| 1 person 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.
My word choice was based on the fact that this post here was labeled as being condescending. Threads that are locked have been explained for the locks, and multiple post deletions by staff in reaction towards attacks towards other members only add to reason as to why the threads are being locked. There's only been one thread locked with only one response, but that thread launched out at Paizo in accordance with political notions. The moment you throw words like that, the thread needs to be locked. So saying that they're explaining the locks isn't condescending.
The comment about people posting how much they hate this new system and refuse to let it go is in regards to the style that these posts are still going after almost 3 months. For 3 months people still seem to have this notion that it absolutely must be made known that they don't like this system and Paizo is single handedly ruining their beloved and precious system and making sure it's brand dies. Pointing out that these posters are still at it with these posts is not condescending.
And the comment about the uninsightful posts that are allowed to remain? Yeah, it may be harsh, but I won't apologize for not trying to candy coat and hand hold the people's hands who adamantly hate this system. Everyone has a right to not like or to like where this new system is going. I'm not going to force people to like it or hate it. But I would rather see posts that have actual discussion on the parts that don't appear to work. Don't like the level to everything? Okay, how could that change? What could be done different? Saying that level to everything is a horrible an stupid design flaw that will prevent this system from being anything considered fun and making that known in every single post is not doing anything helpful for discussion.
Well, I was looking for a place to have this conversation, to see if there was any consideration to those of us who are probably going to stay with P1. I was given the answer to that, with the 'it is going to happen, whatever you say' attitude.
It is disappointing, but I suppose to be expected. I do think, and this is only an opinion, not an accusation, that there is a set of data on pretty graphs showing that the numbers of 'lost' players will be outweighed by the new players that a new edition will attract. Good for Paizo if that is so, I wouldn't want them to go out of business, they rescued 3.5!
I just wish that the 'lost' players were still catered for in the big scheme of things, but, I'll get over it, have before.
I do take the point that people like me have been whittering about this for 3 months or so. I know we should all just shut up, as we are either posting our bile on these threads out of spite, jealousy or just to stir things up and deliberately provoke stress in the designers and the loyal fans...
Can I lock my own thread?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I was looking for a place to have this conversation, to see if there was any consideration to those of us who are probably going to stay with P1. I was given the answer to that, with the 'it is going to happen, whatever you say' attitude.
It is disappointing, but I suppose to be expected. I do think, and this is only an opinion, not an accusation, that there is a set of data on pretty graphs showing that the numbers of 'lost' players will be outweighed by the new players that a new edition will attract. Good for Paizo if that is so, I wouldn't want them to go out of business, they rescued 3.5!
I just wish that the 'lost' players were still catered for in the big scheme of things, but, I'll get over it, have before.
I do take the point that people like me have been whittering about this for 3 months or so. I know we should all just shut up, as we are either posting our bile on these threads out of spite, jealousy or just to stir things up and deliberately provoke stress in the designers and the loyal fans...
Can I lock my own thread?
Before you lock your own thread, just a few thoughts:
1) I think I'm more-or-less on your side. I don't like the direction that PF2e is taking nor am I a big fan of the process that is producing it. I think that a much better approach would be a more "evolutionary" PF1.5. I think that is unlikely at this point, but I don't think it's totally impossible.
2) I actually think Paizo has been fairly tolerant of dissenting voices regarding PF2e. While some threads have been locked (for reasons I generally understand), there has still been a lot of space to offer very critical opinions.
3) For those of us in what might broadly be described as the "anti-PF2e as it currently exists" camp, I think it's essential that we are always as polite and respectful as possible and that we try as hard as possible to keep personalities out of our comments.
4) And finally, I don't think we should "shut up." I think we should voice our opinions as appropriate in the various discussions surrounding PF2e's development. We are part of the Pathfinder community, and I think it's important that a full range of voices from this community be present given the dramatic changes that the proposed rules have on the nature of the game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) I think I'm more-or-less on your side. I don't like the direction that PF2e is taking nor am I a big fan of the process that is producing it. I think that a much better approach would be a more "evolutionary" PF1.5. I think that is unlikely at this point, but I don't think it's totally impossible.
On this, I agree. A game worthy of the "Pathfinder 2nd Edition" name should feel like Starfinder - Fantasy Edition, or Parthfinder Unchained 2. The current playtest feels like neither.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just wish that the 'lost' players were still catered for in the big scheme of things, but, I'll get over it, have before.
There is an enormous amount of content for PF1E, a decade worth. Few people own it all and fewer still have played it all. What Paizo has published will continue to be available after 2E is released and PFS/OP is going to continue to sanction PFS1 play. That’s a lot more than most/all other publishers would do or have done. Seems like they ARE catering in as much as it makes sense. People who love 1E and dislike 2E can easily continue to play and support the system they prefer and (outside of OP) we can take any module products released after the launch and convert them to 1E rules just like we’ve been doing with all the various RPG system content for years.
I just wish that the 'lost' players were still catered for in the big scheme of things, but, I'll get over it, have before.There is an enormous amount of content for PF1E, a decade worth. Few people own it all and fewer still have played it all. What Paizo has published will continue to be available after 2E is released and PFS/OP is going to continue to sanction PFS1 play. That’s a lot more than most/all other publishers would do or have done. Seems like they ARE catering in as much as it makes sense. People who love 1E and dislike 2E can easily continue to play and support the system they prefer and (outside of OP) we can take any module products released after the launch and convert them to 1E rules just like we’ve been doing with all the various RPG system content for years.
