| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, this whole thing is fascinating! It is very reminiscent of what us happening in Britain at the moment with Brexit. A decision is made seemingly by the will of the people, but then it becomes apparent that not everyone is actually supportive, the decision is unstoppable!
I do, however, find it very disappointing how the dissenting voices are being treated. The number of threads that I am interested in reading that are subsequently locked is shockingly high. Now I know I can be accused of looking at certain threads, but I'm not bothered about little details, I am more concerned with the overarching and system design choices. Decisions about magic, character design, balance, magic item versus ability usage, etc.
Unfortunately, and yet again, we basically have edition wars! What a lot of Pathfinders originally left Wizards to get away from. I remember reading Paizo's explanation why P2 is 'necessary', and was just left feeling a bit empty. They seemed to say, 'hey, 10 years is a long time for an edition of a game', yes it is, and something they should be proud of, in my opinion. 10 years of a system that adapted to different play. Bored with vanilla Pathfinder? Then add a bit of unchained, how about some Occult? Not for you? Try Mythic. Nope, more of an issue with action economy? Try a different one. Main problem that everyone needs a Cloak of Resistance? Try using Automatic Bonus Progression. Too much bloat? Restrict your game to Core.
The 10 years of change and adaptation and options are the two strengths of Pathfinder (no, three strengths), and it is going to take another 10 years for P2 to even come close!
Looking at some of the design decisions, they simply feel like either Unchained Mark II (like 3 actions), or just wantimg to look different to P1 (see resonance).
I understand that Paizo are on an unstoppable rollercoaster, they can hardly say, 'do you know, we made a mistake, let's not bother'. I get that they have profit margins that are now tied into the product being published. I also get that this is a playtest. I just do not understand why Paizo would put all of this out in the community and then have such a strict timeline.
If I was cynical...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is indeed a lot like Brexit. There are many things wrong with the old system, but it generally works quite well. The decision to change it was made on somewhat shaky grounds, not least that there was no clear replacement and different people want different things, or indeed want what they already have. Making the necessary host of small changes is not (politically / commercially) viable. Then the timeline was rushed for somewhat arbitrary reasons (Article 50 vs Gencon) and there's a lot of bitterness involved, as well as face-saving.
Then again, I have more faith in Paizo than the UK Government in this case. I was a civil servant for over 20 years. I know how it works...
Maybe I'll emigrate to Finland and find a PF1 group.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do, however, find it very disappointing how the dissenting voices are being treated. The number of threads that I am interested in reading that are subsequently locked is shockingly high.
You must be easily shocked, because the General Discussion has two closed threads on the front page, and the oldest topic dates back to the 8th so it means there's been two posts locked in the past week. And considering how hostile and unproductive many of the posts are in General Discussion, I think the mods are being positively light-handed in their activity.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am of a completely different opinion. I am seeing that the mods are closing threads that are changing from the intended purpose of threads. I agree with them closing for these reasons; they are even allowing dissenting opinions of the new product that are not toxic.
As for the changes to the system, I am enjoying them. I hate the bloat of PF1, and I loathed the disparity of casters and martial/"skill" characters. I find the playtest so far to be a welcome "inbetween" of 5e and PF1; it is more crunchy but not so much that it leaves choice paralysis.
Anyway, as a business, I think the change to system was a smart move. With all the bloat of PF1, implementing new changes would be difficult to balance without errata to a lot of the game. Instead, changing to a completely new game, built from the ground up, makes implementing those wanted changes much easier, while increasing income from people investing in the new system.
| 22 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I just do not understand why Paizo would put all of this out in the community and then have such a strict timeline.
If I was cynical..."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What a lovely can of worms. Some Lumbricus terristris, good for fishing bait. Some Eisenia fetida, good for the compost pile. Sparganophilus, well that's unusual, and I'm not sure of the species. Maybe it's a new one.
Joking aside, let me speak up as someone who has played Pathfinder since 2010 and has some boardgame design experience.
Pathfinder 1st Edition is a fine game and should be able to hold onto a decent market share for at least another decade. I feel it fills a good niche in the market. One key niche is serving as the roleplaying system for the Paizo Adventure Paths and modules, which I love.
Paizo Adventure Paths usually stop once the player characters advance beyond 16th level. The first 4 modules cover 3 levels each and the last 2 modules cover 2 levels each. Why the slowdown? Combat gets harder to run, and non-combat missions are no longer challenging enough to provide significant experience points. Paizo publishes few modules for 17th level and higher, because they are too hard to write.
Paizo has a market, modules from 17th to 20th level, which they cannot supply because the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game--and the Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Edition before it--is broken at those levels. Martials rule at combat and spellcasters don't simply rule but rewrite reality outside of combat.
