|
And they don't even need to grab more newbies than 5E does, because financial goals and needs of Paizo are <<that>> smaller than the ones of WotC.I think it's the opposite. Pathfinder is Paizo's bread-and-butter, whereas WotC has other product lines to fall back on.
(The sudden drop in paizo.com traffic since PF2 was announced, as seen in the alexa.com website stats, is perhaps a bit worrying. Although it might just be an in-between versions lull.)
This also included a 10 day period when the website was down completely. That would cause a lull for at least 3 weeks as people who check daily knew the site was down so stopped checking for a week or two.
Paizo made their choice--throw out all of the old rules and content and make something new that may or may not appeal to enough 5E players to make up for any existing Pathfinder players they alienate in the process. It's an all or nothing gambit.*sigh*
Again, PF2 is not about taking over 5E players. It would be a folly, because between brand recognition and quality, 5E is pretty much immune to whatever Paizo would throw at them.
PF2 is about snatching new people who are joining the hobby thanks to Critical Role, mainstreaming of nerdy hobbies and increasing social acceptance of RPGs. If 10 new people start RPG'ing, what Paizo wants and needs is some of them to pick PF over 5E. And they don't even need to grab more newbies than 5E does, because financial goals and needs of Paizo are <<that>> smaller than the ones of WotC.
Long story short: the dwindling cohort of bearded 40+ American men is no longer enough to keep the ball rolling. And no solutions proposed by the OP will alter that.
TIL that only bearded 40+ American men play Pathfinder.
If you're frustrated about having to repeatedly "correct" the impression that Paizo is not attempting to win back 5E players, then at best Paizo is failing to successfully message the reason for their transition. In any case, I don't see much reason to take your word for it, nor you mine.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo made their choice--throw out all of the old rules and content and make something new that may or may not appeal to enough 5E players to make up for any existing Pathfinder players they alienate in the process. It's an all or nothing gambit.*sigh*
Again, PF2 is not about taking over 5E players. It would be a folly, because between brand recognition and quality, 5E is pretty much immune to whatever Paizo would throw at them.
PF2 is about snatching new people who are joining the hobby thanks to Critical Role, mainstreaming of nerdy hobbies and increasing social acceptance of RPGs. If 10 new people start RPG'ing, what Paizo wants and needs is some of them to pick PF over 5E. And they don't even need to grab more newbies than 5E does, because financial goals and needs of Paizo are <<that>> smaller than the ones of WotC.
Long story short: the dwindling cohort of bearded 40+ American men is no longer enough to keep the ball rolling. And no solutions proposed by the OP will alter that.
TIL that only bearded 40+ American men play Pathfinder.
If you're frustrated about having to repeatedly "correct" the impression that Paizo is not attempting to win back 5E players, then at best Paizo is failing to successfully message the reason for their transition. In any case, I don't see much reason to take your word for it, nor you mine.
You can just take the words of Paizo's co-owner or you can say that it's smoke and mirrors. It's kind of your choice here.
Starfinder has probably been one of their best strategies, filling a niche that no one else has in quite awhile. So they don't even need to compete with 5E, as they are running unopposed for the sci-fi gamers.
My now disbanded group was running Edge of the Empire when they wanted a break from Pathfinder. After trying out Starfinder, they chose to stick with EotE for their sci fi needs. I don't think Starfinder can claim to be unopposed, unless you were referring specifically to WotC.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is EotE?
Star Wars RPG with the gimmicky dice.
Which is another boon Starfinder has, it's not setting neutral in and of itself but it is FAR more setting neutral friendly than EotE, which is Star Wars. Plenty of people want to play in a Space Fantasy game that isn't Star Wars.
What is EotE?Star Wars RPG with the gimmicky dice.
Which is another boon Starfinder has, it's not setting neutral in and of itself but it is FAR more setting neutral friendly than EotE, which is Star Wars. Plenty of people want to play in a Space Fantasy game that isn't Star Wars.