I see this argument a lot, and I think it misses two important points, though TwilightKnight does acknowledge the organized play problem.
1) And it is to this problem that I will first turn. I primarily play in the context of PFS, so my options in a couple of years will be play PF2e or quit organized play. Fortunately, the organized play team is considering replay options for the transition period between the two editions.
2) I don't see this a PF1e vs PF2e question. I still think it's a question of what form PF2e should take - it's current, radical form with only limited links to PF1e and various incarnations of D&D before that OR a more evolutionary PF2e that's rooted in the PF1e/D&D experience and tradition. Perhaps I'm naive, but I still have at least a small hope that the later is possible.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) And it is to this problem that I will first turn. I primarily play in the context of PFS, so my options in a couple of years will be play PF2e or quit organized play. Fortunately, the organized play team is considering replay options for the transition period between the two editions.
I can't see that unless you are playing every scenario coming out due to having played them all. I've been heavy into it since 2012 and still have offerings left to play. (Scheduling with people I want to play with has been a large part of why I still have those available, plus the difficulty of getting modules to fire.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The developers of 2008 Paizo decided that this wasn't true and that the technology was fine and just need a small revision.
To be fair, that's not what happened.
What happened was that Paizo had to plan their adventure product (lifeblood) pipeline, and had no access to a license to produce for D&D 4e. Time ran out waiting for WotC to release such a license, and the 3.5e books were very much out of print.
Given insufficient time and notice to create a game ruleset from scratch, the only choice was to use Jason's archive of potential houserules as the basis for printing their own rulebook.
Pathfinder was born out of necessity, not out of specific desire to continue it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The developers of 2008 Paizo decided that this wasn't true and that the technology was fine and just need a small revision.To be fair, that's not what happened.
What happened was that Paizo had to plan their adventure product (lifeblood) pipeline, and had no access to a license to produce for D&D 4e. Time ran out waiting for WotC to release such a license, and the 3.5e books were very much out of print.
Given insufficient time and notice to create a game ruleset from scratch, the only choice was to use Jason's archive of potential houserules as the basis for printing their own rulebook.
Pathfinder was born out of necessity, not out of specific desire to continue it.
A mild point of order--there was the 4e Game System License, but Paizo found it legally too draconian to adhere to it. IIRC there was a clause in the GSL that basically said WotC could declare your system-compatible product invalid at any time or for any reason they chose--even if you were technically compliant with the license--and force you to stop publishing, which they felt was too risky to comply with.
They knew they were going to publish the Pathfinder Adventure Path as a replacement for Dungeon/Dragon and to send to those magazines' loyal subscribers, many of whom had set up subscriptions right as WotC ripped the magazines out from under Paizo's feet. They didn't know what system the AP was going to be in until the GSL came out and then when it did, decided revising rules based on the OGL was the better part of valor at the time.
While I could be wrong, I believe that the APs are still Paizo's bread-and-butter (as Anguish also notes) and the hope for a new edition I suspect is at least in part to help inject some life into AP subscriptions. (And as much as I love PF1, and I'm not enthused about the current direction of the new system, I personally feel like they've exhausted most quality ideas for developing the existing system. Sure they could keep publishing splats with any old nonsense in it and as long as it had new monsters and/or classes in it, no matter how well written or original, someone would buy it, but their standards are higher than that.)
As it was, there is a possible alternate universe where the GSL was a lot more reasonable and therefore the Pathfinder APs were published as 4e compatible and we wouldn't even HAVE PF1.
Anguish is nonetheless correct that the priority of PF1 was to have a legal system the APs could be published in, not to revise 3.x.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The developers of 2008 Paizo decided that this wasn't true and that the technology was fine and just need a small revision.To be fair, that's not what happened.
What happened was that Paizo had to plan their adventure product (lifeblood) pipeline, and had no access to a license to produce for D&D 4e. Time ran out waiting for WotC to release such a license, and the 3.5e books were very much out of print.
Given insufficient time and notice to create a game ruleset from scratch, the only choice was to use Jason's archive of potential houserules as the basis for printing their own rulebook.
Pathfinder was born out of necessity, not out of specific desire to continue it.
I believe this Paizo blog and the Year 5 entry says differently , but you are of course free to disagree.
Jason's mission was to learn as much as he could about 4th Edition, play it as much as he could, and report back with his findings. From that, we would ultimately make a decision that could make or break us. The tension was agonizing. I could barely sleep at night as my mind wrestled with the options. If we made the wrong decision, it could very well mean the end of Paizo.
When Jason returned from D&D Experience, he laid out all the information that he had gleaned. From the moment that 4th Edition had been announced, we had trepidations about many of the changes we were hearing about. Jason's report confirmed our fears—4th Edition didn't look like the system we wanted to make products for.
We've certainly come a long way considering how the playtest is shaping up.
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A mild point of order--there was the 4e Game System License, but Paizo found it legally too draconian to adhere to it. IIRC there was a clause in the GSL that basically said WotC could declare your system-compatible product invalid at any time or for any reason they chose--even if you were technically compliant with the license--and force you to stop publishing, which they felt was too risky to comply with.
I seem to recall the 4e license also including some sort of draconian fine print about having to liquidate any remaining 3.x OGL material in stock, and not being able to produce more. If you went 4e, you had to go all in. But that could just be a rumor of the time, or a faulty memory. It's been a long time, after all, and I mainly use my memory for games rules. ^_^
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