And let's look at the other end of the adventure path market: 1st level with new players. Character creation involves reading a list of 1,000 feats and picking one. We experienced players know that for a basic build the best feats in the Core Rulebook work, but the newbie without a guidance cannot figure that out by him- or herself. Pathfinder has major barriers to entry. They would like to remove those barriers.
Therefore, Paizo has two very good markets that could be reached by a new edition.
Of course, I don't want them to alienate their current markets. I am part of that market and I want my roleplaying games. But even we could use a clean up of the rules. Pazio started with rules suited for the Core Rulebook and the first Bestiary. They next added many clever ideas with the Advanced Player's Guide. They followed that with more hardcovers: five more Bestiaries, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Equipment, Ultimate Campaign, Ultimate Intrigue, Advanced Race Guide, Advanced Class Guide, Gamemastery Guide, Strategy Guide, Adventurer's Guide, Mythic Adventures, Occult Adventures, Horror Adventures, NPC Codex, Villain Codex, Monster Codex, Book of the Damned, The Inner Sea World Guide, Inner Sea Gods, Inner Sea Races, Pathfinder Unchained, and the hardcover editions of classic adventure paths. I am not up to listing the softcovers. I don't mind the bloat, because I like quantity of good material, but the rules structure of all these expansions balances on the original unchanged rules in the Core Rulebook and first Bestiary. They weren't designed to hold this weight. For example, the confused condition says to see the Confusion spell back in the Core Rulebook.
The Pathfinder Playtest Rulebook is a mess that cannot bear the weight, either, but part of its problems is that the messiness of Pathfinder 1st Edition was piled in one spot and neatly labeled, so it looks more like a yard sale than a rule book. The problems were already there in Pathfinder 1st Edition, but they were buried deep in multiple books.
In conclusion, Paizo has lots of good reasons for a new edition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Knew this would start some fun!
I am extremely grateful for the quick responses! I am more of an online stalker, and rarely actually comment, so the fact that my rare statement recieved such attention and response is appreciated!
I apologise in advance, for the length of this post. By the way, I have been roleplaying for 30 years, starting with the Red Box, also enjoying other systems, like Rolemaster, Cthulu, Cyberpunk, Champions, Marvel Supes, Star Wars, and even a bit of Paranoia, to name a few. Always coming back to and preferring DnD, until Pathfinder.
Mathmuse and Korolyth both brought up the bloat issue (in different ways), and I understand. I know that is a marmite/Trump thing - you either love it or hate it! However, it is nothing new. I still have over 30 books on The Forgotten Realms, with more rules, prestige classes, spells and content than you could shake a Staff of the Magi at! But to use bloat as a reason for starting a new edition (either to bring new players in, or to just not have it, and want life to be less complicated), is to ignore history (and the existence of "The Serpent Kingdoms", or "The Power of Faerun").
It also ignores the fact that there is going to be bloat in P2. Paizo is doing this for 2 reasons; for us all to have fun, and for us all to pay them for that fun. I am not critiscising them for that, they have a business to run and profits to make. So, bloat, or extra resources and options, as I would call it, is inevietable!
The trick with bloat, and always has been, to pick and choose. Your table, your game. If it feels too unwieldy, restrict it to certain books. Small, family and friends tables all over the gaming world do this. My son and his friends do this, because all I have ever bought is the Core, and because they are 14 and new to gaming, so that's all they use. With my 4 buddies, all of 30+ years of playing a version of DnD, we use everything we can hoover up, all the online resources, one of us has heavily bought P1 books through the subscription. Heck, we even use Mythic!
I am also getting the point about character disparity, especially at high levels. OMG! I am so fed up with this. I run a high level game (17 levels, 7 mythic, lots of campaign relevant magic kit), and at no time does this occur. Yes, the Arcanist/Archmage have a lot of power, but the way his high level spells work he rarely ends combats all by himself. He needs his team with him, taking advantage of his buffs.
As DM, I see my main job is to ensure encounters challenge and involve all the characters. So there are thugs to stand toe to toe with the Barbarian/Champion, there are foes standing back for the Archer/Trickster to take out, and there is enough damage and threat flying about for the Life Oracle/Hierophant to fix. Everyone's busy and involved. I learnt my lessons from playing a non-fixer in Cyberpunk! No matter what, high level play is going to be like that...and it's fantastic!
As to Diego's post...I find the comparison to Brexit even more so: P2 is happening whether you like it or not! Also interesting is the move of thread, I understand the reasoning. People working on tweaking the mechanics of the game don't want to be distracted by me wanting to discuss the bigger picture of the direction and overall design of the game. People working on how to get Resonance to work don't want to hear that people think it is a bad idea in the first place. I get it.
