| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a first-time poster I feel a bit of background on myself is in order. I’m a long time D&D 5e GM that was introduced to the TTRPG hobby by Matt Mercer’s Critical Role. My fellow table members have convinced me to make the move to PF2 due to the expanded “complexity” and “customization” options the Pathfinder system offers when compared to 5e. I believe that makes my group and I Paizo’s “target market” for PF2, but I’ll get to that in a moment.
As a long time GM, I enjoy browsing various forums, web sites, and YouTube videos to learn more about the system I’m playing (which, again, until now has been 5e) and the response from longtime Pathfinder players to PF2 has been…interesting to say the least. It’s led me to a bit of a “theory” on the future of PF2 and Paizo that I thought would be, at the very least, fun to share and discuss. Here are the critical assumptions my theory relies on:
1) Paizo wants to move away from PF1 for financial reasons.
Various reports I’ve read peg Pathfinder at around $10M in
market share as of 1Q18, with the total TTRPG market sitting
roughly around $35M. Just under 30% of market seems great as
it puts Pathfinder in a clear 2nd place to only 5e. However,
I’m unsure this tells the whole story. As the forum
unfortunately doesn't allow graphical posts I can only
reference the following figures:
Amazon Sales Rank (1Q18):
5th Edition Players Handbook - #63
Pathfinder Core Rulebook - #12,675
Roll20
(4Q14):
D&D 5e - 1,500 Games
Pathfinder - 6,100 Games
(1Q18):
D&D 5e - 77,000 Games
Pathfinder - 12,500 Games
Both of these tell essentially the same story. 5e is vastly
expanding the market as a whole, and Paizo would probably like
like to cut into their ever-expanding piece. While the
halcyon days of early 2015, when Pathfinder was arguably the
market leader, are perhaps an unrealistic goal; increasing
market share to the $15M - $18M range perhaps isn’t. This
speaks to my guess about what Paizo’s “target market” is:
Players and GMs currently playing 5e that are looking for a
more complex and robust rules system.
2) Paizo NEEDS to move to PF2 for financial reasons.
This sounds the same as the 1st point, but it is likely a bit
more controversial. Paizo released StarFinder at GenCon in
2017. While it was a raging success at the Con, which I can
remember anecdotally as I believe everything sold out
Thursday, it may not have had the staying power needed for
financial success. While I’m no industry insider and have no
access to sales numbers, the fact that an edition change to
their core product was announced barely 6 months after the
creation of a brand new IP leads me to believe the new revenue
stream StarFinder was supposed to create has not materialized.
Now regarding point #2, I personally don't believe that the start-up cost of Starfinder has put Paizo in financial peril in the short-term.
What I believe it does mean, however, is that the risk of failure on PF2 could cause that financial peril. This leads to my theory:
In their attempt to expand market share with PF2, Paizo has inadvertently created a rift between the market they want to capture and the market they already own. This is the Star Wars Problem.
As I’m sure there is plenty of fan overlap between Pathfinder and Star Wars this likely needs little explanation. As a quick synopsis though, Disney's Star Wars problem occurred with the release of Last Jedi: Some fans, mainly those who were fans of the Original Trilogy first, are opposed to changes made to the lore and characters in the New/Disney Trilogy. Disney has, by and large, branded these complaints as misogynistic and petty, which has quite obviously done nothing to allay the concerns/complaints of those fans. Opinions are split as to whether this impacted the box office returns for their latest movie Solo , which performed far below original expectations and resulted in a financial loss for Disney.
What is the connection to Paizo and Pathfinder you might ask? Well, based on what I’ve read on this forum, reddit, GitP, and various YouTube channels the overwhelming majority (I'd anecdotally peg it at around 75%) of CURRENT Pathfinder players DO NOT approve of many of the changes being made in PF2. Some don’t like Resonance, others are focused on the +Class Level mechanic, still others on the % success ratios, and on and on. overall, PF2 should be an “easier” system to play than PF1 but still a more complex system than 5e (again speaking to that “target market” from earlier). It is thereby likely achieving it's design goal of threading the needle of being complex enough to be close to PF1, while easy enough to digest for current 5e / non-PF1 players. What happens, though, if threading the needle of appeasing the current PF1 players and capturing ex-5e players fails?
I believe Paizo’s biggest design failure was not recognizing the contraction risk PF2 presented. Current players that choose to skip PF2 entirely and stick with PF1 aren’t going to maintain market share, as the intention is to stop production of PF1 material. Thus, there is a real risk of a shrinking footprint for Pathfinder and Paizo. This would only be further exacerbated if another company pulled off what Paizo did in 2007 when another company we all know and love failed to keep their current customers happy with the launch of a new edition…
I most certainly hope I'm wrong on all counts. Perhaps Starfinder is printing money for Paizo, rendering point #2 moot. Or perhaps the voices online are a "loud minority" that is not a true reflection of the overall Pathfinder community. I for one rather like PF2 and, as my game tables "always DM", I rather like some of the limiting factors the game has put in place to limit potential for PC abuse. my opinion does feel like a minority one unfortunately.
I’d be curious what others think of the theory (although I hope I haven’t inadvertently created a Star Wars flame war), especially those of you who have been around the Pathfinder community for longer than the month I’ve been here.
TL;DR – In an effort to expand market share into non-PF players with a new ruleset, Paizo may have inadvertently poisoned the well with current players, and long-term financial distress could be a real risk for the company.
Thanks for Reading!
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with your analysis for Paizo's motivations for 2.0. But I disagree with your assessment of the current level of acceptance among players. I believe that a solid majority of the player base is happy with 90% of these new rules. But the purpose of the playtest is to iron out problems so it not surprising that problems are the focus of discussion online.
There are certainly some payers that HATE the new rules and they have made their opinions clear. But it seems to me that they are in the minority.
