adventure Zone, which makes it a lot easier for people to transition from not knowing to wanting to know.
For better or for worse the barrier to entry is part of what makes Pathfinder Pathfinder, and trying to lower it to the point it's as accessible as 5e would just mean Paizo is competing with WotC for the exact same group of gamers. That is a fight they will lose, zero question about it. Even if Pathfinder was objectively the better game, for everyone, in any scenario, 5e is good enough to ride brand recognition all the way to Paizo's bankruptcy.
This probably reads as another "Paizo should just keep doing PF1" post but... it really isn't. I actually don't see a winning situation for the company here, at least in terms of keeping their fantasy rpg alive. Sticking to the PF1 elitism paradigm isn't an option; hardcore gamers, elitists, whatever the hell you want to call us are a dying breed and bring in a hell of a lot less revenue than the casual crowd that's been on a massive rise in recent years. Appealing to us isn't going to do Paizo any good in the long term, but appealing to casual players is just going to set them up to get kicked in the nuts by DND.