[Closed] Has it gotten more quiet here since PF2?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

To me it feels like there is significantly less posting in the rules and advice subforums since the Playtest for PF2 came out.

Is it just me or is there a strong migration towards PF2?


I think its because at this point most people assume that we won't be getting any additional FAQs or errata for PF1 content since, in theory, the individuals responsible for that are busy developing PF2.

No sense in trying to hash something out that will never get an official response and won't be relevant if PF2 is as good as it's supposed to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a lot of what Kailas said. But also, a lot of the people who usually trolled those boards are more interested in trolling the PF2 boards now. People only have so much time to follow so many topics.

I also wonder if PF2 coming up has slowed the number of new people starting Pathfinder, and thus asking the repeated questions, but I'm not sure how they'd know PF1 is on its way out, anyway.


All good things, etc.


It's been getting more quiet for years. The slow exodus began a couple years ago as 5e's gravitational attraction increased, then recently accelerated due to multiple extended website crashes, with it still not being fully fixed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's certainly quieter. I suspect that some of those people who don't like PF2 will drift back in a while, but for the moment we're too busy trying to fix it. Time will tell.

OTOH, as Slim Jim says, it's been getting quieter for years. Most of the advice has been given, all the build guides have been done, all the rules questions that will be answered have been answered, many house rules have been posted and Golarion is well-travelled. So apart from the latest AP there's not much to say.


That's largely why I hang out in the gamer life forums for the most part. Those seem to still be doing ok. Especially the Off Topic subforum.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To be frank, the writing for various Pathfinder products has been in decline for some time now. And, I really don't like what's been happening in Pathfinder 2e, although I have been keeping somewhat up to date on it.

I wonder if 2e is gonna be successful, or will it turn out to be another D&D 4e, so bad that they have to either come out with a new edition or go back to the old one, a la Vampire?


It does remind me a bit of 4e, but it's in the playtest stage with plenty of time to fix things. Too early to say. The forums in general are a much more quiet place than they used to be anyhow, that's for sure.


I also have the impression they're quieter. But they'd been gradually getting quieter for a while, since maybe 2014 or so. Whether this is because "all the advice has been given" and so forth, or competition from other fora, or something else, I don't know, but it's been a slow downward drift that's accelerated in the last few months.

Heck, I'm part of it. Been posting here for years, but have posted much less in the last six months or so. Speaking only for myself, I'm not yet strongly engaged with 2e -- I'm waiting to see what they do with it -- and apparently knowing that Original Pathfinder is going away makes me slightly less interested.

Doug M.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There are parts of 2e I like, such as the 3 action system and normalized stats, but a lot of things just feel like change for the sake of change.

A project like pf2 is mostly doomed though. Even if it’s good, it will need to be significantly better than other similar games to draw an audience away from those games. Meanwhile by abandoning pf1, there is a good chance they will lose that audience to other games, instead of drawing them to their next game. I’m really shocked they are completely abandoning pf1 like they seem to be doing.


Melkiador wrote:
Meanwhile by abandoning pf1, there is a good chance they will lose that audience to other games, instead of drawing them to their next game. I’m really shocked they are completely abandoning pf1 like they seem to be doing.

It's not just the radical mechanics changes, it's the design itself that has radically changed. And on top of that, PF2 seems to be intended for the LGBT crowd far more than the gamers that kept PF1 in business for so very long. The game is if anything more Golarion centric, probably because they want to sell their future PF2 prewritten campaigns. Thus, "you gamers must play our way or get lost" impression I get. Me personally, I never thought that sort of attitude was necessary in the first place.

The impression I get is that Paizo wants to create a game for a wholly different demographic than the one that birthed and nurtured it all this time. Thus, the totally different game design, so different that it isn't compatible with what has gone before.

All of this is IMO, of course.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Piccolo wrote:
And on top of that, PF2 seems to be intended for the LGBT crowd far more than the gamers that kept PF1 in business for so very long.

What the hell?

What the hell is that even supposed to mean?


Not willing to start up arguing about it.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I need to understand this. Right now I do not understand this, I can define each of the words used but put together they don’t make any damn sense. I’ll be polite if you’ll be, we can have us a sincere heart to heart, but I’d be much obliged if you could explain your view to me, because this I do not understand.

What part of the Pathfinder 2.0 roleplaying game do you feel does not appeal to straight people?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Piccolo wrote:
And on top of that, PF2 seems to be intended for the LGBT crowd far more than the gamers that kept PF1 in business for so very long.
Piccolo wrote:
Not willing to start up arguing about it.

Why did you even mention it? Mentioning it is good way to start a fight or just plain troll.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that the devs are playing for one side or the other. The game seems quite open to letting anyone to play.


