Hmmm..."Brand trumps all, except when it doesn't (according to highly subjective criteria)" just doesn't have the same ring to it.4e sold really well, (hell I bought 4 4e books before I figured out I didn't like it) just few people stuck with it long term. But 4e is also the reason why Paizo and Pathfinder is a thing.Which only serves to demonstrate that "brand trumps all" is a fallacy.
Brand trumps all when the game doesn't stinks. D&D 4E stinks, and even then they sold very well and only lost first postion for PF1 when the game was descontinued.
Pathfinder 2.0 is starting to smelling odd.
Have you even read the post you replied to? They explicitly said 4e outsold PF1e for the entirety of 4e's lifespan, despite having a very poor reception overall, meaning brand does trump all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to the original point of the thread, I don't really see why having non-straight-jacketed classes and being newbie friendly is really such a conflict. If for example the Fighter and Paladin class features that improved heavy armor simply stated you can pick one type of armor to improve and get benefits from, would that be off-putting to new players? If cleave, power attack and two-weapon fighting feats were available to any class would that be choice overload? I don't think so. So the idea of restrictive classes vs. ease for new players seems a lot like a false choice to me.
And for other thoughts on the direction PF2 should take. Ditch resonance, or at least seriously modify it, removing it from consumables and most utility items and only leave it for things that would have charges or limited uses a day in PF1 (and get rid of those limited uses instead). On the face it doesn't make a lot of sense in setting, and in play it just makes magic items a pain instead of fun. I mean it costs a point just to pull something out of a magic bag. And having to use a magical resource to drink a potion is not anywhere near my idea of fun or logical. It makes many magic items too much of a pain to bother with, especially since they often aren't as powerful anymore either.
Also de-nerf magic in general. I can understand wanting to bring it's power down a notch from PF1, but it went way overboard by cutting it down from every angle at once. Casters now get fewer spells, spells no longer have any auto-scaling, to get effects that used to come automatically you have to use your precious few higher level slots and their effects are often weaker with fewer targets (like dimension door is self only now and haste is one target unless you use a 7th level slot in which case it gets 5 people and monster summoning only gets one creature), have short durations, overly restrictive concentration (one solid hit can make a summoned monster disappear) or other new penalties like requiring an action to control a summoned creature and that creature not having many actions. I've never even played a full caster, and this is just painful. It's also probably going to be a dealbreaker for the rest of my group who do play casters, unless it's reversed at least somewhat. It really takes a lot of the fantasy out of the game and makes it more mundane and less interesting. Magic probably should have been reigned in a little, but this is excessive.
Related to the summons, get rid of arbitrary action taxes. Just because we now have a three action system doesn't mean everything has to take an action. Action to command a summoned creature or animal companion and action to put your second hand on a sword-hilt are two big examples here. I understand some of this is for balance, but there has got to be a better balancing option than taking actions for putting a second hand on a sword.
5e went for a lower entry bar, which, mind you, is still higher than of any modern board game, and was able to smash Pathfinder's market position by ...having the name "D&D" attached to it, for the most part
4e has that too, and lost the edition war. So no, it has to be something different
Gorbacz are you a stakeholder in Paizo or something. Every g%&~$~n post of yours is about business metrics. I for one don't care about business metrics if the product is crappy. ZOMG 5th ed has more users. Probably because even though I play pathfinder every night I still call it D&D night. Its that name recognition. Anecdotal i know but quite a few people came back to PF1 after trying 5th ed because its as deep as a puddle.
of course you don't care about sales. Do you know who cares about them? People at Paizo. Both the owners, and the employees who get the salary for their jobs from the sales.
However, Gorbacz don't tell you about the market share because he (she?) is invested. He does it, to remind people who oppose PF2 of the futility of their opossition. He is the talking bag version of the Borgs from star trek.
Resistance is Futile. You will be assimilated, and all that stuff. ;)
They explicitly said 4e outsold PF1e for the entirety of 4e's lifespan, despite having a very poor reception overall, meaning brand does trump all.I heard PF overtook 4th Ed in sales at one point.
Perhaps at some moment in time that was the case, but my point is that 4e was very financially successful and largely eclipsed Pathfinder in public consciousness outside of this local bubble despite being highly controversial, precisely because brand does trump all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, brand-recognition is huge; the brand name is definitely what led to the initial sales being so great.Perhaps at some moment in time that was the case, but my point is that 4e was very financially successful and largely eclipsed Pathfinder in public consciousness outside of this local bubble despite being highly controversial, precisely because brand does trump all.They explicitly said 4e outsold PF1e for the entirety of 4e's lifespan, despite having a very poor reception overall, meaning brand does trump all.I heard PF overtook 4th Ed in sales at one point.
And the important takeaway from that is that PF2e is fighting an extremely uphill battle. Being decent is not enough. Aiming for the same niche is not viable.
The game must be good, and it must have a unique niche. Without either of these two components, it will likely flop.Right now, the game feels bad, and it feels like a worse 5e in most ways, in that it aims for the same niche, but delivers it worse.
That's a guaranteed flop, and the game needs to have some major rewrites to ensure financial success.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They explicitly said 4e outsold PF1e for the entirety of 4e's lifespan, despite having a very poor reception overall, meaning brand does trump all.I heard PF overtook 4th Ed in sales at one point.