The final comments by Diago, on my naughty "if I was cynical..." are so ironic, because he then admits exactly what I was trying to suggest, that Paizo is foremost a business with timelines! Unfortunately, I think you got hung up on me being subversive and missed my point. The thing I don't understand is how you ever thought that opening P2 to discussion by the whole community was going to fit a business timetable? An Alpha playtest by the whole community? Now, if you had come to us with a Beta test, with everything in place, wanting us to test it for 'real', and tweakimg a few things before publishing, I would understand.
I then would also understand the fact that 'second edition is happening, whatever', attitude. This way round you have let us see into all the design decisions but don't really want us to challenge any of them.
When I read the blogs and designer responses on the forums, I see minor changes and clarifications being made. As one would expect in a Beta. Diego says "Whether or not you or others want to participate in the playtest and help shape the final form of that game is up to each of you. That's what this forum is for."
This feels a bit insulting. I feel as though decisions are already made, and participating in the playtest is not about shaping the game, but about fiddling with details. It is this attitude, that I, perhaps being biased, see throughout these forums. It is also this attitude that lead me to not even contemplating buying (figuratively or financially) into P2.
Of course, all of this makes PFS problematic...
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am more of an online stalker, and rarely actually comment,... you might want to use the term "lurker" then.
I am also getting the point about character disparity, especially at high levels. OMG! I am so fed up with this. I run a high level game (17 levels, 7 mythic, lots of campaign relevant magic kit), and at no time does this occur.There's probably a reason for that.
The final comments by Diago, on my naughty "if I was cynical..." are so ironic, because he then admits exactly what I was trying to suggest, that Paizo is foremost a business with timelines! Unfortunately, I think you got hung up on me being subversive and missed my point.You hamstringed whatever your own point was supposed to be by insinuating sinister motivations for all of this.
As to Diego's post...I find the comparison to Brexit even more so: P2 is happening whether you like it or not! Also interesting is the move of thread, I understand the reasoning. People working on tweaking the mechanics of the game don't want to be distracted by me wanting to discuss the bigger picture of the direction and overall design of the game. People working on how to get Resonance to work don't want to hear that people think it is a bad idea in the first place.You weren't doing any of that though. You're comparing it to Brexit and ascribing malicious intent to the developers.
I get it.Not really.
I then would also understand the fact that 'second edition is happening, whatever', attitude. This way round you have let us see into all the design decisions but don't really want us to challenge any of them.... have you not read any of the playtest forums?
This feels a bit insulting. I feel as though decisions are already made, and participating in the playtest is not about shaping the game, but about fiddling with details.
Again, have you not ready any of the forums or Errata?
|
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Starting contentious threads, I can forgive. But insulting Serpent Kingdoms? Sir, you forget yourself.
Yeah, comparing lizardfolk, nagas and yuan-ti to the British politicians who fumbled the UK out of the EU and made a mockery out of their country is pretty jarringly disingenuous and just plain not nice for the Scaled Ones. If I were a lizardfolk, there would be a lawsuit on cards here.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am more of an online stalker, and rarely actually comment,... you might want to use the term "lurker" then.I am also getting the point about character disparity, especially at high levels. OMG! I am so fed up with this. I run a high level game (17 levels, 7 mythic, lots of campaign relevant magic kit), and at no time does this occur.There's probably a reason for that.The final comments by Diago, on my naughty "if I was cynical..." are so ironic, because he then admits exactly what I was trying to suggest, that Paizo is foremost a business with timelines! Unfortunately, I think you got hung up on me being subversive and missed my point.You hamstringed whatever your own point was supposed to be by insinuating sinister motivations for all of this.As to Diego's post...I find the comparison to Brexit even more so: P2 is happening whether you like it or not! Also interesting is the move of thread, I understand the reasoning. People working on tweaking the mechanics of the game don't want to be distracted by me wanting to discuss the bigger picture of the direction and overall design of the game. People working on how to get Resonance to work don't want to hear that people think it is a bad idea in the first place.You weren't doing any of that though. You're comparing it to Brexit and ascribing malicious intent to the developers.I get it.Not really.I then would also understand the fact that 'second edition is happening, whatever', attitude. This way round you have let us see into all the design decisions but don't really want us to challenge any of them.... have you not read any of the playtest forums?This feels a bit insulting. I feel as though decisions are already made, and participating in the playtest is not about shaping the game, but about fiddling with details.Again, have you not ready...
I agree with the OP.