I think a migration would be expected. I think it would take fair bit of energy to keep focus on two separate editions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Piccolo wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Meanwhile by abandoning pf1, there is a good chance they will lose that audience to other games, instead of drawing them to their next game. I’m really shocked they are completely abandoning pf1 like they seem to be doing.

It's not just the radical mechanics changes, it's the design itself that has radically changed. And on top of that, PF2 seems to be intended for the LGBT crowd far more than the gamers that kept PF1 in business for so very long. The game is if anything more Golarion centric, probably because they want to sell their future PF2 prewritten campaigns. Thus, "you gamers must play our way or get lost" impression I get. Me personally, I never thought that sort of attitude was necessary in the first place.

The impression I get is that Paizo wants to create a game for a wholly different demographic than the one that birthed and nurtured it all this time. Thus, the totally different game design, so different that it isn't compatible with what has gone before.

All of this is IMO, of course.

No trolling and derailing please.

If you feel that's a topic that anyone might want to discuss make your own thread.


Every thread about “that” gets censored away pretty quickly. Let’s not make this thread about “that”.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What's "that"? Could you elaborate, please?


Gorbacz wrote:
What's "that"? Could you elaborate, please?

Not without increasing the chances of this thread being deleted.

I guess if you really want to know, you could try messaging someone.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm sorry but I don't understand. Please elaborate again.


Gorbacz wrote:
I'm sorry but I don't understand. Please elaborate again.

Talking about “that” always ends in the thread being deleted. If you don’t know what “that” is, then don’t worry about it. You probably aren’t going to post about it anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suspect a lot of people are simply focused on PF2.
A slow down here is to be expected, and I don't imagine it will get better in time.

Those of us sticking with PF1 will just need to get used to it ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nighttree wrote:

I suspect a lot of people are simply focused on PF2.

A slow down here is to be expected, and I don't imagine it will get better in time.

Those of us sticking with PF1 will just need to get used to it ;)

Yes, looks like it


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nighttree wrote:

I suspect a lot of people are simply focused on PF2.

A slow down here is to be expected, and I don't imagine it will get better in time.

Those of us sticking with PF1 will just need to get used to it ;)

Probably. One good thing about PF2 is that it made me look at Pathfinder Unchained and there is stuff there that I can implement in Pathfinder to give me a much more satisfying game than PF2 seems to be, at where it is now.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GRuzom wrote:
Probably. One good thing about PF2 is that it made me look at Pathfinder Unchained and there is stuff there that I can implement in Pathfinder to give me a much more satisfying game than PF2 seems to be, at where it is now.
GRuzom wrote:
[...] more satisfying game than PF2 seems to be, at where it is now.
GRuzom wrote:
than PF2 seems to be
GRuzom wrote:
at where it is now.
GRuzom wrote:
where it is now.
GRuzom wrote:
now

My needless inveighing aside, it does bear saying that PF2 does not yet exist. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
GRuzom wrote:
Probably. One good thing about PF2 is that it made me look at Pathfinder Unchained and there is stuff there that I can implement in Pathfinder to give me a much more satisfying game than PF2 seems to be, at where it is now.
GRuzom wrote:
[...] more satisfying game than PF2 seems to be, at where it is now.
GRuzom wrote:
than PF2 seems to be
GRuzom wrote:
at where it is now.
GRuzom wrote:
where it is now.
GRuzom wrote:
now
My needless inveighing aside, it does bear saying that PF2 does not yet exist. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You are absolutely right - and I may be pleasantly surprised:-)

Sovereign Court

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Piccolo wrote:
And on top of that, PF2 seems to be intended for the LGBT crowd far more than the gamers that kept PF1 in business for so very long.

I've been playing roleplaying games for over twenty years, starting with Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. We were always here, thank you. And we've done our part "keeping Paizo in business" for as long as Pathfinder has been around.

Melkiador wrote:
Every thread about “that” gets censored away pretty quickly. Let’s not make this thread about “that”.

I'm with the toothy bag. What's "that"? Am I "that"? I'm not sure if "that" is better or worse than "those people".

Though I will admit, I chuckled at "I don't want this thread to get "censored". So don't talk about these topics. You wouldn't want to get "censored", would you?"

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Piccolo wrote:

And on top of that, PF2 seems to be intended for the LGBT crowd far more than the gamers that kept PF1 in business for so very long.

...
The impression I get is that Paizo wants to create a game for a wholly different demographic than the one that birthed and nurtured it all this time.