Yes, the dice were problematic and required hefty rules tweaking in our games. Do note that I did not claim that EotE was the better game, I was simply pointing out that Starfinder does not exist or compete in a vacuum. To the general gaming public, both are simply "sci fi games".
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the dice were problematic and required hefty rules tweaking in our games. Do note that I did not claim that EotE was the better game, I was simply pointing out that Starfinder does not exist or compete in a vacuum. To the general gaming public, both are simply "sci fi games".What is EotE?Star Wars RPG with the gimmicky dice.
Which is another boon Starfinder has, it's not setting neutral in and of itself but it is FAR more setting neutral friendly than EotE, which is Star Wars. Plenty of people want to play in a Space Fantasy game that isn't Star Wars.
No, to the general public Starfinder is a scifi game and EotE is a Star Wars game.
A very important distinction.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Currently, Starfinder is outselling Pathfinder, so it's hardly bread and butter anymore.I'm curious. Is that all product sales or just the core rulebooks?
There seems to be more books (APs, campaigns, companions, modules, etc.) released for PF than SF. I might be wrong as I haven't been following SF.
But if SF has given the company more wiggle room, good for them. As the old adage goes: "don't put all your eggs in one basket".
Icv2, which I have this from, reports product lines. So yeah, Starfinder with its few books is outdoing Pathfinder with its oodles of content.
Which speaks volumes as to just how badly did 5e maul PF1.
Also, data is for Winter 2017, so you can't really say that it's the PF2 announcement that made a dent in PF1 sales.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I buy pretty much all Starfinder content and much less PF1 than I used to. But for me Ultimate Wilderness was the breaking point, not the announcement of PF2.
You can just take the words of Paizo's co-owner or you can say that it's smoke and mirrors. It's kind of your choice here.
Paizo made their choice--throw out all of the old rules and content and make something new that may or may not appeal to enough 5E players to make up for any existing Pathfinder players they alienate in the process. It's an all or nothing gambit.*sigh*
Again, PF2 is not about taking over 5E players. It would be a folly, because between brand recognition and quality, 5E is pretty much immune to whatever Paizo would throw at them.
PF2 is about snatching new people who are joining the hobby thanks to Critical Role, mainstreaming of nerdy hobbies and increasing social acceptance of RPGs. If 10 new people start RPG'ing, what Paizo wants and needs is some of them to pick PF over 5E. And they don't even need to grab more newbies than 5E does, because financial goals and needs of Paizo are <<that>> smaller than the ones of WotC.
Long story short: the dwindling cohort of bearded 40+ American men is no longer enough to keep the ball rolling. And no solutions proposed by the OP will alter that.
TIL that only bearded 40+ American men play Pathfinder.
If you're frustrated about having to repeatedly "correct" the impression that Paizo is not attempting to win back 5E players, then at best Paizo is failing to successfully message the reason for their transition. In any case, I don't see much reason to take your word for it, nor you mine.
Or I can wait and see how it plays out. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, not in Mr. Wertz's words themselves. I hope he'd agree with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MOAR SPLAT
Starfinder has probably been one of their best strategies, filling a niche that no one else has in quite awhile. So they don't even need to compete with 5E, as they are running unopposed for the sci-fi gamers.My now disbanded group was running Edge of the Empire when they wanted a break from Pathfinder. After trying out Starfinder, they chose to stick with EotE for their sci fi needs. I don't think Starfinder can claim to be unopposed, unless you were referring specifically to WotC.
Interesting point.
I buy pretty much all Starfinder content and much less PF1 than I used to. But for me Ultimate Wilderness was the breaking point, not the announcement of PF2.
Why? I'm just curious.
I have the PDFs for all the PF1 books and GM via a VTT (MapTool is really awesome!). I have two groups.
I will probably play PF1 for a long time going forward. It is a major challenge with all that material plus the freely available online content -- but that is also part of the excitement.