His post and your reaction to it also gets at the heart of a key philosophical disagreement I've seen play out over and over on these messageboards. In effect he's saying "We have very little influence over the development of the game" and you're saying "There's a playtest and an active discussion: Of course we have a say in how this game turns out!"
While we'll be allowed to talk about how to tweak the fine details of the system that was designed behind closed doors we won't be able to effect the overall concept. BaB gone, +level to everything, narrow gaps between experts and novices, reduced number of bonus types, standardized/balanced damage output, no reverse compatibility with 1E, resonance, siloing of options behind class feats... These were designed from the top and a majority of these are here to stay. If you see promise in the 2E chasis your voice matters because you'll have some say in what happens and exactly how these sweeping changes are implemented. If you have concerns with the system that are more than skin deep it's a different story.
Regarding the locked threads issue... I think it's getting really out of hand. What's happening is that you have a lot of vague rules of conduct that are being enforced selectively at the discretion of the moderators. For example we're not supposed to engage in "edition warring", which basically boils down to comparing and contrasting editions in a way someone decides they don't like. You can't even talk about a new edition without some comparing and contrasting so If you're a mod you're going to see "edition warring" everywhere among people who vehemently disagree with you. There's also the cases of threads getting derailed from the original subject and switching gears or getting mired in discussion of some bland technical detail. This routinely happens in threads of all kinds but doesn't seem to be a problem unless the thread happens to be negative towards 2nd edition. It's not that the moderators are conspiring against the nay sayers, it's just a basic cognitive bias and it's part of human nature. So the nature of forum rules and a not fully intentional censorship of vocal doubters will probably lead to a bit of an echo chamber phenomenon and a confirmation bias.
Rather than seeing Lird Trevaine and others like him as contemptuous trolls I think it's important to recognize that they care enough about Pathfinder 1st Edition to be angry about second edition and they're still offering reasonable and valid points. He's posting his disapproval here, not on the D&D or Dark Souls or vampire: The Masquerade boards which shows that he's invested a lot in this game emotionally, and I'll bet financially as well.
I think for Pathfinder 2E it's probably too late for a radical change of direction as well, but there's a contingent of 1E loyalists that's holding out until the bitter end and voicing their grievances. It's so easy to write them off as haters or edition warriors or 3.5 fanboys or butt-hurt crybabies, but I think they're some of the most sincere fans Paizo has.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
While we'll be allowed to talk about how to tweak the fine details of the system that was designed behind closed doors we won't be able to effect the overall concept. BaB gone, +level to everything, narrow gaps between experts and novices, reduced number of bonus types, standardized/balanced damage output, no reverse compatibility with 1E, resonance, siloing of options behind class feats... These were designed from the top and a majority of these are here to stay. If you see promise in the 2E chasis your voice matters because you'll have some say in what happens and exactly how these sweeping changes are implemented. If you have concerns with the system that are more than skin deep it's a different story.
Are you absolutely sure about that?
For example we're not supposed to engage in "edition warring", which basically boils down to comparing and contrasting editions in a way someone decides they don't likeTalking about other iterations is fine, using them argumentatively or to derail a conversation is not.
This routinely happens in threads of all kinds but doesn't seem to be a problem unless the thread happens to be negative towards 2nd edition.And there's more than an overflowing abundance of threads negative towards PF2 or aspects of it that aren't closed down.
Rather than seeing Lird Trevaine and others like him as contemptuous trolls I think it's important to recognize that they care enough about Pathfinder 1st Edition to be angry about second edition and they're still offering reasonable and valid points.Comparing the Playtest/move to 2nd Edition with Brexit of all things and insinuating malice on behalf of the Designers are neither reasonable nor valid points.
I think for Pathfinder 2E it's probably too late for a radical change of direction as well,Depends on the directions.
but there's a contingent of 1E loyalists that's holding out until the bitter end and voicing their grievances. It's so easy to write them off as haters or edition warriors or 3.5 fanboys or butt-hurt crybabies, but I think they're some of the most sincere fans Paizo has.
Bringing outrage doesn't automatically make you a sincere fan, caring about the subject and its designers makes you a sincere fan. Being outraged and voicing grievances also doesn't automatically mean you care either.
Voice your concerns and suggestions, you (general) may not have control over this game, but that's because game isn't the Design Team + you, it's the Design Team + everyone they're listening to. You and others can certainly shape the direction it goes.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mentioning the similarity in situations of the Playtest and Brexit was meant to be a humourous aside. However, it is interesting to have someone as upset by me challenging Paizo over their unwavering confidence that P2 is the correct and only direction forward, as people who are passionate about the UK leaving the EU. It is not an insult, but an observation.