Having said that, there are a few parts of the rules that seem universally reviled: resonance and gating feats behind class requirements come to mind. But my guess is that Paizo will "fix" these aspects of the rules the same way that they "fixed signature skills.
| 27 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the sorts of fans who are super-super mad about the Last Jedi are the sorts of fans who are a net negative to have in your community anyway, and everything is better off if those folks are relegated to their dusty dimly lit corners and leave the rest of us alone.
Just because someone buys your game doesn't mean they aren't also actively driving people away with their awfulness. Unlike movies which are a solitary experience even if you go with other people, tabletop games need a community which is not actively unwelcoming otherwise they die.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I’m no industry insider and have no access to sales numbers, the fact that an edition change to their core product was announced barely 6 months after the creation of a brand new IP leads me to believe the new revenue stream StarFinder was supposed to create has not materialized.
If the edition change had started within those six months I might agree, but we've been told they've been working on this for two years, so it seems less likely. I suppose it could be that insufficient StarFinder revenue led them to release PF2's playtest somewhat earlier than they otherwise would have, but really, two years is a long time.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the sorts of fans who are super-super mad about the Last Jedi are the sorts of fans who are a net negative to have in your community anyway, and everything is better off if those folks are relegated to their dusty dimly lit corners and leave the rest of us alone.
Just because someone buys your game doesn't mean they aren't also actively driving people away with their awfulness. Unlike movies which are a solitary experience even if you go with other people, tabletop games need a community which is not actively unwelcoming otherwise they die.
The problem is when a lot of these fans ARE your growth. Fans who have strong feelings for a product will go to great lengths to promote the product they love.
I mean, it doesn't take an expert to realize there is a collation between one out of every 2 games the RPG Club at my college set up being Pathfinder or Starfinder and half of the officers having met at a Pathfinder game a year ago.
This is despite every single flyer advertising D&D, and a decent majority of the players having been introduced to 5e from Critical Roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are certainly some payers that HATE the new rules and they have made their opinions clear. But it seems to me that they are in the minority.
I would say that those bothering to try to voice their opinion HERE are in the minority. But I think you are vastly overstating the number of people currently playing PF1 that intend to make the shift to PF2. Paizo WILL lose customers, but they are banking on picking up more than they lose.
Furthermore, IMO, they started work on PF2 long before Starfinder, and the latter was intended as a testing ground for some PF2 ideas and as a funding bridge during the "dead year" between releasing the playtest and releasing the final product. They did sell a ton at GenCon 50, but I don't know anything beyond that. My gut feeling (based on my own reading of the SF material) is that SF isn't that popular in the greater RPG community, and may not be meeting the goal set as the lifeboat between editions. But I have nothing to back that up other than my own feelings, so take that for what it's worth.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Welcome to the forum. :) There's some interesting points.
While I’m no industry insider and have no
access to sales numbers, the fact that an edition change to
their core product was announced barely 6 months after the
creation of a brand new IP leads me to believe the new revenue
stream StarFinder was supposed to create has not materialized.
I think the opposite is also possible: Starfinder did well, and gave them another revenue stream giving them the cushion necessary to go through a year where PF1e is basically marked for obsolesce but they don't have 2e to sell yet.
For the Star Wars issue... I don't think you need Star Wars to articulate it, although TLJ certainly was divisive. The term you want is "Edition Wars".
This isn't new. When D&D 3.0 came out, lots of people hated it. People newer to the hobby might not remember that because the 3.x line was so successful. PF 1e is based on 3.5 and a lot of it's success is due to 3.5 players hating D&D 4e. Paizo was well positioned to say "we're supporting the edition you like!" and here we are.
There's people still playing 3.5 today. There's people still playing AD&D 2e today. There will be people playing PF 1e for years, maybe decades after 2e is out. That hasn't really changed with how popular D&D 5e is (and it's wildly popular). People get attached to editions, like how the game plays, and don't want it drastically changed. They get very passionate about it.
It's as old as the hobby itself. There is no real avoiding it if you change the system in any major way (1e is still recognizable as an updated 3.5 and largely avoided it). That's part of what makes this hard: the original pitch for PF1e is that it let you avoid a major system change... and now they're selling a major system change.
There is no way Paizo can avoid some people hating it. That's just reality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont think the general idea behind your post is wrong OP, but the most important factors require numbers we dont have, thus everything we do here is guess work, including your post.
PF2 still has one year to impress the current PF1 players, but yeah, if there is one thing that brings peace during this playtest to someone like me who doesnt like current PF2 is that PF1 will still be there.
Funny enough paizo is now competing with itself.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the sorts of fans who are super-super mad about the Last Jedi are the sorts of fans who are a net negative to have in your community anyway, and everything is better off if those folks are relegated to their dusty dimly lit corners and leave the rest of us alone.
Just because someone buys your game doesn't mean they aren't also actively driving people away with their awfulness. Unlike movies which are a solitary experience even if you go with other people, tabletop games need a community which is not actively unwelcoming otherwise they die.
People who get super passionate about a property are the ones who buy your merch and make sure to go to every single thing.
Where the comparison breaks down is that pathfinder is not the cultural touchstone that is Star Wars. Star wars is in a pretty unique place as basically the only long term space fantasy/opera property given significant funding by the entertainment industry, its backed by freakin Disney now and with a sea of merch that contributes to the growth of that property, whether the movies are critically accepted or not.
Pathfinder is in a SEA of other rpg options and despite the increasing mainstream absorption of TTRPGs (thanks mainly to the internet) its still a relatively niche hobby in comparison to even things like MTG. When you're in a niche like that the risk of a poor reception from current fans increases. In a lot of ways the idea that these sorts of hobbies are going to tap into some large untapped market of growth is like assuming there's always administration and waste you can be rid of to balance a budget. Its a risk, and that waste you can cut isn't always actually there.