I don't feel a need or desire to use a different system.
Currently, Starfinder is outselling Pathfinder, so it's hardly bread and butter anymore.I'm curious. Is that all product sales or just the core rulebooks?
There seems to be more books (APs, campaigns, companions, modules, etc.) released for PF than SF. I might be wrong as I haven't been following SF.
But if SF has given the company more wiggle room, good for them. As the old adage goes: "don't put all your eggs in one basket".
Yes, it would be nice to provide a link supporting the above statement. I just don't think that could be.
How do you play -- in-person or with a VTT (virtual tabletop)?
Are you a player or GM?
If you play in-person, what types of maps and pawns do you use? Are they accurate for the adventure and encounters?
If you play with a VTT, which one(s) do you use and what do you like or dislike about them?
What method did you use to find your group? Go to a game store? Online? Through friends?
I am a GM, and I use D20Pro (a VTT) with Hero Lab to put together and run my games. A while ago I was doing it in-person with printed pawns and maps (using cheap printer ink). I changed because it was easier to find people in Discord on the Pathfinder RPG server.
For VTTs, I really like D20Pro and, though I haven't tried it, Maptool looks very impressive. They make building maps in conjunction with Hero Lab's Encounter Builder and Encounter Library absolutely fun.
BTW, I switched from D20Pro to MapTool. I like what D20Pro is trying to do, and I hope they continue to work on the product -- but my group is currently very satisfied with MapTool 1.4.0.5. My hat's off to RPTools. They have done a great job!
I use hl2mt.exe (can be found on the web) to import Hero Lab portfolios into MapTool (by making tokens). It's a lot more work than importing into D20Pro -- but the gaming experience and campaign building experience is just really awesome!
I will check D20Pro, again, probably next fall.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like a message board or self-selected poll is vastly inferior way for Paizo to collect data on "what kind of books should we sell and how often should we release them" than internal data they already have.
As far as I am concerned, if Paizo publishes books that appeal to me I am likely to buy them and that's really the extent of where my opinion lands.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it would be nice to provide a link supporting the above statement. I just don't think that could be.Currently, Starfinder is outselling Pathfinder, so it's hardly bread and butter anymore.I'm curious. Is that all product sales or just the core rulebooks?
There seems to be more books (APs, campaigns, companions, modules, etc.) released for PF than SF. I might be wrong as I haven't been following SF.
But if SF has given the company more wiggle room, good for them. As the old adage goes: "don't put all your eggs in one basket".
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A nice link supporting the statement.Yes, it would be nice to provide a link supporting the above statement. I just don't think that could be.Currently, Starfinder is outselling Pathfinder, so it's hardly bread and butter anymore.I'm curious. Is that all product sales or just the core rulebooks?
There seems to be more books (APs, campaigns, companions, modules, etc.) released for PF than SF. I might be wrong as I haven't been following SF.
But if SF has given the company more wiggle room, good for them. As the old adage goes: "don't put all your eggs in one basket".
That was also the case in the previous quarter as well.
There's also a fairly interesting article on the subject from Owen KC Stephens, who happens to be one of the design leads for Starfinder, though he's not writing the article in that capacity.
Another interesting thing of note is that the only Paizo book currently appearing in Amazon's top 50 best sellers for fantasy gaming is Starfinder Roleplaying Game: Alien Archive 2 in the #44 slot. The next Paizo book to make the top 100 is Starfinder: Armory at #62. The only Pathfinder book currently making the cut for the top 100 list is the CRB at #67. Note that this is a living list and Pathfinder products are actively falling off of it (Owen's article mentions the Gamemaster's Guide as having been on the list as of the time he wrote his article) while the Starfinder products are holding a fairly consistent chunk of real estate within the top 100.
Paizo has their own store where their books are sold, while 5E links to sites like Amazon to buy theirs. I'm not saying Pathfinder is outselling 5E, obviously. But those Amazon statistics just aren't meaningful in this context.
