| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
But Automatic Bonus Progression takes away the fun of selecting items.
It really doesn't. Just assume those bonuses are part of the mechanics and now you get to select items which have actual effects beyond giving another +1 to something.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the goal was to dumb things down enough to capture 4th & 5th Edition D&D types, without loosing the old 3.5 types....well that's probably not an achievable goal.
I have only payed a little attention to 2nd Edition....just enough to confirm I'm not interested.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Exponentially" is a word that is misused all the time, and it drives me a little bit nuts. Expoential does NOT mean "a lot"..
I know what exponential means. I also know it doesn’t mean “a lot”. Saying d&d is outselling pf exponentially, means that one game is outselling the other, and that the rate of difference is increasing over time. That was my intent. Why would you leap to the assumption that the word was used incorrectly? That drives me nuts.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Admittedly, this change was made for a reason, just not a readily apparent one. "Ankheg" is part of WotC's intellectual property, where "ankhrav" is entirely Paizo's. So they can use the term across their non-RPG products without it dragging the Open Game License text with it like a ball and chain. (The totally-not-an-ankheg miniature was called an Ankhrav well before the PF2 announcement, for example.)I have little problems with changes that are made for a reason.
I do NOT like totally gratuitous changes. For example, changing an Ankheg to an Ankhrav just seems really, really, really silly to me.
Yeah, this also illuminates the issue that Paizo have other considerations beyond "what kind of game one likes" when making decisions. Considerations such as the above don't really factor into my enjoyment of PF2 and might seem to be a peculiar choice, but they may well be a non-negotiable constraint on the creative team.
Besides the legal/OGL complications such as this one, there is also the continual tension between building the perfect game for any individual over breadth of market appeal. We can all advocate for the game which is "just right" for us, but Paizo have to balance meeting exactly that without excluding whole swathes of other market segments - the more they stick with PF1 the less appealing they are to those who don't like PF1. The more they change the game the less appealing it becomes to those who do.
There is an almost unavoidable human tendency to think of oneself as representative of our cultural group. Paizo have to find somewhere on the spectrum between those who want no change through to those who want to abandon all semblance of PF1. Our anecdotal experiences are definitive when it comes to our own, individual preferences but next-to-useless in answering the question of where on the spectrum is the best place to land.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We also have Nathan Stewart stating that D&D sales increased by 44% from 2016 to 2018.
D&D certainly has a larger market share than Pathfinder and has captured the popular consciousness thanks to media like Stranger Things, Big Bang Theory, & Critical Role. Someone posted numbers in another thread - can't remember which or I'd cite - showing that the market has seen significant growth since Fifth Edition launched. However - I'm curious if market share might not be telling the whole story, if Paizo is taking a smaller slice of a larger pie they might still be doing well. It's been oft repeated that the Fifth Edition Player's Handbook is radically outselling Pathfinder's Core Rulebook...but if Paizo's primary money maker are Adventure Paths things may really not be as dire as some people fear.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are going to argue (surprise) about whether or not PF2-Golarion lore is compatible with PF1-Golarion. It’s not going to be at the “God’s are dead, returning abeir” type stuff though. It depends whether you consider the inclusion of “domesticated” goblins as a bridge too far.
One wonders how the Runelords managed to rise to such power in Thassilon under this system, with their 1-minnute duration spells and half the slots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My experience has been that I enjoyed playing AD&D and enjoy playing D&D 5ed more than I enjoy playing Pathfinder, but I enjoy building characters in Pathfinder more than building characters in either AD&D or D&D 5e. I don't know whether others have experienced this, but that is my experience.
I haven't played Fifth Edition but I'd agree with this sentiment. After D&D 3/3.5/Pathfinder, the only system I've had more fun building characters in is GURPS...but finding a consistent group has been next to impossible.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are going to argue (surprise) about whether or not PF2-Golarion lore is compatible with PF1-Golarion. It’s not going to be at the “God’s are dead, returning abeir” type stuff though. It depends whether you consider the inclusion of “domesticated” goblins as a bridge too far.One wonders how the Runelords managed to rise to such power in Thassilon under this system, with their 1-minnute duration spells and half the slots.
Yeah, the concept of the archmage who controls a country through his sheer power of magic kinda seems laughable in the new edition.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I meant they’ve said it several times since announcing PF2.They’ve explicitly ruled out “realms shattering events” a number of times.Yes, they've said that many times over the years and now it's time for them to actually follow-through with it.