It is unfortunate that often times the most passionate advocates for a thing take it far too seriously.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, based on what I’ve read on this forum, reddit, GitP, and various YouTube channels the overwhelming majority (I'd anecdotally peg it at around 75%) of CURRENT Pathfinder players DO NOT approve of many of the changes being made in PF2.
I don't think that's accurate even for this forum. My impression is...
--o That there is a minority of very vocal members here who are vehemently opposed to some aspect of Pathfinder Second Edition.--o The majority of members have issues with the playtest rules (resonance, shields, dying, signature skills, etc) but generally like the core changes (action economy, multiclassing, ancestries, criticals, etc).
--o Almost no one likes the playtest rules as written. I can't think of a single member who is advocating keeping things unchanged.
As for my players, I've run playtest sessions for a total of 12 players.
--o One player said he'd rather play Pathfinder First Edition or DnD Fifth Edition.
--o Eleven players liked the new rules, especially the action economy, but had major issues with some sub-rules (like resonance, shields, ).
I don't visit reddit and I haven't been active on GitP in years*, but I have been following #pathfinderplaytest on Twitter.
Most have been...
--o Self promotion by youtubers and podcasts featuring playtest actual play.
--o Mixed feedback. Positive on aspects like the action economy, negative on resonance or the dying rules.
Some have been...
--o Completely positive, usually centered on playing a session with the playtest.
--o Completely negative, usually focused on very specific rules (like Paladins not having smite).
--o Questions about the rules.
*Sidenote that I was active on GitP during the Pathfinder First Edition playtest and the tone was overwhelmingly negativity then.
There are certainly some payers that HATE the new rules and they have made their opinions clear. But it seems to me that they are in the minority.I would say that those bothering to try to voice their opinion HERE are in the minority. But I think you are vastly overstating the number of people currently playing PF1 that intend to make the shift to PF2. Paizo WILL lose customers, but they are banking on picking up more than they lose.
Furthermore, IMO, they started work on PF2 long before Starfinder, and the latter was intended as a testing ground for some PF2 ideas and as a funding bridge during the "dead year" between releasing the playtest and releasing the final product. They did sell a ton at GenCon 50, but I don't know anything beyond that. My gut feeling (based on my own reading of the SF material) is that SF isn't that popular in the greater RPG community, and may not be meeting the goal set as the lifeboat between editions. But I have nothing to back that up other than my own feelings, so take that for what it's worth.
To back that up, Starfinder is a distant 11th on Roll20 in terms of games and players. while Roll20 is by no means the breadth of the market, I'm willing to guess that tracks fairly well with the overall TTRPG market.
Welcome to the forum. :) There's some interesting points.
While I’m no industry insider and have no
access to sales numbers, the fact that an edition change to
their core product was announced barely 6 months after the
creation of a brand new IP leads me to believe the new revenue
stream StarFinder was supposed to create has not materialized.I think the opposite is also possible: Starfinder did well, and gave them another revenue stream giving them the cushion necessary to go through a year where PF1e is basically marked for obsolesce but they don't have 2e to sell yet.
For the Star Wars issue... I don't think you need Star Wars to articulate it, although TLJ certainly was divisive. The term you want is "Edition Wars".
This isn't new. When D&D 3.0 came out, lots of people hated it. People newer to the hobby might not remember that because the 3.x line was so successful. PF 1e is based on 3.5 and a lot of it's success is due to 3.5 players hating D&D 4e. Paizo was well positioned to say "we're supporting the edition you like!" and here we are.
There's people still playing 3.5 today. There's people still playing AD&D 2e today. There will be people playing PF 1e for years, maybe decades after 2e is out. That hasn't really changed with how popular D&D 5e is (and it's wildly popular). People get attached to editions, like how the game plays, and don't want it drastically changed. They get very passionate about it.
It's as old as the hobby itself. There is no real avoiding it if you change the system in any major way (1e is still recognizable as an updated 3.5 and largely avoided it). That's part of what makes this hard: the original pitch for PF1e is that it let you avoid a major system change... and now they're selling a major system change.
There is no way Paizo can avoid some people hating it. That's just reality.
I was aware of Pathfinder 1.0's place in the 3.x timeline, and your point is well taken. I wanted to avoid generalizing the overall Pathfinder community, but I think it's fair for Paizo to assume that a market, at least initially, built from players that didn't want to change editions is going to be tougher to maintain through another edition change.
On the other hand, as far as Starfinder is concerned, aren't they increasing AP support for the line. That seems to suggest that it is doing okay for itself, at least in the context of the existing release schedule.
I think if Starfinder ended up being a failure, the hardcover schedule and AP schedule would be reduced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd agree with #1;
#2 Mostly agree. I don't think Starfinder really has anything to do with why they are releasing Pathfinder 2E. It's pretty clear from the release schedule of books that this was something in the pipeline long before they got the sale numbers for Starfinder (and Starfinder seems to be doing okay enough to get an increased AP release schedule, and to continue churning out material for.). I do think they need to release a new edition though, and they didn't have a choice. That's partly because folks were getting bored with the system for one reason and another, and drifting away (while at the same time not really getting newer players, who were enamored by the more visible and easier to learn 5E.
For the rest of part 2, I would say that Stars is not a comparable situation, for a lot of reasons. Other edition wars are more applicable. I also am not really sure the overall tone is negative per se, but rather that coverage of the new edition seems sparse in general. Some of those forums were pretty much negative before 2E was announced and it doesn't surprise me they were negative now. I'd be more concerned, not so much about the existing fanbase leaving Pathfiner (I would argue some of those have already done so, or at least are not buying Paizo products much), as I would of Paizo simply having difficulty breaking through the 5E wall to catch new players.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
While OP makes a lot of interesting points, there's a few factors overlooked as to WHY Paizo may have considered it was time for a new edition:
1. Pathfinder 1e is 10 years old, and the edition of D&D it's based on is 8 years older than that. They have put out pretty much every splat at least I could imagine needed to support the system, and additional 1e books, outside of new adventures, would likely risk including a lot of filler and bloat (as it is, people have complained that some recent products have included too much reprinted/revised material from smaller books or older editions, like Book of the Damned). Add in easily convertible 3.x material and you've really got every "pathfinder" supplement already out. You're right to note Pathfinder CRB sales are down and of course they would continue to go down, but the reason is because of course it's an increasingly old system that they're not going to get much new out of.