The gamers that have kept Pathfinder and Paizo in business for so very long, include people from many different demographics, including LGBTA folks. Inclusive characters in our games mean we are ensuring that the diverse crowd of gamers that make up the Paizo gaming community feel represented in the stories and content in our books. It also means that new gamers to our community feel welcomed and encouraged to play. People from the LGBTA community have always existed within the gaming community, perhaps over time as we've experienced a cultural shift where people are more open about their identities, there is more visibility for LGBTA folks both in mainstream culture and within the RPG community, but this notion that RPGs used to or should or need to belong to one singular demographic is not welcome on our forums.


Christopk-K wrote:
nighttree wrote:

I suspect a lot of people are simply focused on PF2.

A slow down here is to be expected, and I don't imagine it will get better in time.

Those of us sticking with PF1 will just need to get used to it ;)

Yes, looks like it

What new stuff is there to talk about?


Sara Marie wrote:

...but this notion that RPGs used to or should or need to belong to one singular demographic is not welcome on our forums.

That’s a bit of the problem though. You have singled out demographics of the game, instead of trying to appeal to all of them. It’s not like you’re unique in having minorities play your game. The population of people you should try to be making money from is wide and expansive.

But it doesn’t matter anymore. The die has been cast and it can’t be taken back without causing even more damage.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Christopk-K wrote:
nighttree wrote:

I suspect a lot of people are simply focused on PF2.

A slow down here is to be expected, and I don't imagine it will get better in time.

Those of us sticking with PF1 will just need to get used to it ;)

Yes, looks like it
What new stuff is there to talk about?

It’s not just a lack of new content.

FAQ’s have pretty much been discontinued, There is zero resolution to be found for ongoing rules questions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
But it doesn’t matter anymore. The die has been cast and it can’t be taken back without causing even more damage.

Now I’m really confused. :/

What in the world could “that” be? Does “that” really merit all the melodrama? I feel like I just stumbled into the wizarding world, and the wizards keep saying “You Know Who” but I don’t know who. PM me, Melkiador?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am worried that that "that" that is being discussed is derailing the thread, even if many people seem interested in discussing that part of that "that." If we made another thread for that (i.e. discussing the meaning of that "that"), would that be suitable?


Since we’ve already lost the thread. This is that:

Quote:
GaminG is For allWhether you’re a player or a Game Master, participating in a tabletop roleplaying game involves an inherent social contract: everyone has gathered to have fun together, and the table is a safe space for everyone. Everyone has a right to play and enjoy Pathfinder regardless of their age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other identities and life experiences. Pathfinder is for everyone, and Pathfinder games should be as safe, inclusive, and fun as possible for all.

It’s text at the start of the pf2 core book and it’s upset apparently quite a few people, but those threads keep getting deleted, so it’s hard to tell the actual feeling from the audience.

But even if they shouldn’t have added that text in the first place, to remove it now would look even worse. So, now it’s a thing that people will complain about forever and will keep some unknowable, but possibly high, number of people from joining the game, but it can’t be removed.

And I imagine that in some part, this kind of conversation that we’re having now has been driving people away from these boards.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Since I am free to have my opinion without business concerns I can say that anyone who is put off by the content of that text is not welcome at my table, in my home, or really anywhere else I have a say.

I am not saying that questioning the utility or wisdom of including puts someone on my personal ban list, but the content.


And there are silly little nitpicks you can make. Like how people of any age should be welcome. I guess that means all of your games should be G rated to account for that 4 year old that’s joining the party.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

“That” is disappointingly unimportant. Wasn’t what it was hyped to be.

I read that paragraph when I first skimmed the playtest document, and thought nothing of it at all.

What is there to disagree with? I’m with Java Man, if someone thinks that people of any age, gender, race, religion, lack thereof, orientation, or other cultural identity don’t have the right to play or enjoy pathfinder, of all things, that person isn’t welcome, at least not at my table. :/

Melkiador wrote:
And there are silly little nitpicks you can make. Like how people of any age should be welcome. I guess that means all of your games should be G rated to account for that 4 year old that’s joining the party.

We can all make silly nitpicks until we’re blue in the face, but ... that’d be silly.


@Melkiador

Well, speaking personally.. If I've invited/accepted someone's 4 yo, or you know, want to spend time with my family by gaming then yes I'm going to put in content that appeals to them. Also, not going to have cursing and outright nudity/sexual content. It wouldn't be appropriate to my audience. I mean to put it differently, I wouldn't be M for mature around them in real life, so why would I be the 'dirty uncle' at the gaming table?

And if you're talking about games that don't have a 4 yo in them, then I really hope you're being facetious, but maybe you can take your boredom out somewhat less flippantly.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Whats sad is pathfinder 1.0 was based on a system I love. I hate to see it go because they believe that they need to chase D&D 5.0. I honestly don't like a lot of aspects of 5.0 or pathfinder 2.0 and am sad that most likely the AP's for 1.0 are dead within 1 or 2 AP's.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:

Since we’ve already lost the thread. This is that:

Quote:
GaminG is For allWhether you’re a player or a Game Master, participating in a tabletop roleplaying game involves an inherent social contract: everyone has gathered to have fun together, and the table is a safe space for everyone. Everyone has a right to play and enjoy Pathfinder regardless of their age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other identities and life experiences. Pathfinder is for everyone, and Pathfinder games should be as safe, inclusive, and fun as possible for all.