That's good to know.
It still bothers me that everyone on Golarion is going to wake up the morning PF2 drops and decide to start using silver instead of gold though.
Backward compatibility to all the APs and other stuff I've bought for the last 12 years is my #1 issue. (Boy, doesn't that sound a lot like what people said about the switch from 3.5 to 4e?).
-Skeld
Customer Service & Community Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With all due respect, if this is the case, why are the Designers of PF2 literally posting how they themselves are doing much of their discussions on other sites?
Its not having discussions on one place vs another, its when the conversation ends up with crossover where some people might have accounts on one site and not the other, but conversations might be getting cross referenced or quoted. If you want to go into this further, send an email to community at paizo.com or post in website feedback as we try to keep questions regarding moderations out of discussion threads.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Amazon ranking also evidences this as a likely reality. Ease of entry and things like Critical Role are drivers here. Estimates place sales below D&D mania of the 80’s, but well above 3.xx era.
FWIW, keep in mind that WotC was sharing the pie with a lot of competitors. Yes, most 3PP stuff was crap. But WotC was frequently mocked for being inferior to several big name 3PPs.
I don't see any evidence that the % of society playing TTRPGs has meaningfully moved. It is far more accepted in the geek-power age. But there is that much more competing for attention as well. It speaks well that the hobby is holding strong. (And the US population is up better than 10% compared to when 3E came out, so just the same share of a bigger pie is solid growth).
5E is TOTALLY dominant. But during the 3E era people complained that D20 was stifling creativity because everyone was doing it. It is impossible to compare.
As for 2017 "Pathfinder vs. 5E". pffff It is a blowout. And there is no shame in that. Pathfinder is on a freaking (almost) twenty year old chasis. 5E is new. 5E is great. 5E is reflective of modern gaming.
You really don't need to quantify it. It is just true.
PF is still *my* favorite. But 5E is great. Awesomeness coming to the end of a life cycle isn't a criticism.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I meant they’ve said it several times since announcing PF2.They’ve explicitly ruled out “realms shattering events” a number of times.Yes, they've said that many times over the years and now it's time for them to actually follow-through with it.That's good to know.
It still bothers me that everyone on Golarion is going to wake up the morning PF2 drops and decide to start using silver instead of gold though.
Backward compatibility to all the APs and other stuff I've bought for the last 12 years is my #1 issue. (Boy, doesn't that sound a lot like what people said about the switch from 3.5 to 4e?).
-Skeld
Yeah, everyone’s “line” is going to be different. Gold to silver doesn’t bother me (I’ll notice it for half an AP, I expect and then it’ll just be the new normal). I suspect I’ll enjoy the fact lower denomination coins will mean something.
The drop in magicusers’ power is more likely to irritate my brain, I suspect. I don’t struggle with the whispering tryrant or Runelords having incredible Magic’s beyond current mages’ abilities (ancient magic being superior to recent magic is an easy enough trope for me to accomodate). I’m going to struggle to accept Razmir being able to imitate a god though, I suspect.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for 2017 "Pathfinder vs. 5E". pffff It is a blowout. And there is no shame in that. Pathfinder is on a freaking (almost) twenty year old chasis. 5E is new. 5E is great. 5E is reflective of modern gaming.
You really don't need to quantify it. It is just true.PF is still *my* favorite. But 5E is great. Awesomeness coming to the end of a life cycle isn't a criticism.
What's wrong with a twenty year old chassis?
The computer I'm typing this on is using a forty-year-old architecture. The OS I'm using is based on a twenty-seven year old architecture. And it's connecting using a thirty-five year old protocol.
Is the computer you're using over 20 years old?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. But are you using 3.0 for your gaming or PF1e? Wanting Paizo to take the PF1e chassis and update it as they did the 3.5e chassis is not unreasonable. But of course denigrating the old to make way for the brand new is a lot easier then going under the hood and fixing the old. There's no indication that doing so is going to garne4 Paizo any increase in players. It certainly didn't help WotC when they tried it with D&D 4th edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's wrong with a twenty year old chassis?
PF1E is a great game.
It is showing its age in places.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's wrong with a twenty year old chassis?PF1E is a great game.