While loyal players will keep playing 1e, trying to put out more 1e products would quickly produce diminishing returns. Yes, this speaks to the diminishing sales discussed, but I think the reason for that needs to be put in context.
2. Starfinder isn't an either/or to Paizo's product world, it's an addition-to, and I'd bet a bucket of cookies that the Playtest's release has much to do with Starfinder's success or lack thereof. Just to get what the playtest book looks like, as rough as it may seem, probably took years of development--they couldn't have gotten it out by this past August if it was only a knee-jerk reaction to Starfinder. It was probably in part developed alongside Starfinder, especially because of course some similar new systems are shared between them.
Starfinder, being a peculiar if not completely new mix of space opera meets high fantasy, is very much its own niche thing, and I expect it was always expected to be more of an additional project or side project while Pathfinder was their main bread and butter. Every sense I've gotten is that they're delighted it's done as well as it has, and it also fills a void for people who are tired after 10-18 years of pure fantasy play and want something a tad bit different.
3. While many people love Pathfinder, I can speak from experience that it is a very crunchy game that is hard to teach to newbies. This difficulty has only increased with the large number of splats on the market, making character creation vastly overwhelming to a new player if you provide them even most options available. A new system, and one designed to be entry level friendly, would help ensure a new flux of younger customers as the current playership ages. Paizo mentioned one of their goals was to make a streamlined system that is easier to teach and learn. I think unfortunately, they may have perhaps failed at this so far (reasons for which I've alluded to in other posts in more topical threads), but that is still what they were going for.
(For myself, as a longtime Pathfinder player, I want 2e to be successful and yes, am finding a lot I'm disappointed in--but I also know there's still opportunity to change. At the same time, my disappointment is largely not in that it is too unfamiliar compared to the older system; if anything, I am disappointed they didn't start more completely from scratch and build up a brand new streamlined system from the ground up; rather they seem to be trying to bolt on new, sometimes unintuitive systems to an increasingly creaky game chassis.)
Not touching the Star Wars comparison with either a standard-issue OR folding-type 10 foot pole.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think another thing to keep in mind with the negative comments, is that the incentive of a playtest is to post more negative than positive. The playtest is where problems are identified, so it's good to point out when something isn't working or just isn't fun, because this is really the only chance to get it changed. So not all negative feedback is about the game as a whole being bad, as much as certain aspects being bad. With positive feedback, there's much less to discuss. I don't see any real threads dedicated to the three action system, but anecdotally, that's got widespread support. The focus is more on what needs to be changed. Personally I think PF2 falls short currently, but it has the makings of a worthy successor to PF1 with the right changes and a lot of work. And work is going on, they just yanked Signature Skills and previously changed the death and dying system. It sounds like Ancestries might be getting a rework, and multiclass archetypes for the remaining core classes should be coming with the next update.
PF2 is a rough work in progress. Speaking for my group, we'd not switch with the system as is. But that doesn't mean we won't move to PF2, because it won't be released as it currently is. I'm confident that the end product will be superior to the current playtest, but how much is the question, and the reason for me pointing out what I feel needs to be changed. My main concerns are more that some design goals may be counter to what I want in some regards, and that there might not be enough time to do all the necessary changes, or at least do them well and test the new version. The playtest is only about 5-6 months before they go off and finalize the product for a few more months and then get it printed in time for GenCon. And for any supplemental products like APs and such that they'll be releasing around launch time also needs a finalized core ruleset to work with.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think word of mouth is going to propell this product because it's not an improvement on 1e, it's a completely different game.
QFT.
This is my primary observation about PF2e. If it feels at all the same, it's because you're playing with the same people, and the tone of the adventures are the same.
This is not a patch to PF1e, though. It really is a completely new game. It's nearly as different from 3e as D&D 5e is.
It's an interesting gamble. A lot of people will pick it up because they're Pathfinder fans, and it's coming from Paizo. This will either just be brand loyalty, or because Paizo has a track record of a game that people like (Pathfinder) and a really good track record for releasing lots of adventures. So, I think word of mouth will help more than you think. It won't just be attracting new players to the new system, but will be holding on to some who will stay with Paizo's latest offering through inertia, and will come to either like it or be able to cope with it.
It will also be interesting to see if some big 3rd party publisher Paizos Paizo. Given that PF2e is not PF1e with core issues fixed (and a reboot to clear the plate and start the bloat train over), but is a whole new game, there's doubtless a decent market opportunity for somebody who has enough of a name to get noticed. Make the new game that is recognizably the same system as PF1e, but fix lots of issues (much as PF1e did with DND3.5).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
People who get super passionate about a property are the ones who buy your merch and make sure to go to every single thing.
I feel like the salient point is to learn to identify "anti-fans" which is to say people whose passion about a property is channeled towards how much they dislike a piece of media, or how much they dislike its current incarnation relative to how it used to be. In general, those people are not worth catering to are best kept out of sight (and off twitter).
Since the normal, healthy reaction to "I don't like X" or "I used to like X, and now I don't" is to just go on with your life and find something else you like to occupy your time and attention. Let's not indulge the people who are not processing their disappointment in a constructive or healthy manner.