For the record, also, any 'malice' on my part was in my suggestion that the timeline of the playtest and publication was determined by financial concerns. Which was admitted by Diego; 'a business needs to have timeleines'. I'm sorry, but I just don't see Alpha into publication as possible, just as I wouldn't accept that in a console game.
I accept that the feedback from the playtest is helping assess if the mechanics of the game work, and will fix things that do not work, but I find it harder to accept that core decisions about the style of play, and how different P2 needs to be from P1, are going to be affected by a playtest. Are you seriously thinking that if all the playtest data had said, nope, start again from scratch, then the designers would scrap all the work they had put into it? Of course not, they have a timeline.
I also find it a concern that Rysky says that I can only be a sincere fan if I care about the game and the designers! Have the designers suddenly acquired some sort of cult status? Am I supposed to care about how much profit they are making? I thought the designers were just like the rest of us, roleplayers, but they have been more skilled at writing adventures, designing character classes, etc. I have friends (yes, even trolls have fwiends), who have designed such things, writing content for Wayfinder, organising PFS conventions, etc. However, I don't treat them with more respect than those friends who are 'just' roleplayers.
Also, is there such a thing as an insincere fan? Am I one if I show dissent to the designers' vision of the future of Pathfinder? Am I one if I am thinking of not switching to P2? Am I one if I'm not going to buy the P2 Core book, anyway? Am I one if I am desperately hoping that my only PFS Con of the year still hosts P1 tables?
If so, then I guess that is what I am. It probably makes me a troll as well. It probably makes me a Grognard, for not liking change (although I applauded everytime a new P1 source book, adventure, module, AP or character option came out, even if I didn't buy it).
Well then, in that case I am proud to be a half-troll, half-grognard...do I get to count as both in regards to race specific feats and magic items?
Edit: I only read Sam's post after I submitted this, but after a further read-through, I don't think I have breached the rules he has set out, please accept my apologies if you think I have. I especially am not trying to escalate, simply discuss.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I accept that the feedback from the playtest is helping assess if the mechanics of the game work, and will fix things that do not work, but I find it harder to accept that core decisions about the style of play, and how different P2 needs to be from P1, are going to be affected by a playtest. Are you seriously thinking that if all the playtest data had said, nope, start again from scratch, then the designers would scrap all the work they had put into it? Of course not, they have a timeline.
They explicitly said they would go back to the drawing board if the feedback from the playtest suggested they needed to do that. From the outset, everything was up for change if necessary. They also explicitly said that if they needed more time they’d push the release date back. (Vic Wertz and Erik Mona were the two I remember talking about this - prior to the playtest launching). These sorts of analyses of Paizo’s motivations and mindset are based on a skewed perspective and limited data.
I don’t really like much in PF2, I wish they’d stayed with PF1. Paizo are hearing that message (it’s all over their forums, after all) but they’re also hearing from the people who do like the changes.
Pressing on doesn’t imply they’re not listening. It’s much, much more likely that my tiny sample of the market is nonrepresentative rather than that I have somehow gleaned the mood of the market and Paizo with all their knowledge, data and experience are obliviously straying off course just through stubbornness and insistence on meeting a deadline. Paizo have shown over the years that they’re willing to delay books if they’re not yet ready for release. They’ve said that if the playtest indicated they’d need more time then they’ll take more time.
PF2 will involve a loss of players. It will involve a pickup of players. Each of us has an opinion on where we think they should go but that doesn’t give us any significant insight to the market as a whole. The fact Paizo feel the game will be ready by next August means they think there is a market for the direction they’re looking to go with PF2. The fact you or I don’t think the game will suit us on its current trajectory is really of trivial significance, globally.
Thanks, Steve, for this response. It is the sort of conversation I was looking for.
I take on your points, and I remember the original comments from the team, and understand that if the majority is for P2, then, as part if the minority, I am in a poor position. I understand that to some, change is always progress.
However, I still wish to rail against it! I came to Pathfinder, to not follow WotC into 4E, and I believe I was right to do so, even though I felt part of a minority of the community to do so. I left my beloved Faerun to do so...
I do understand that this is happening, as I understand your point that from another PoV than mine it is the correct path.
I also know that I probably won't joining the majority, again, in not wanting to play in what is being shaped. Hey ho, perhaps I'll run a game using my Forgotten Realms books in a P1-based homebrew...
...maybe there will be enough like-minded people at a certain Con, to make it worth going.