It is showing its age in places.
What's age got to do with it?
No, seriously. The flaws behind Pathfinder's math have existed since the inception of the chassis. They're not worse today than they were the day they were released.
So I ask, how does age play into the discussion, really?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did I say anything about math?
I think 3E learned a great deal from the games that came before it and evolved to be a very modern game at the time. (Math issues and all)
A lot more has been learned about what makes a game great since then and 5E, for example, has learned (again). Shoulders of giants and all that.
Plus, I still love PF, but kids that were not gaming (or alive) 18 years ago have different tastes and different alternatives.
Things change. Age matters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did I say anything about math?
I think 3E learned a great deal from the games that came before it and evolved to be a very modern game at the time. (Math issues and all)
A lot more has been learned about what makes a game great since then and 5E, for example, has learned (again). Shoulders of giants and all that.
Plus, I still love PF, but kids that were not gaming (or alive) 18 years ago have different tastes and different alternatives.
Things change. Age matters.
Yeah, I don't really think that is all that true. The way things are going, developers seem to think that "less complexity" is the way to go with every new game out. That thinking seems to imply that developers think young people nowadays are less intelligent or educated than before. I don't think I'd agree with that sentiment.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not age specifically that matters.
However, trends do come and go. One thing gets popular, then another thing gets popular.
The only way in which age really matters is that the "oh, shiny, new!" effect makes things that are new seem more exciting than they would have were they not new, and being looked at based only on their merits.
Arguably, folks wanted something that was simpler than D&D3.5e, but still felt like classic D&D. For many (most?), 4e did not feel like classic D&D, so they went to Pathfinder... even though they might have wanted something simpler. D&D 5e came and gave them both.
There's a big trend right now towards simpler games, and towards more "narrative" games, rather than more "simulationist" games that are closer to wargames. But will that last forever? Who knows.
The fact that the OSR is a thing indicates that it's not age specifically, but trends. There is a subset of folks looking for things that are like they were back in the 70s and early 80s. A lot of this is nostalgia, but probably not all of it.
Age is a red herring. There are some things about Pathfinder that lead to a burning need for a new edition that are secondarily related to age. The huge overwhelming unremitting gigantic bloat of ungodly number of rulebooks that PF1e has now means that a serious slate-clearing needs to happen. It's highly intimidating to new players, and even some old players no longer feel like they have a grasp of all the classes and rules out there. This can only happen with age, as it takes time to build up the rules bloat. But it's not the age of the underlying system that's the problem per se; it's just the fact that so much cruft has built up around it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a design fad. You make something quick and easy to learn, anyone who needs the real tool sticks with the real tool, and those who don't switch to the new quick easy thing. It's pretty great to have both, as the new easy thing is a good stepping stone to learning the real tool.
Calling it an age thing ignores how long this has been going on. Paizo's past focus on adventure path sales means that their past market strategy would be incompatible with courting the low investment demographic.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it hilarious then that the playtest book is so obtuse in its language that, if I wouldn't want to help make the new edition better (i.e. interesting to me), I'd run for the hills. We saw that trend already with classes like the Kineticist, but writing an entire rulebook in that style was really disorienting.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
While actual sales figures are likely company secrets for both Hasbro and Paizo, there are some public figures we can look at. One indicator is the number of games being played on the popular platform Fantasy Grounds. There we see that D&D has 66% of the games played, and Pathfinder has 12% (and Starfinder 1%). That's not sales per se, but it's certainly an indicator of popularity. Roll20 posts similar numbers, 61% for 5e and 10% for Pathfinder.
So your Fantasy Ground link shows PFRPG at 80,000 games.
Looking at 2016 graph PFRPG accounts 40,000 games.
Seems like usage for PF is growing right alongside all the rest of the games. The pie is just getting a lot bigger.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't really think that is all that true. The way things are going, developers seem to think that "less complexity" is the way to go with every new game out. That thinking seems to imply that developers think young people nowadays are less intelligent or educated than before. I don't think I'd agree with that sentiment.
oh, trust me when I say that I'm with you there.
I get downright indignant about comments like "low entry bar" and "easy for new players".To me those phrases just translate to "either the players never get better and settle for second tier games, or they do get better and leave the starter game behind for something that can really function".