I would say people who focus on "how bad PF2 is" and not "how can we make PF2 better" are dangerously close to that "not processing disappointment in a productive manner."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well. Mine is one of the groups that will be out and done, once PF2 hits the shelves. It's got some nice things that we might steal for PF1, but unless there is some kind of massive change when it comes to Character Creation, everyone of us is a hard pass at this point.
It's just not our game. Neither was 4E and nor is 5E.
We've still got plenty of adventure paths to go through, lots of 3PP stuff to dig through and we are more than happy to make up our own stuff.
But not a one of us sees any reason to change games.
It's not a better game, it's just a different one.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, based on what I’ve read on this forum, reddit, GitP, and various YouTube channels the overwhelming majority (I'd anecdotally peg it at around 75%) of CURRENT Pathfinder players DO NOT approve of many of the changes being made in PF2.
I think people commenting on message boards (most certainly including this one) are NOT very representative of reactions over all.
I've now run the playtest for quite a few players (in total it would be something close to 50). Some are negative but the vast majority are cautiously optimistic (especially when I pointed out that Paizo IS listening to feed back AND making changes). Just about everybody thinks the game has potential.
EVERYBODY has things they dislike about the game as it currently is. But its a playtest and most of them realized that. Just about nobody had problems with KEY issues of the game, they just wanted things tweaked somewhat.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
People who get super passionate about a property are the ones who buy your merch and make sure to go to every single thing.I feel like the salient point is to learn to identify "anti-fans" which is to say people whose passion about a property is channeled towards how much they dislike a piece of media, or how much they dislike its current incarnation relative to how it used to be. In general, those people are not worth catering to are best kept out of sight (and off twitter).
Since the normal, healthy reaction to "I don't like X" or "I used to like X, and now I don't" is to just go on with your life and find something else you like to occupy your time and attention. Let's not indulge the people who are not processing their disappointment in a constructive or healthy manner.
I would say people who focus on "how bad PF2 is" and not "how can we make PF2 better" are dangerously close to that "not processing disappointment in a productive manner."
You are quite going over the top with your gibberish about "anti-fans" and "if those folks are relegated to their dusty dimly lit corners and leave the rest of us alone" exclusion fantasies.
I am quite optimistic about PF2 up to the point of being a hidden fanboy, but this torch and fork "burn the witch" mentality of people like you does make me feel quite uneasy to be on the same side with zealots who degrade everybody who is not 100% on their side.I'd advise to tone down a bit and stop to vilify people who disagree, even if they do so strongly.
To say in Star Wars terms, only sith think in extremes. You are far from processing your disappointment about those fans in a constructive or healthy manner yourself.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, based on what I’ve read on this forum, reddit, GitP, and various YouTube channels the overwhelming majority (I'd anecdotally peg it at around 75%) of CURRENT Pathfinder players DO NOT approve of many of the changes being made in PF2.I think people commenting on message boards (most certainly including this one) are NOT very representative of reactions over all.
I've now run the playtest for quite a few players (in total it would be something close to 50). Some are negative but the vast majority are cautiously optimistic (especially when I pointed out that Paizo IS listening to feed back AND making changes). Just about everybody thinks the game has potential.
EVERYBODY has things they dislike about the game as it currently is. But its a playtest and most of them realized that. Just about nobody had problems with KEY issues of the game, they just wanted things tweaked somewhat.
100% agree. I am managing to turn my group away from 5e towards PF2, you could say I am the target audience. Also I am very impressed about how much Paizo listens to their fanbase and doing so very respectfully despite some harsh criticism. And this is the main distinction between Paizo and Disney/Lucasfilm. While Paizo listens, Disney defecates on Star Wars' commited fanbase.
So to say I find the comparison of PF and SW the OP made a bit unfortunate and far fetched.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Furthermore, IMO, they started work on PF2 long before Starfinder, and the latter was intended as a testing ground for some PF2 ideas and as a funding bridge during the "dead year" between releasing the playtest and releasing the final product.
No doubt there are elements of parallel design and a commonality of method amongst the design staff. There were probably also things which worked in SF that they decided to then utilise in PF2. Nonetheless, they approached SF’s design as a stand-alone project with its own, internally motivated design goals.
I agree with you on the funding bridge (though I haven’t seen that confirmed). PF2’s development has to involve a dip in sales (I couldn’t recommend PF1 to an RPG newcomer in good conscience now. I’d at least tell them to hold off until next year where there’ll be potential for an informed choice).
In answer to one of the OP’s points, Starfinder has continued to do well. The public estimates of sales have it outselling Pathfinder pretty much since it’s release. They’ve expanded their creative staff dedicated to Starfinder and increased their rate of output.
Another comment I’d make on comparing Roll20 table numbers. I think you need to be careful not to look at the numbers just after a game has launched. I think there’s a lag there - both in takeup and in drop off. I suspect the roll20 tables surge several months/years after a similar surge in sales. Furthermore, once a game declines, I suspect that doesn’t show up in the online table figures for a little while.
I don’t think it really changes the thrust of your point (5E has clearly done extremely well) but I think some of the specific numbers you highlighted may give a skewed impression.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll offer my own counter-analogy that I think is more apt.
The Past
Paizo is Sony. WOTC is Nintendo. Sony/Paizo and Nintendo/WOTC partnered to work on the SNES-CDROM/DnD3.5. Adruptly, Nintendo/WOTC ended the partnership and focused on a new platform that alienated third party publishers. Sony/Paizo decided to take their learnings from the SNES-CDROM/DnD3.5 and create a new system Playstation/Pathfinder. Playstation/Pathfinder was a huge success that surpassed the N64/DnD4 (hate to make that comparison) thanks in large part to the wealth of materials generated by third party publishers (and, in Paizo's case, ported from DnD3.5).
The Now
This is where the analogy starts to break down. WOTC skipped the Gamecube and went straight on to make the Wii. They also brought back third party support. And they landed some major marketing wins with Critical Role and Stranger Things.