Still not a Zero Sum game out there. The Overall health of the industry is still the thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A nice link supporting the statement.Yes, it would be nice to provide a link supporting the above statement. I just don't think that could be.Currently, Starfinder is outselling Pathfinder, so it's hardly bread and butter anymore.I'm curious. Is that all product sales or just the core rulebooks?
There seems to be more books (APs, campaigns, companions, modules, etc.) released for PF than SF. I might be wrong as I haven't been following SF.
But if SF has given the company more wiggle room, good for them. As the old adage goes: "don't put all your eggs in one basket".
Thanks. Interesting. That's either really good news or bad news for Paizo.
What I suspect will actually happen is that Paizo will try PF2 for a year and then start rolling out "Pathfinder Classic".I don't think there's any chance of that. If the market for 3.5e-derived Pathfinder (which I like to refer to as... "Pathfinder") isn't sufficient for the company today, then it won't be sufficient two years from now, three years after announcing Pathfinder's retirement.
The gamble has been made, and Paizo's analysis of the situation convinces them this is the best long-term strategy. Hopefully they're right.
If they're not, at best you'll see a PF3. Note that WotC didn't revert back to 3.5e when the uptake of 4e was found to be insufficient. Instead they revisited the market and invented 5e.
You are probably right, though I would love a new, cleaned up, Pathfinder - (the new game is not really for me.)
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's been said elsewhere but bears repeating... the Playtest is NOT 2nd edition Pathfinder.
I hope folks who were frustrated or disappointed by the playtest DO take the time to check out the new rules when they're out, because a LOT has changed as a result of the excellent feedback we got on surveys, via the boards here, and in person at conventions.
In hindsight we should have made that more clear, I suppose—that the playtest is the chance for us to experiment, make mistakes, and correct them with the aid of a huge number of players and GMs helping out, so that we don't make those mistakes in the actual game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's been said elsewhere but bears repeating... the Playtest is NOT 2nd edition Pathfinder.
I hope folks who were frustrated or disappointed by the playtest DO take the time to check out the new rules when they're out, because a LOT has changed as a result of the excellent feedback we got on surveys, via the boards here, and in person at conventions.
In hindsight we should have made that more clear, I suppose—that the playtest is the chance for us to experiment, make mistakes, and correct them with the aid of a huge number of players and GMs helping out, so that we don't make those mistakes in the actual game.
Thanks, James. It might not always be apparent, but we're all rooting for you guys. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here. : D
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Amazon's top 50 best sellers for fantasy gaming[/url] is Starfinder Roleplaying Game: Alien Archive 2 in the #44 slot.Uh-oh, you jinxed it!
Alien Archive 2 drops to #71 within 24 hours.
Today Armory is #45, Alien Archive 2 is #55, Starfinder CRB is #64, and the Pathfinder CRB is #70. When I said that Starfinder was holding consistent real estate, I meant that they've consistently had multiple books in the top 100 for as long as they've had multiple books, while Pathfinder has generally been the CRB with the Gamemastery Guide occasionally popping in towards the bottom of the list (which it also did today at #97).
One thing Pathfinder has going for it is that it's been around a long time; a relatively large number of people will be buying it to have their own copy of the game their GM is running, to replace worn or damaged copies of their old CRB, and now to make sure they have complete collections or at least their own copy of the CRB as the uncertainty of a new edition drives fans of the old edition to shore up their collections and, in a few instances, lead people to think that maybe they can vote with their wallets to boost PF1 sales and provide some amount of data countering the premise that PF1 has reached the end of its lifespan.