But, again, I didn't say that either. It is simply true that as time goes by the same old things becomes "the same old thing". And the market will walk away from anyone who doesn't keep up with it.
1E is still 1E. It was market dominant. Now it isn't.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So your Fantasy Ground link shows PFRPG at 80,000 games.
Looking at 2016 graph PFRPG accounts 40,000 games.
Seems like usage for PF is growing right alongside all the rest of the games. The pie is just getting a lot bigger.
Yeah, "winning" isn't worth a lot if "losing" means twice as many people are playing your game.
There's a strong argument that D&D's recent success is directly growing the size of the pie by bringing new players into the hobby. Which is good for everyone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So your Fantasy Ground link shows PFRPG at 80,000 games.
Looking at 2016 graph PFRPG accounts 40,000 games.
Seems like usage for PF is growing right alongside all the rest of the games. The pie is just getting a lot bigger.
Yeah, "winning" isn't worth a lot if "losing" means twice as many people are playing your game.
There's a strong argument that D&D's recent success is directly growing the size of the pie by bringing new players into the hobby. Which is good for everyone.
This is a good reason to be optimistic, I think. Although I suspect the PF market now is not two times bigger than 2016, I do think it has grown. As such, even if PF2 has a period of lower sales than PF1, I’m hopeful Paizo will be able to retain all of their current staff and therefore output of flavour material over the long term. (Both for their sakes, but also for selfish reasons).
It’s worth bearing in mind that Paizo don’t need to “win” the market share tables. They need to bring in enough money to pay everyone, keep the lights on and return sufficient money to the owners. They can probably do all of that without registering as a serious competitor to 5E.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's very depressing to see the number of people taking things like "Paizo is a sellout", "2e only exists to compete with 5e" and "Paizo is only making this game for themselves, not for players" as established canon this early in the playtest, before the game is even released.
I have some reservations with PF2e. There are some major things I would like to see changed, and I've been excited about participating in the playtest to try and see those things change.
But man if being on these forums isn't killing my enthusiasm. The amount of negativity and lack of respect for Paizo is crazy disheartening.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see people say things like this. "Exponentially" is a word with a lot of meaning. I also see quotes similar to "Because Wizards is killing Paizo in marketshare..."
For people who say these things like this, I ask: Where do you get this insider information? When I asked one guy (the guy who made the marketshare comment), his response was that it was because in his little town in Iowa, D&D was displayed way more prominently on the shelves.While actual sales figures are likely company secrets for both Hasbro and Paizo, there are some public figures we can look at. One indicator is the number of games being played on the popular platform Fantasy Grounds. There we see that D&D has 66% of the games played, and Pathfinder has 12% (and Starfinder 1%). That's not sales per se, but it's certainly an indicator of popularity. Roll20 posts similar numbers, 61% for 5e and 10% for Pathfinder.
We also have Nathan Stewart stating that D&D sales increased by 44% from 2016 to 2018.
But when you look at the raw numbers on roll20, pathfinder games have actually increased, just not at the same rate as d+d games. MORE GAMES IN GENERAL are being played on the site, including an increase in pathfinder games.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
But man if being on these forums isn't killing my enthusiasm. The amount of negativity and lack of respect for Paizo is crazy disheartening.I disagree. I've found that these forums have all too often adopted a tone of "love Paizo or get out" that discourages criticisms, critiques, and speaking up about things that aren't wanted, liked, or otherwise appreciated.
You must not go to many product and related threads.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
But man if being on these forums isn't killing my enthusiasm. The amount of negativity and lack of respect for Paizo is crazy disheartening.I disagree. I've found that these forums have all too often adopted a tone of "love Paizo or get out" that discourages criticisms, critiques, and speaking up about things that aren't wanted, liked, or otherwise appreciated. That so many people are willing to express views of the Playtest and the new edition that are something besides wild exaltation is something I find quite heartening.
Dude... This is blatantly false. Look at the ratio of threads on complaints vs appreciation.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude... This is blatantly false. Look at the ratio of threads on complaints vs appreciation.But man if being on these forums isn't killing my enthusiasm. The amount of negativity and lack of respect for Paizo is crazy disheartening.I disagree. I've found that these forums have all too often adopted a tone of "love Paizo or get out" that discourages criticisms, critiques, and speaking up about things that aren't wanted, liked, or otherwise appreciated. That so many people are willing to express views of the Playtest and the new edition that are something besides wild exaltation is something I find quite heartening.