Paizo has the same challenge that Sony did with the Playstation 2. But there's no new technology to offer like a built-in DVD player and while they briefly dominated the market their brand has yet to solidify into the popular consciousness. This is an extremely challenging moment for Pathfinder - they need to do something new to remain relevant but cutting backwards compatibility to make something completely new also undermines one of their greatest strengths. And WOTC is also in a much stronger position than they are.
Why is the difference important?
Because Paizo - unlike Star Wars - doesn't have the advantage of nostalgia or brand recognition. Many of the fans who are mad at The Last Jedi (in my opinion) are mad because Luke was their childhood hero and it sucks to see your childhood hero return as the equivalent of a cowardly old drunk. Most of the fans who are mad at Paizo are upset because of some rules - rules that can shift and change during a playtest. Compromise is possible. If the playtest results in a fun system that keeps the feel of Pathfinder Paizo will be able to thrive (though they're not going to retake again DnD unless WOTC makes another big mistake).
Disclaimer
I don't really care about this competitively. I have my preferences but at my age getting angry over Edition Wars seems silly. I just want Paizo to be successful. Play what's good for your group - be it Pathfinder, Fate Core, GURPS, White Wolf, or even Fourth Edition (it's still fun despite it's bad rep).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll offer my own counter-analogy that I think is more apt.
The Past
Paizo is Sony. WOTC is Nintendo. Sony/Paizo and Nintendo/WOTC partnered to work on the SNES-CDROM/DnD3.5. Adruptly, Nintendo/WOTC ended the partnership and focused on a new platform that alienated third party publishers. Sony/Paizo decided to take their learnings from the SNES-CDROM/DnD3.5 and create a new system Playstation/Pathfinder. Playstation/Pathfinder was a huge success that surpassed the N64/DnD4 (hate to make that comparison) thanks in large part to the wealth of materials generated by third party publishers (and, in Paizo's case, ported from DnD3.5).The Now
This is where the analogy starts to break down. WOTC skipped the Gamecube and went straight on to make the Wii. They also brought back third party support. And they landed some major marketing wins with Critical Role and Stranger Things.Paizo has the same challenge that Sony did with the Playstation 2. But there's no new technology to offer like a built-in DVD player and while they briefly dominated the market their brand has yet to solidify into the popular consciousness. This is an extremely challenging moment for Pathfinder - they need to do something new to remain relevant but cutting backwards compatibility to make something completely new also undermines one of their greatest strengths. And WOTC is also in a much stronger position than they are.
Why is the difference important?
Because Paizo - unlike Star Wars - doesn't have the advantage of nostalgia or brand recognition. Many of the fans who are mad at The Last Jedi (in my opinion) are mad because Luke was their childhood hero and it sucks to see your childhood hero return as the equivalent of a cowardly old drunk. Most of the fans who are mad at Paizo are upset because of some rules - rules that can shift and change during a playtest. Compromise is possible. If the playtest results in a fun system that keeps the feel of Pathfinder Paizo will be able to thrive (though they're not...
I would probably compare Paizo to Sega, they briefly toppled Nintendo, WotC is Sony or Microsoft. Probably Sony they got beaten once (PS3/Xbox360), but they bounced back like how WotC did with 5E.
It remains to be seen if Paizo can become Nintendo or go the way of Sega. The casuals also went to Sony, the hard core went with Sega as well.
Starfinder is apparently outselling PF as well but a lot more people play PF on the VTTs (and probably real life). What that tells you is its probably a saturated market, PF is more popular but everyone who wants it probably already owns it so growth prospects are probably around 0 or are even negative as people drop out (its been 10 years).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with your analysis for Paizo's motivations for 2.0. But I disagree with your assessment of the current level of acceptance among players. I believe that a solid majority of the player base is happy with 90% of these new rules. But the purpose of the playtest is to iron out problems so it not surprising that problems are the focus of discussion online.
There are certainly some payers that HATE the new rules and they have made their opinions clear. But it seems to me that they are in the minority.
Having said that, there are a few parts of the rules that seem universally reviled: resonance and gating feats behind class requirements come to mind. But my guess is that Paizo will "fix" these aspects of the rules the same way that they "fixed signature skills.
I don't think you have any evidence to support "solid majority" or "90%".
And, even if you are right, let's say a solid majority is 80%. That is a 20% loss off the top.
Now, let's assume that fully half of your majority go well beyond 90%. so that puts 40% firmly in the win camp and 40% in the "like 90%" camp. If they love 90% of it, but truly dislike the other 10%, that 10% will carry much more weight. Without major changes (more than simply tweaking resonance and class feats), there will be a lot of people with a reason to walk away. Keep in mind that the bar is VERY high in RPGs right now, there are a lot of really good alternatives that 2E must beat.
4E had a lot of issues. And that was its biggest problem, the fact that it had a lot of small problems. You ask 30 people who didn't want to play 4E "why not?" and you would get more than 30 answers. It found lots of different ways to alienate people.
I don't think 2E is nearly as "multi-bad" as 4E. But it also isn't under the D&D brand. There are plenty of diverse complaints.
I probably love 75% or more of the changes. And most of the ones that bother me are easy to house rule. But, the system as a whole has a poison pill. Which is frustrating. I want to love it. But, for now, it is what it is.
Remember, a lot of really sharp people wrote 4E. It was a NY times best seller. And yet it dropped off fast. It can very much happen.
And your optimistic assessment of "solid majority" and "90%" fail to account for that. You move those terms to more realistic guesses and it gets more grim.
[FWIW, 4E fans also assured us that the complaints online were meaningless....]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4E had a lot of issues. And that was its biggest problem, the fact that it had a lot of small problems. You ask 30 people who didn't want to play 4E "why not?" and you would get more than 30 answers. It found lots of different ways to alienate people.