The fact that Starfinder is so consistently outperforming Pathfinder on Amazon isn't necessarily proof of anything, but it's a strong indicator that Starfinder is growing while Pathfinder is dying. Pathfinder has daily chatter across multiple forums and websites, while people are still discovering Starfinder organically (this also ties in to a related point about how fundamentally bad forum discussions are as a gauge of a product's success or likelihood to succeed, but that's neither here nor there). The fact that Starfinder's equipment book is outperforming Pathfinder's two most essential products while Pathfinder has more market reach and penetration isn't a good indicator for Pathfinder's overall health (though again, there's a ton of other factors and this only looks at a single point of purchase, even if that is one of the largest and most aggressive platforms for selling game books).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks, James. It might not always be apparent, but we're all rooting for you guys. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here. : DIt's been said elsewhere but bears repeating... the Playtest is NOT 2nd edition Pathfinder.
I hope folks who were frustrated or disappointed by the playtest DO take the time to check out the new rules when they're out, because a LOT has changed as a result of the excellent feedback we got on surveys, via the boards here, and in person at conventions.
In hindsight we should have made that more clear, I suppose—that the playtest is the chance for us to experiment, make mistakes, and correct them with the aid of a huge number of players and GMs helping out, so that we don't make those mistakes in the actual game.
Absolutly, I wish Paizo all the best and I'm sure that the new game will be a good one.
But, it won't be something that *I* would want to play, as there are too many changes that I don't like, changes that we were told WOULD be in the final game; bulk, skills+1/level, not starting with your racial goodies, but getting them along the way, Charisma having influence on magic items, no Abilties under 10 and so on ...
These things are dealbreakers for ME, but most people won't feel the same way and the game *will* be easier to learn for new players. That will be good for Paizo and for those who like the changes - and that I can applaud!
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutly, I wish Paizo all the best and I'm sure that the new game will be a good one.
But, it won't be something that *I* would want to play, as there are too many changes that I don't like, changes that we were told WOULD be in the final game; bulk, skills+1/level, not starting with your racial goodies, but getting them along the way, Charisma having influence on magic items, no Abilties under 10 and so on ...
These things are dealbreakers for ME, but most people won't feel the same way and the game *will* be easier to learn for new players. That will be good for Paizo and for those who like the changes - and that I can applaud!
All I can say to that is stay tuned, check the game out when it's out, and potentially be prepared for some possibly pleasant surprises then, I guess.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I can say to that is stay tuned, check the game out when it's out, and potentially be prepared for some possibly pleasant surprises then, I guess.Absolutly, I wish Paizo all the best and I'm sure that the new game will be a good one.
But, it won't be something that *I* would want to play, as there are too many changes that I don't like, changes that we were told WOULD be in the final game; bulk, skills+1/level, not starting with your racial goodies, but getting them along the way, Charisma having influence on magic items, no Abilties under 10 and so on ...
These things are dealbreakers for ME, but most people won't feel the same way and the game *will* be easier to learn for new players. That will be good for Paizo and for those who like the changes - and that I can applaud!
PLAYABLE DEINONYCHUS AWWWW YISSSSSS.
All I can say to that is stay tuned, check the game out when it's out, and potentially be prepared for some possibly pleasant surprises then, I guess.Absolutly, I wish Paizo all the best and I'm sure that the new game will be a good one.
But, it won't be something that *I* would want to play, as there are too many changes that I don't like, changes that we were told WOULD be in the final game; bulk, skills+1/level, not starting with your racial goodies, but getting them along the way, Charisma having influence on magic items, no Abilties under 10 and so on ...
These things are dealbreakers for ME, but most people won't feel the same way and the game *will* be easier to learn for new players. That will be good for Paizo and for those who like the changes - and that I can applaud!
So, is it too early to say what will or will not be in the final release from the playtest? Or is it worried that releasing that information in a vacuum would be harmful?
So, is it too early to say what will or will not be in the final release from the playtest? Or is it worried that releasing that information in a vacuum would be harmful?
As I understand it they are hard at work writing the actual game and will be mostly radio silent during that process, but previews should start well before the actual release.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, is it too early to say what will or will not be in the final release from the playtest? Or is it worried that releasing that information in a vacuum would be harmful?All I can say to that is stay tuned, check the game out when it's out, and potentially be prepared for some possibly pleasant surprises then, I guess.Absolutly, I wish Paizo all the best and I'm sure that the new game will be a good one.