I do also wonder what percentage of Pathfinders are in agreement? What percentage of Pathfinders are not even doing the playtest? What percentage are not going to shift to P2? BTW, these are rhetorical questions, I know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think if Paizo was truly open to stepping back and doing a complete overhaul, as some have stated, they really made an error in their timeline. 12 months is not enough time to thoroughly play test a design, analyze feedback and make necessary changes before publication. If they were open to large scale overhaul, why the constrained timeline? Why not announce it is 18 months out or “we will play test this as long as is necessary”. Remember how long the D&D next test was.
Paizo said they gave been working on, and incurring expenses, on 2E for two years before the announcements was made. Any reasonable person, of whichbPaizo has lots of, would know that sales of 1e material, would plummet on the announcement of 2E. This puts a dent in their revenue stream at the same time that they need everyone on board to put out the new edition. I think the 12 months from release if plsytestv to finished product is driven by financial necessities that won’t be ignored. I would be very surprised if Paizo pushed back their date even in the face of responsibly widespread claims from customers that thus is not the product we want.
The key to success for 2E is attracting a greater number of new players to replace existing customers who don’t like the new game. That is an uphill battle that I’m unconvinced they can win.
How long was the D&D next play test?
Uphill battle is right, this site isn't nearly as active as it was last year.
Personally I like 2e's 3 action system, starting stats/stat growth, and a few other changes but I don't like the class and race design at all. I would prefer classes to be more like their 1e counterparts but altered to fit the 3 action system and a few other changes. Also didn't like the resonance system but that's a "dead horse" at this point.
Even if they make a lot of changes that I like I doubt it will be enough to warrant spending the money on another edition. Waiting for everything I liked in 1e to be reprinted in some new incarnation that more then likely wouldn't like as much as the first time.
Thanks, Steve, for this response. It is the sort of conversation I was looking for.
I take on your points, and I remember the original comments from the team, and understand that if the majority is for P2, then, as part if the minority, I am in a poor position. I understand that to some, change is always progress.
However, I still wish to rail against it! I came to Pathfinder, to not follow WotC into 4E, and I believe I was right to do so, even though I felt part of a minority of the community to do so. I left my beloved Faerun to do so...
I do understand that this is happening, as I understand your point that from another PoV than mine it is the correct path.
I also know that I probably won't joining the majority, again, in not wanting to play in what is being shaped. Hey ho, perhaps I'll run a game using my Forgotten Realms books in a P1-based homebrew...
...maybe there will be enough like-minded people at a certain Con, to make it worth going.
I do also wonder what percentage of Pathfinders are in agreement? What percentage of Pathfinders are not even doing the playtest? What percentage are not going to shift to P2? BTW, these are rhetorical questions, I know.
I’m grappling with the shift too. I’m not yet enthused (but elected not to playtest, so that’s hardly surprising - I find rules difficult to judge without actually playing).
My approach is kind of the opposite to yours though. I got rid of (nearly) all my PF1 stuff. I came to Paizo for the stories and the biggest downer to me were all those campaigns I had planned to run sitting there staring at me. I’ll give PF2 a year - my hope is that the first couple of APs will bring me around.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are right in one thing: This is very reminiscent of the move away from D&D 3.5e that WotC did back in 2007-2008. At that time the designers who worked on D&D 4th ed declared that 3.5 was old, broken technology that was outdated and mired in an irrelevant past. The developers of 2008 Paizo decided that this wasn't true and that the technology was fine and just need a small revision.
Now in 2018 the developers who currently work at Paizo have decided that the technology that Pathfinder was built on is old, broken, outdated and mired in an irrelevant past. I won't speculate as to why the current developers of Paizo have this opinion in this thread, but based on everything I've read for the reason to move to Pathfinder 2e this is an accurate reflection on how they see the state of the game (feel free to point me to places where the developers say that PF1e is perfectly fine and they're simply changing the game for <insert other reasons here>).
Paizo has accepted they will lose a contingent of their current fanbase (I'm one fan they've publicly acknowledged that they will lose). They believe that they will retain enough diehard fans to not suffer too badly from the loss and will gain enough new fans to recoup any losses. This logic was also used by WotC in 2008 and I think it's clear (although I'm sure plenty will come now to disagree with me) that WotC misjudged the situation and they were ultimately wrong. Whether or not Paizo is wrong in this case is not for us to say. They have the survey results and they are drawing the conclusion that they are doing the right things based on those survey results.
I will be interested to see if we're here in 2029 talking about the upcoming edition of Pathfinder 3e. I strongly suspect we won't, but only time will tell.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There seems to be an underlying fallacy with many of the objectionary comments in that the launch of 2E means the death of 1E. Much of the commentary is coming from people who do not participate in organized play which is really the only campaign affected by the change. If you are playing your home games using 1E, then just keep doing that. There are thousands of people still playing OD&D, BECMI, AD&D, 3E, etc regardless that new systems have been released. All of the material for Pathfinder 1E is still just as viable today as it was a decade ago. If you don’t like 2E, then don’t play it. Stick to what you like. Simple.