This is all true. However, the big difference here is that Pathfinder Second Edition is getting an open playtest. This is the developer's opportunity to resolve those small problems and, at least from my perspective, that's been happening. There's a resonance rework inbound, signature skills were removed, dying was revised twice, etc. More significant overhauls probably won't be seen in the playtest - like restructuring class feat progression - but I'd wager that they're looking into that closely based on feedback. Fourth Edition would have benefited immensely from a similar process.
So... I do believe that a solid majority of players are, let's say, cautiously optimistic. From what I've experienced, most people like the core rules but, to your point about multi-bad, have issues with a variety of subrules. Of the twelve players I've run sessions for: only one had a completely negative reaction to the system, the eleven others loved it except for...shield usage, resonance, layout, etc. That echoes what I've seen online - no one loves the system as it is now, some people hate certain changes vehemently, and most people like it with the caveat that some things have to change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would probably compare Paizo to Sega...
It pains me to say it but I think White Wolf is Sega. The cool one who never seemed to figure out how to manage their own success.
If anything, that description is Capcom.I would probably compare Paizo to Sega...It pains me to say it but I think White Wolf is Sega. The cool one who never seemed to figure out how to manage their own success.
It's...hard to argue with that. You make a good point.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say people who focus on "how bad PF2 is" and not "how can we make PF2 better" are dangerously close to that "not processing disappointment in a productive manner."
IMO, pointing out "how bad PF2 is" IS one way to "make PF2 better". You don't need to have a solution to point out a problem. I don't thi nk it's "productive" to expect someone to NEED to come up with concrete solutions before they point out issues.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
[FWIW, 4E fans also assured us that the complaints online were meaningless....]
FWIW 4E was blatantly and significantly influenced by loud voices on their forums, a LOT of what some of the most obnoxious "3.5 is not up with modern game design" posters wanted was included in 4E. Then it tanked.
TBH the pf 2.0 playtest feels a lot like the WotC forums immediately pre 4e.
I don’t think current issues are driving Paizo’s decision (even the success of 5e). I think they are looking down the road and seeing a slow death of Pathfinder. I posted more about this on other threads, so I will just summarize:
1) It is harder to GM PF1 than most other games. Even PFS doesn’t solve this. A lack of GM’s=a lack of games.
2) It is harder for a new player to get up to speed and have a PC that is valuable to the group and interesting to play. PF1 strongly rewards system mastery (maybe too much).
I don’t think Paizo is turning its back on PF1, because they don’t like it or anything like that. I think they have just come to the conclusion that there are no internal “fixes” to PF1 that wouldn’t be more painful for fans than a new edition. Between emotional investment in what you have worked on and “a bird in the hand”, I am sure this was a difficult decision and probably one they have been thinking about for a long time.
Playtesting costs revenue, so it is better to do it while you have money in the bank. Right now, their finances are as good as they are likely to be in the near future, so it is best to do it now.
I've never had issues GMing PF1, and I dislike systems that don't strongly reward system mastery. It's easy enough to help someone make a passable character as well if I know what they want to do.
If you take ten times as long to make your character because you're picking over options and trying to optimize, the end result should be something far better than a character slapped together in an hour or two. Maybe not ten times better (diminishing returns, etc.), but at least 2 or 3 times better. Otherwise, the system winds up being frustrating and feeling too stymying. And those advantages need to be buried deep enough to take at least a few hours to find, or else I feel cheated.
[FWIW, 4E fans also assured us that the complaints online were meaningless....]
FWIW 4E was blatantly and significantly influenced by loud voices on their forums, a LOT of what some of the most obnoxious "3.5 is not up with modern game design" posters wanted was included in 4E. Then it tanked.
TBH the pf 2.0 playtest feels a lot like the WotC forums immediately pre 4e.
From what I understand 4E was more about what was selling well at the time (D&D minis), and the devs being giving a green light to make a D&D they wanted along with feedback from the RPGA network and internal playtesting. Slaviksec, Heinsoo, and Tweet were the ones pushing for it, the last t 2 worked on D&D minis. At the time I wanted a fixed 3.5 walking back some of the changes from 2E to 3.0 such as removing easy access to magic items.
There were a lot of complaints on their forums about 3.5, but there was also a whole thread on how to fix it which was mostly rewriting spells and things like that.
I don't recall to much in the way of burn it all down and start over.
Forum use is fairly useless though a lot of 3.5 did not play the way the "default" was assumed online. A lot of groups I saw for example did not know about wands of CLW and I have seen PF players doing the same thing as late as 2014. They were using PF like a more complex AD&D2E vs the online assumptions of PF1. They are not active atmn or are playing 5E now, one of them was the PFS coordinator.
I'm in the market for a game more complicated than 5E but it can't be PF1 levels or the playtest atm levels of complexity. If we pick up PF2 its to scratch that itch on occasion not as a replacement for 5E.
Even playing SWSE (which we liked a lot 2008/9) is rough these days not because of the complexity but because of the math.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
People who get super passionate about a property are the ones who buy your merch and make sure to go to every single thing.I feel like the salient point is to learn to identify "anti-fans" which is to say people whose passion about a property is channeled towards how much they dislike a piece of media, or how much they dislike its current incarnation relative to how it used to be. In general, those people are not worth catering to are best kept out of sight (and off twitter).
Since the normal, healthy reaction to "I don't like X" or "I used to like X, and now I don't" is to just go on with your life and find something else you like to occupy your time and attention. Let's not indulge the people who are not processing their disappointment in a constructive or healthy manner.
I would say people who focus on "how bad PF2 is" and not "how can we make PF2 better" are dangerously close to that "not processing disappointment in a productive manner."
Translation: shut up and go away if there is anything at all you don't like about X. You're either with X 100% or against it.
Rebuttal: how are we supposed to get stuff we like if we don't tell developers what we like/don't like about X and why?