Thats because the people who complain create threads and the people who demand appreciation or get out show up to crap all over those threads. Its a pretty standard forum dynamic.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
But man if being on these forums isn't killing my enthusiasm. The amount of negativity and lack of respect for Paizo is crazy disheartening.
Corollary: if it weren't for these forums, I would have given up on PF2 long ago.
It's only because of the other like-minded people who apparently see things negatively that I feel any hope that PF2 might possibly release as a game I might want to play.
And I'm going to break things down a moment.
Negativity. A large amount of negativity is a strong (but not perfect) signal that something is wrong. I'm not negative about the aspects of PF2 I dislike because I enjoy criticizing anyone's work. I hate being critical. I feel bad for telling someone I don't like their painting, their cake, their song, or their rulebook. But this is a product I'm expected to buy, to put food on the designers' plates, and that's not going to happen as-is. So... negativity.
Lack-of-respect. There actually is very little of that going on, and the mods are pretty quick (thankfully) to clean it up when people go off the rails. There's very little going on in personal or ad-hominem attacks. It's just walls of text, documenting what people don't like, and precisely why, and how they think it could be fixed.
Bonus: balance. There are things I like about PF2, but I don't have the time or energy to play cheerleader, waving a "three-action-system-is-neat" banner. Heck, I've given up on pet peeves that I can live with, such as "monsters should follow PC creation rules" because the stuff I won't live with is so much more dramatically won't-buy-this-product important to me that I focus on that. So hey, when you're feeling down because of the tone on the forums, try to remember that the only thing we need to talk about is the negative... the things that will prevent a buyer from investing in this next edition. So let's hammer it all out now, to maximize the possibility that PF2 will succeed financially.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just walls of text, documenting what people don't like, and precisely why, and how they think it could be fixed.
There are no less than 3 active threads right now with blatant hyperbole about the design goals of PF2. I've seen multiple posters complaining that Paizo is deliberately obfuscating vital information, doesn't want to make a fun system, is making a soulless cash grab, is ignoring all negative feedback, doesn't care about player experience of the game, and generally getting whipped into a furor over conspiracy theories. It's ridiculous.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2's design goal: be the game the designers would like to create/play.
It's that simple. These are rules that Jason and his team thought of that they like. They fit the style game that the dev team as a collective want to write for.
I honestly feel for Jason in particular. Spending nearly a decade and a half writing for someone else's system has got to be frustrating. I imagine he's really eager to spread his wings and create an edition that is his.
And that's all fine. And cool. And I deeply respect that.
I don't think there's much point in looking for something deeper here. Sometimes a game is just a game.
Statement without any support..... I would love to see the statement supported, but you through something and and are trying to see if it sticks...
It's just walls of text, documenting what people don't like, and precisely why, and how they think it could be fixed.There are no less than 3 active threads right now with blatant hyperbole about the design goals of PF2. I've seen multiple posters complaining that Paizo is deliberately obfuscating vital information, doesn't want to make a fun system, is making a soulless cash grab, is ignoring all negative feedback, doesn't care about player experience of the game, and generally getting whipped into a furor over conspiracy theories. It's ridiculous.
Question: Have you gone into any threads where unhappy people have detailed their concerns and, therein, have you offered positive and constructive solutions?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guessing at motivations is fun as long as we're not serious about it and remember that none of us are mind readers.
The negativity around Paizo using multiple means of communication is... odd...
It's 2018. Everything is scattered across twitch, youtube, facebook, twitter, instagram, websites etc etc etc.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
They’re trying to reach a large an audience as possible, that’s why everything is spread out everywhere rather than just staying here, which it all filters back to anyway, and official stuff such as Errata is posted here.
As for not interacting with us, in the 6 years I’ve been on this site this is absolutely the MOST I’ve ever seen the Developers on the forums talking with people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and the "designing APs is difficult when characters values can be vastly unpredictable"problem.
The game is designed around Paizo's needs, not ours.
Honestly, this is also OUR problem, not just Paizo's. I don't know about you, but I'm a Paizo customer who uses those APs, so if they have a tough time keeping it both fun and exciting, then it's MY concern, too.
It just so happens that a lot of things that changed are things my group was sort of doing, anyway.