The fact of the matter is, retail sales diminish over the life of a game system as the products move farther away from core and more into nitch material. At some point, the revenue per release drops below a level that can continue to sustain the expenses of the company. Nothing invigorates revenue more than a new game/system. That fact is proven time and time again whenever Paizo or any publisher releases a new game or edition. Hell even 4E sold like gangbusters initially. 4E is an anomaly. No game product has ever received that type of reaction from the public before or since. WotC tried something revolutionary (at least from their perspective) and it failed. The chances of Pathfinder 2E experiencing the same thing is remote. It’s not a completely different system platform. It still draws on most of the system concepts that most of the RPGs do, just in a different way. Just as how DnD5E compares to 3E or AD&D compares to OD&D.
Let us not forget, most of the commentary being shared is from a VERY small minority of the community. All of us, both pro and against 2E are merely the loudest most passionate voices in the community. We are going to find things we don’t like and be loud about it. We are going to find things we like and be loud about it. But at the end of the day neither side can really claim to have the pulse of the general community. If history shows us anything, it’s that people are going to accept 2E just fine. Is it going to be as successful as 1E? Mostly likely not. It won’t be coming out in the wake of the biggest industry failure (4E) since the defuncting of TSR. 5E has the advantage of brand recognition and let’s be honest, it’s a really good game. That doesn’t mean Pathfinder 2E won’t also be a successful game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo are hearing that message (it’s all over their forums, after all) but they’re also hearing from the people who do like the changes.
While true, they're certainly shutting down conversations awfully quickly now. I get the recent spate of "my group's dropping out and here's why" threads can be demoralising, but it is valid feedback and having any further conversation on it is now no longer allowed, presumably because "we've heard it all before". However that last point is speculation as Jason didn't feel the need to explain his thoughts (he's a big boss, he doesn't have to explain himself to me, just to be clear).
That isn't the first time it's happened in the past couple of days either.
I was tempted to not make this post as I'm genuinely concerned that being critical of Paizo is going to result in me being permanently banned at this point. This is a direct result of how Paizo's moderation has been unfolding for the past couple of weeks.
I do not attribute malice towards Paizo doing this*. I firmly believe they are doing this because they think it's best for the community, but it's most definitely having a chilling effect on me. Am I the only one?
*While it's true, I also feel obligated to put this here to both (a) avoid a chorus of "Paizo doesn't hate you" posts from fellow posters and (b) to avoid my post being deleted because it's been interpreted as being a "Personal attacks against any community member, including Paizo employees"
We lock threads when it becomes clear that the thread has gone off the rails or is no longer producing productive or civil discourse. Sometimes both.
It is also quite clear those doing the moderation will now do so preemptively as well.
If you feel that the moderation needs to be challenged you can do so by emailing community@paizo.com and we will review it.
It's your playground, it's not my place to say whether the moderation is right or wrong. You make up the guidelines and you then implement them. Whatever those guidelines might be at any given time isn't something I'm going to be able to keep track of as there isn't any blog posts to announce when they change.
I will post the effect the moderation has on my contributing to the community (as I am not aware of this being disallowed, if I'm not allowed to do so then please let me know). As I gave the feedback on when I was last temporarily banned, I have not been made aware of any of my posts being deleted between April and October, and yet I am under the distinct impression that the posts I have made between April and October is being used to justify a permanent ban should I make a single additional unacceptable post. Given I don't know what part of the posts (which were not deemed worthy of deletion and so therefore within the community guidelines) is being used to support that action, I am unable to freely contribute as I did prior to October.
If my posts have been getting deleted due to containing unacceptable content, doing so in secret has resulted in the situation where I have no idea my posts are being deleted and until the warning of a permanent ban was issued. I would hope you agree that this is certainly an undesirable outcome as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo are hearing that message (it’s all over their forums, after all) but they’re also hearing from the people who do like the changes.While true, they're certainly shutting down conversations awfully quickly now. I get the recent spate of "my group's dropping out and here's why" threads can be demoralising, but it is valid feedback and having any further conversation on it is now no longer allowed, presumably because "we've heard it all before". However that last point is speculation as Jason didn't feel the need to explain his thoughts (he's a big boss, he doesn't have to explain himself to me, just to be clear).
That isn't the first time it's happened in the past couple of days either.