It’s text at the start of the pf2 core book and it’s upset apparently quite a few people, but those threads keep getting deleted, so it’s hard to tell the actual feeling from the audience.

But even if they shouldn’t have added that text in the first place, to remove it now would look even worse. So, now it’s a thing that people will complain about forever and will keep some unknowable, but possibly high, number of people from joining the game, but it can’t be removed.

And I imagine that in some part, this kind of conversation that we’re having now has been driving people away from these boards.

Seriously, this again? What kind of person does it take to be upset about a disclaimer that the game is for everyone? What kind of racial/sexual/religious butthurt is necessary in order to feel threatened by that?


Gorbacz wrote:
Seriously, this again? What kind of person does it take to be upset about a disclaimer that the game is for everyone? What kind of racial/sexual/religious butthurt is necessary in order to feel threatened by that?

Those who have watched the touchy-feely PC invasion destroy other aspects of culture, and therefore reliably know what's coming next. Any company that thinks they can ward off the Mongol hordes currently pillaging the American entertainment landscape with a bit of throw-away inclusivity nomenclature is woefully deluded. --They're simply advertising weakness and chumming the waters with their own blood. The attacks will now begin in earnest.

Paying "Danegeld" never works.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Slim Jim wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Seriously, this again? What kind of person does it take to be upset about a disclaimer that the game is for everyone? What kind of racial/sexual/religious butthurt is necessary in order to feel threatened by that?

Those who have watched the touchy-feely PC invasion destroy other aspects of culture, and therefore reliably know what's coming next. Any company that thinks they can ward off the Mongol hordes currently pillaging the American entertainment landscape with a bit of throw-away inclusivity nomenclature is woefully deluded. --They're simply advertising weakness and chumming the waters with their own blood. The attacks will now begin in earnest.

Paying "Danegeld" never works.

Hey you 'Muricans are really funny people.


I will not deny that there is a certain schadenfreude aspect to these things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Christopk-K wrote:
nighttree wrote:

I suspect a lot of people are simply focused on PF2.

A slow down here is to be expected, and I don't imagine it will get better in time.

Those of us sticking with PF1 will just need to get used to it ;)

Yes, looks like it
What new stuff is there to talk about?

It’s not just a lack of new content.

FAQ’s have pretty much been discontinued, There is zero resolution to be found for ongoing rules questions.

And like I said, it's not likely to change.

Those of us staying with 1st edition are going to have to get more comfortable with simply house ruling things at our tables, rather than waiting for "official" input. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Slim Jim wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Seriously, this again? What kind of person does it take to be upset about a disclaimer that the game is for everyone? What kind of racial/sexual/religious butthurt is necessary in order to feel threatened by that?

Those who have watched the touchy-feely PC invasion destroy other aspects of culture, and therefore reliably know what's coming next. Any company that thinks they can ward off the Mongol hordes currently pillaging the American entertainment landscape with a bit of throw-away inclusivity nomenclature is woefully deluded. --They're simply advertising weakness and chumming the waters with their own blood. The attacks will now begin in earnest.

Paying "Danegeld" never works.

It sure worked for a long time for my ancestors, but then again I am Danish.


Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
“That” is disappointingly unimportant. Wasn’t what it was hyped to be.

Hype? What hype? And while it's not important to you, it's obviously going to be important to other people. I mean, I don't really care a thing about sports. But there are people who bend their whole lives around watching people play. Different things are important to different people. And sometimes there's an awful lot of the other people.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:
Asmodeus' Advocate wrote:
“That” is disappointingly unimportant. Wasn’t what it was hyped to be.
Hype? What hype? And while it's not important to you, it's obviously going to be important to other people. I mean, I don't really care a thing about sports. But there are people who bend their whole lives around watching people play. Different things are important to different people. And sometimes there's an awful lot of the other people.

Killing all Americans is important to an awful lot of the other people out there, but that in itself doesn't mean we should necessarily cherish that view, as much as tempting it is, or treat it on the same footing as every other thing people care about.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
That’s a bit of the problem though. You have singled out demographics of the game, instead of trying to appeal to all of them. It’s not like you’re unique in having minorities play your game. The population of people you should try to be making money from is wide and expansive.

Much wider than the population complaining about 'that'.

1 to 50 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / [Closed] Has it gotten more quiet here since PF2? All Messageboards