But, it won't be something that *I* would want to play, as there are too many changes that I don't like, changes that we were told WOULD be in the final game; bulk, skills+1/level, not starting with your racial goodies, but getting them along the way, Charisma having influence on magic items, no Abilties under 10 and so on ...
These things are dealbreakers for ME, but most people won't feel the same way and the game *will* be easier to learn for new players. That will be good for Paizo and for those who like the changes - and that I can applaud!
The game is still being worked on, as I mentioned already, so it's irresponsible to start talking about its contents yet. Until the book is shipped to the printer, we'll continue to pretty much operate in "radio silence" while we scramble to get things finished. As we get closer to release, I assume we'll start talking more about it to build up excitement, but we're still several months away from that.
So for at least those several months, please continue to be patient with us; thanks! :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game is still being worked on, as I mentioned already, so it's irresponsible to start talking about its contents yet. Until the book is shipped to the printer, we'll continue to pretty much operate in "radio silence" while we scramble to get things finished. As we get closer to release, I assume we'll start talking more about it to build up excitement, but we're still several months away from that.
So for at least those several months, please continue to be patient with us; thanks! :-)
Good luck. I think we'll all check it out, when it releases. Though some of us are probably going to be happy/unhappy with conflicting things. For instance, I'm sure some people are rather happy with everything being a feat, while others aren't. The only thing that's certain is that someone will be unhappy. Of course, some people are unhappy with the idea of there being a PF2 at all, and you'll probably never make those people happy.
But honestly, I thought things were much closer to being final than it sounds here. By "working on", I figured it was more down to formatting issues and small tweaks.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game is still being worked on, as I mentioned already, so it's irresponsible to start talking about its contents yet. Until the book is shipped to the printer, we'll continue to pretty much operate in "radio silence" while we scramble to get things finished. As we get closer to release, I assume we'll start talking more about it to build up excitement, but we're still several months away from that.
So for at least those several months, please continue to be patient with us; thanks! :-)
Good luck. I think we'll all check it out, when it releases. Though some of us are probably going to be happy/unhappy with conflicting things. For instance, I'm sure some people are rather happy with everything being a feat, while others aren't. The only thing that's certain is that someone will be unhappy. Of course, some people are unhappy with the idea of there being a PF2 at all, and you'll probably never make those people happy.
But honestly, I thought things were much closer to being final than it sounds here. By "working on", I figured it was more down to formatting issues and small tweaks.
Oh I'm sure it won't be for everyone—neither was 1st edition Pathfinder. I just don't want folks to assume they already know what's in 2nd edition because they read the playtest is all.
Things ARE very close to being final. But they're not final yet and won't be for a bit longer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they should focus on the quality of their products. Pathfinder wasn't really my game based on my preferred playstyle, but it became my favorite because of all the great adventures, sourcebooks, map packs, miniatures, novels, comics, .... and so on and so forth. Not everything has to be specifically to my taste, but I've always admired and respected their commitment to quality.
I'd have preferred they stick with PF1, but if all the associated support materials are good, I'm sure I'll switch to PF2 (and no doubt it'll come to be my preferred game, once I learn it).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I AM very keen to hear how the product lines will shift when PF2 comes out. At this stage, the only thing I'm confident predicting is that the APs will continue monthly.
I'd like to know what the philosophy on hardcovers will be, whether we'll get player companions monthly and campaign books bimonthly. If modules will be recommencing....etcetera.
I'm hoping we'll hear more about that in a few months, but I kind of wish that'd been part of the gathering feedback process of the playtest. I daresay it's too late to meaningfully take any direct opinions from customers now.
the uncertainty of a new edition drives fans of the old edition to shore up their collections
Ha ha, yes, this. I've picked up multiple hardcovers, pawn boxes, map packs etc. since the play test came out for just this reason. Perhaps Paizo released such a contentious play test document for just this purpose? Crafty.