I don’t think it’s about morale, I think they’ve formed the view that the follow up discussions in those threads is detrimental. I’m just interpreting, of course and I don’t actually know (personally, I think it would be useful to hear the reasons behind the policy - it seems to me that locking a thread is not really a comment on the OP of a thread as they’ve been very happy to erase a thread in its entirety when they object to the opening post).
I think they don’t mind the “I’m leaving the playtest” posts themselves (they’re not deleting them, after all - just locking further discussion).
Jason was on Paizo’s twitch channel tonight and also explicitly noted that it was fine for people to not like the playtest, fine for people to not like PF2 and fine for people to post such on the forums.
It would be a PR nightmare to delete them. But iT definitely stifles conversation to lock threads of that nature. Totally up to them though. I can only point out the effect and its up to them if they agree that it's having the effect and its up to them if they want that effect or not.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It’s not about stifling conversation. Generally speaking those threads devolve rather quickly into either a piling on or just repeatative complaints or arguments between the Likes and Dislikes, and most of that is philosophical in nature which is typically not something you can convince someone out of. Not to mention the designers have feelings too. Do you think they like to hear people saying this idea or that sucks and the author should be fired? They have pretty receptive to feedback IMO, but some people go to far in their commentary. If anything, I’m surprised they been as accommodating as they have been so far.
I didn't say the aim is to stifle conversation (that would be implying bad faith on Paizo staff which isn't allowed). I said the effect is it stifles conversation.
I already acknowledged the feedback they're getting on the forums can be bad for morale. I don't know why you felt the need to tell me the same point.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I've seen, their locking of threads have only been from the original point of threads being massively be derailed. And each time it gets locked, it's explained why it's locked. And considering there's still a lot of posts going around where it's still a clear view from that person that the playtest is going to be the exact ruleset for PF2 and it will not deviate because that would be too much work and it needs to go to publishing so it must be hated because it's the worst system ever and they hate it so everyone else must hate it because it's the worst system ever and if they don't hate it then they aren't true roleplayers and don't deserve to play. In notion to TK's mention of how accommodating they've been, there's a lot of posts that I would've deleted for uninsightful hatred and some posters that I would've silenced for some time because of their repeated uninsightful posts.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This place would be a scorched wasteland if I were moderating it.
I'd help if I could.
From what I've seen, their locking of threads have only been from the original point of threads being massively be derailed. And each time it gets locked, it's explained why it's locked.
Feel free to click the links I provided. You'll see a thread with 2 posts and a "feedback noted. Thread closed" comment. Perhaps that tells you exactly why it was closed. I don't have that insight (although I have tried speculating).
Whoa there! Do I have to moderate my own thread? This clearly off from where I started, and people are getting riled up...we're not in a pub, having had a few! If you are, however, step away from the messageboard.
I appreciate all the comments, especially those pointing out that in our own games we can do what we want, P1, P2, homebrew or a game with cherry picked ideas from everything.
To give you an example of how okay I am with that, in my game at the moment (although, after 3 years, we are about to start the final combat!), we are using a system of hero points based on Swashbuckler cards, but with my own versions, that can have the duration of their effects boosted with Mythic points.
Don't get me wrong on content either. I have enough 3.5 stuff to keep me going for decades, and have hardly started on the Pathfinder modules and APs!
So, in a very real sense, P2 is not going to effect me and most of my gaming.
I say most, because I go to a Con annually, and they obviously play PFS tables. My biggest worry is if they are put under pressure to do both editions: P1 by certain players, like me, and P2 by Paizo.
For most Cons, this probably won't be tenable, due to the organisational nightmare it would create. This might lead them to choose, or give smaller focus to one of the editions. I am not critiscising, just pointing out a possible issue.
There seems to be an underlying fallacy with many of the objectionary comments in that the launch of 2E means the death of 1E. Much of the commentary is coming from people who do not participate in organized play which is really the only campaign affected by the change. If you are playing your home games using 1E, then just keep doing that. There are thousands of people still playing OD&D, BECMI, AD&D, 3E, etc regardless that new systems have been released. All of the material for Pathfinder 1E is still just as viable today as it was a decade ago. If you don’t like 2E, then don’t play it. Stick to what you like. Simple.
The problem with this argument is that I don't necessarily want to play PF1e as it currently stands. It has many problems such as archetype/feat bloat and Paizo never really getting the Core Rulebook right. I had hoped that Paizo would create a truly evolutionary, improved PF1.5e, building upon the last decade of play and design experience. Instead, the design team elected to create something that is in many, many ways radically different from PF1e.
So, while the launch of PF2e does not mean the death of PF1e, it does mean the death of a possible PF1.5e which I think would be superior to the PF2e we see before us.
And FWIW, I do primarily play PFS.