There is quite a bit of extrapolation here. There are plenty of good ways to say: "X is not functioning in a way that is good for my group, my game or the game as a whole", that is not "X is pure garbage, the developers are obviously biased for/against Y and this is proof. If they don't change X then I'm done with Pathfinder forever."
The developers are kind enough to look past more vitriolic posts to try and find the actual critique under it.
I'm having some issues with the skill system as written, and my feedback has been clear on what I'm unhappy with and why I'm unhappy.
However, I'm also aware that I'm a playtester, not a playdesigner, it's not my game. I might disagree with a dev decision (see my disagreement with Jason Bulmahn RE: Magical Healing), but ultimately, they are making the game. Our job here is to test and play.
It's called a playtest after all, not a designer think-tank.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
People who get super passionate about a property are the ones who buy your merch and make sure to go to every single thing.I feel like the salient point is to learn to identify "anti-fans" which is to say people whose passion about a property is channeled towards how much they dislike a piece of media, or how much they dislike its current incarnation relative to how it used to be. In general, those people are not worth catering to are best kept out of sight (and off twitter).
Since the normal, healthy reaction to "I don't like X" or "I used to like X, and now I don't" is to just go on with your life and find something else you like to occupy your time and attention. Let's not indulge the people who are not processing their disappointment in a constructive or healthy manner.
I would say people who focus on "how bad PF2 is" and not "how can we make PF2 better" are dangerously close to that "not processing disappointment in a productive manner."
Translation: shut up and go away if there is anything at all you don't like about X. You're either with X 100% or against it.
Rebuttal: how are we supposed to get stuff we like if we don't tell developers what we like/don't like about X and why?
There is quite a bit of extrapolation here. There are plenty of good ways to say: "X is not functioning in a way that is good for my group, my game or the game as a whole", that is not "X is pure garbage, the developers are obviously biased for/against Y and this is proof. If they don't change X then I'm done with Pathfinder forever."
The developers are kind enough to look past more vitriolic posts to try and find the actual critique under it.
I'm having some issues with the skill system as written, and my feedback has been clear on what I'm unhappy with and why I'm unhappy.
However, I'm also aware that I'm a playtester, not a playdesigner, it's not my game. I might disagree with a dev decision (see...
The distinction between open playtest and open design is important.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
People who get super passionate about a property are the ones who buy your merch and make sure to go to every single thing.I feel like the salient point is to learn to identify "anti-fans" which is to say people whose passion about a property is channeled towards how much they dislike a piece of media, or how much they dislike its current incarnation relative to how it used to be. In general, those people are not worth catering to are best kept out of sight (and off twitter).
Since the normal, healthy reaction to "I don't like X" or "I used to like X, and now I don't" is to just go on with your life and find something else you like to occupy your time and attention. Let's not indulge the people who are not processing their disappointment in a constructive or healthy manner.
I would say people who focus on "how bad PF2 is" and not "how can we make PF2 better" are dangerously close to that "not processing disappointment in a productive manner."
So you'd argue that anyone who takes issue with an edition/reboot/episode/whatever because they preferred the prior incarnation, and then proceeds to express their opinion in any manner, is essentially a troll to be ignored? Even if the new product is bad or flawed?
God forbid that anyone express disappointment or point out problems in anything.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder came about because of players that didn't want the big changes that switching to 4th would entail. They wanted 3.5 to continue on with refinements. That's what Pathfinder was, recognizable as 3.5 but with improvements. So, when Pathfinder 2 was announced, what were players likely to expect? Pathfinder with improvements, still recognizable but refined. What I feel was put out for the playtest was more akin to big changes, like those that originally gave rise to Pathfinder. This could attract a new player base, but seems pretty unlikely to retain much of a base that was with the prior product specifically to avoid such changes and preserve a sense of familiarity. In fact, this would provide an excellent opportunity for some ambitious studio to emerge with the 'true' successor to Pathfinder, much as Paizo itself did before.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder came about because of players that didn't want the big changes that switching to 4th would entail. They wanted 3.5 to continue on with refinements. That's what Pathfinder was, recognizable as 3.5 but with improvements. So, when Pathfinder 2 was announced, what were players likely to expect? Pathfinder with improvements, still recognizable but refined. What I feel was put out for the playtest was more akin to big changes, like those that originally gave rise to Pathfinder. This could attract a new player base, but seems pretty unlikely to retain much of a base that was with the prior product specifically to avoid such changes and preserve a sense of familiarity. In fact, this would provide an excellent opportunity for some ambitious studio to emerge with the 'true' successor to Pathfinder, much as Paizo itself did before.The parallel is not congruent. At this point, PF has little to loose and all to gain. 5e dominates the market, literally with its own movie stars. PF has been contracting since 2014. If a third party wanted to carve out a 3.75 niche, it would, at this point, attract a percentage of an already ailing market - perhaps appealing to those uninterested in change, but hardly able to reproduce the coup PF orchestrated in 09. If it were a viable route, Paizo would not be abandoning it.
I wouldn't be so quick to make sweeping assumptions. I would imagine many similar statements were made about the beginning of Pathfinder. Sticking with/improving on 3.5 was clearly a winning formula, yet WotC abandoned it.
Furthermore, IMO, they started work on PF2 long before Starfinder, and the latter was intended as a testing ground for some PF2 ideas and as a funding bridge during the "dead year" between releasing the playtest and releasing the final product.No doubt there are elements of parallel design and a commonality of method amongst the design staff. There were probably also things which worked in SF that they decided to then utilise in PF2. Nonetheless, they approached SF’s design as a stand-alone project with its own, internally motivated design goals.
I am aware of that quote. I know that's what they said, and it might be true. But history of similar circumstances in TTRPGs make me think my original statement holds merit, and when the final version of PF2 comes out we can then look back and see if there any obvious parallels (beyond the common origins) between the two systems.