I haven't been following the play test, it really wasn't for me. However, I will certainly check out the final product when it drops.
You know what would excite me?
A statement of support intent. The frequency of FAQ responses for PF1 wasn't awesome, but the product was based on 3.5e and 3.0e so many/most truly important questions were already answered, and what was left was edge cases.
With PF2 having so many new words, it's inevitable that there will be interactions and rules wording that are open to abuse or misinterpretation.
I'd like to see a formal "we will answer the top 5 FAQs each week" statement. Obviously some fine print, but I'm sure I convey my point.
I'd like to see a formal "we will answer the top 5 FAQs each week" statement. Obviously some fine print, but I'm sure I convey my point.
I'd say that's overly ambitious. Those seem to be decided by committee and we know how slow and time consuming the questions can be. But I think 2+ per month would be a worthy goal.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like PF2 is being written specifically to avoid the especially thorny rules interactions that PF1 had (still waiting on that gauntlet FAQ). FAQ pace in PF1 was slowed in part by situations like "no matter how I answer this, I break something".
I feel like PF2 is being written specifically to avoid the especially thorny rules interactions that PF1 had (still waiting on that gauntlet FAQ). FAQ pace in PF1 was slowed in part by situations like "no matter how I answer this, I break something".
I'm sure they are making an attempt to avoid thorny questions. Any designer would probably wish for that. But the realities of language and human communication mean that there will always be questions about how things work. And tens of thousands of people will find lots of problems that a handful of people missed.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ pace in PF1 was slowed in part by situations like "no matter how I answer this, I break something".
Even more than that, as often as not if something is a FAQ it's because there are two competing interpretations of it. If both interpretations are functional, then releasing a FAQ on the subject will upset one group for no greater gain to the community or company. Sometimes there are questions better left unanswered.
I expect the larger number of variable mechanics in the playtest that specifically refer the player to the GM are part of the overarching effort to minimize those kinds of issues. Very often a table fix rather than a system fix is going to be the best way for something to be arbitrated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ pace in PF1 was slowed in part by situations like "no matter how I answer this, I break something".Even more than that, as often as not if something is a FAQ it's because there are two competing interpretations of it. If both interpretations are functional, then releasing a FAQ on the subject will upset one group for no greater gain to the community or company. Sometimes there are questions better left unanswered.
I accept that's a case. I simply believe that if that's the case with a particular FAQ, the correct course of action is to explicitly release an answer saying "either option is acceptable depending on table/GM preference, and we are now going to pretend the Society isn't a thing that needs this answered", instead of just staying silent and letting the argument rage on, and on, and on, and on.
And no, I don't feel that a "by default if we have not ruled on a FAQ, it's up to you" standard operating procedure is acceptable.
As frustrating as "will not fix" is within the IT world, it has a place, and it's this one in the RPG world. "Will not answer" is far, far better than silence, even if it upsets the people requesting the FAQ in the short term, because it gives a form of closure.
On-topic but unrelated to this specific quoted post... thank you in particular for using some of the specific language you've used up-thread regarding PF1's market condition. It's refreshingly open and hugely appreciated. I wanted to post that, but felt the sentiment didn't justify a post in itself, and I'm in something of a PF depression where I find it difficult to bother to post/reply/comment in general.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see a formal "we will answer the top 5 FAQs each week" statement. Obviously some fine print, but I'm sure I convey my point.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah.
Aahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Aaaaaaahahahahahahahahhhahahahaaaah!
FAQ pace in PF1 was slowed in part by situations like "no matter how I answer this, I break something".And no, I don't feel that a "by default if we have not ruled on a FAQ, it's up to you" standard operating procedure is acceptable.Why? It's the same result as Select All -> Mark "Will Not Fix", which you seem to be okay with.