It did, and even when it was second, it was a much closer 2nd. In 5e case, it is different. It is a smashing success, far beyond 4e, because besides brand recognition, it is a well designed game that targets a clear goal and manage to deliver what that target needs
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It did, and even when it was second, it was a much closer 2nd. In 5e case, it is different. It is a smashing success, far beyond 4e, because besides brand recognition, it is a well designed game that targets a clear goal and manage to deliver what that target needsThey explicitly said 4e outsold PF1e for the entirety of 4e's lifespan, despite having a very poor reception overall, meaning brand does trump all.I heard PF overtook 4th Ed in sales at one point.
And I think that "deliver what that target needs" included taking DnD back to a more identifiable version of DnD. 4E pushed too far and didn't look or feel like the DnD that people played. Pathfinder DID and Paizo built a company from that.
So, 5E stepped back to it's roots, became more identifiable as the game people loved, and captured back old market share, and expanded market share with new players, too.
I try to port a PF1 character into PF2 - just ain't recognizable. But I do the same with 5E? Oh, it IS recognizable.
That's going to be a problem for PF2. It's too "4E" like in terms of execution and changes as it stands right now, I believe.
The branding of PF2 as 'like D&D but high fantasy' alongside 'you have more flexibility' could be effective ways to appeal to plenty of RPG players imho. If executed properly - ie: true, and well marketed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you even read the post you replied to? They explicitly said 4e outsold PF1e for the entirety of 4e's lifespan, despite having a very poor reception overall, meaning brand does trump all.Hmmm..."Brand trumps all, except when it doesn't (according to highly subjective criteria)" just doesn't have the same ring to it.4e sold really well, (hell I bought 4 4e books before I figured out I didn't like it) just few people stuck with it long term. But 4e is also the reason why Paizo and Pathfinder is a thing.Which only serves to demonstrate that "brand trumps all" is a fallacy.
Brand trumps all when the game doesn't stinks. D&D 4E stinks, and even then they sold very well and only lost first postion for PF1 when the game was descontinued.
Pathfinder 2.0 is starting to smelling odd.
Yes, I did. Did you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps at some moment in time that was the case, but my point is that 4e was very financially successful and largely eclipsed Pathfinder in public consciousness outside of this local bubble despite being highly controversial, precisely because brand does trump all.They explicitly said 4e outsold PF1e for the entirety of 4e's lifespan, despite having a very poor reception overall, meaning brand does trump all.I heard PF overtook 4th Ed in sales at one point.
They didn't drop 4E because they were winning. 4E is a case study in how brand *doesn't* trump all. I genuinely find it humorous that you're trying to argue otherwise here, of all places.
They didn't drop 4E because they were winning. 4E is a case study in how brand *doesn't* trump all. I genuinely find it humorous that you're trying to argue otherwise here, of all places.Perhaps at some moment in time that was the case, but my point is that 4e was very financially successful and largely eclipsed Pathfinder in public consciousness outside of this local bubble despite being highly controversial, precisely because brand does trump all.They explicitly said 4e outsold PF1e for the entirety of 4e's lifespan, despite having a very poor reception overall, meaning brand does trump all.I heard PF overtook 4th Ed in sales at one point.
They dropped 4e because they didn't make as much money as they could be making. They still made more money than Pathfinder, however. Pathfinder was always #2 until the very tail end of 4e's life cycle when it begun dying.
Ignoring the edition war here, and concerning the system mastery and accessibility to new players, would an option be a something like "expert" modules, and maybe additions in enemy stats in AP for optimized players. That way optimization floor would be able to play easier stuff while those who optimize the heck out of character would be able to test their chops against worthy opposition. And so both playstyles could be viable in PF2.
I try to port a PF1 character into PF2 - just ain't recognizable. But I do the same with 5E? Oh, it IS recognizable.
How? And why? Can you provide an example?
I try to port a PF1 character into PF2 - just ain't recognizable. But I do the same with 5E? Oh, it IS recognizable.
How? And why? Can you provide an example?
I'm finding some of the changes to spells, etc to be messing with how recognizable the system is.
Was trying to build out a cleric of mine - and oh god - the amount of page flipping (in the pdf) was a bit painful, or at least seemed so. By the time I was grinding my way through the various flavors of Feats (why is everything named a feat?) I literally got bored with the whole process and gave up.
Some of the process was ok - I'm less annoyed with the Stat generation stuff than I was at first glance (it actually started to look ok to me).
In other words, I admit I need to grind through a bunch of different character creations.
I don't think my old characters are going to have the same flavor as their 2E dopplegangers will - but that is as much a problem with the creation process as it is with character capability, spell rewrites (nerfs), etc.
I'm not saying this can't be a fun game - I think it can be. But not quite along the lines of my own expectations/hopes.
I'm thinking that PFS play in 2E would be one option, while keeping my own homebrew 1E. Starting to think there can be room for both, really (and I have enough 1E stuff to keep me busy until I'm in an old folks home). Given it seems 2E tries to fix some of the problems we see in PFS play (Resonance...?) maybe that's where MY focus for 2E should be.