Does anyone think Paizo should slow down a little?

[Vidmaster7]

NO!

[rainzax]

For those critical of the editing:

Do you think there is a relationship between conducting a Thorough Multi-Part Playtest and Final Text Error Frequency?

[Temperans]

Multi-part playtests don't really help much with text error frequency, it however helps a ton with rule error and phrase error frequency.
The best example is the Shifter who had no playtest and ended up a hot mess with a hot mess of an archetype (Oozemorph).

There is a reason game developers spend months in alpha, beta, and early access before releasing the full game. It not only allows them to crowd source the trouble shooting; But it also let's them modify values, add or remove rules, and try different methods of coding/phrasing/explaining the rules.

[Lanathar]

John Lynch 106 wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

John Lynch 106 wrote:

From memory PF1 had day 1 errata with paladins in the CRB and they couldn’t even spell region correctly in their inner sea map (creating the now famous reigon map). That was for 3.5 and PF1.

Errors are always going to happen.

Was paladin smite really day 1 errata ? I wish I had known that when running Reign of Winter with two paladins ...

That somehow passed me by
Or do you mean a clear major error noticed on day 1?

From memory (and this is going back 11 years so dont take it as gospel), paladins were given errata between the book going to the printer and the book being given to players. But again, that's going back 11 years so I could be mistaken.

I'm a bit confused by your Reign of Winter comment. That wasnt the first AP so if you had interest in applying errata to the CRB (I often dont bother unless it's really egregious) you had plenty of opportunity to.

The RoW comment -

I had an original book.
It was the first AP I Gm’d.
And I had no idea an errata even existed

So I was prepping a dragon fight where there were two paladins with the 2 points per level every round smite , 2 wizards with fire spells and a fifth character

In order to not make it be a pointless walkover I made changes to the dragon and went the other way due to less experience - killed 3 players (although 2 survived with hero points ).

But I big reason for the changes I made (I think, if memory serves) was a misunderstanding of the smite rules using the original printing

[AnCap Dawg]

Thebazilly wrote:

Takamorisan wrote:

Problem is that we are missing a lot of customization options. So they need to publish the basic material.

This.

I can guarantee that if Paizo wasn't publishing at this rate, we'd have a "should Paizo speed up" thread instead.

I vastly prefer 2e's publish rate to 5e's.

[Rysky]

Faster than 5th but slower than P1 is a good pace I'd say.

[Crodge]

No, they should keep up the brisk pace.

[John Lynch 106]

AnCap Dawg wrote:

Thebazilly wrote:

Takamorisan wrote:

Problem is that we are missing a lot of customization options. So they need to publish the basic material.

This.

I can guarantee that if Paizo wasn't publishing at this rate, we'd have a "should Paizo speed up" thread instead.

I vastly prefer 2e's publish rate to 5e's.

I could not agree more.

[Charlie Brooks]

How much faster is the release schedule?

In year 1 we get the Core Rulebook, the Bestiary, the GameMastery Guide, Bestiary 2, and the Advanced Player's Guide. That matches up with year 1 of 1st edition, except for the addition of Bestiary 2--but we didn't get the Bestiary released on the first day last time.

The Campaign Setting and Companion lines have been condensed, crashing 18 releases per year into 4 or so, albeit at higher page counts.

We're just through a month with 1,000+ pages of new stuff released, but are things really going to be all that much faster than before?

I seriously want to know...if so, I'm going to need to get a lot better with my monthly budget. :-P

[Varun Creed]

I believe the major point that Paizo needs to improve is:

> More or better Game Design review rounds
> Better proofreading

Easily acceptable if this slows down release rate a bit.

[Steve Geddes]

One of the few things about PF2 I’m disappointed in is the slowdown in releases. There are some silver linings though - the return of modules, the consolidation of companions and campaign setting line will hopefully avoid the “serving two masters” problem of niche material vs core material. Hopefully it will help reduce the phenomenon of “convention crunch” as well.

I certainly hope they don’t have to slow it further, personally.

[Tender Tendrils]

I think the pace they are going at is perfect - as it stands, I won't feel ready to run a game until the GMG, APG and LOPG are out.

Also, the quicker they put out bestiaries, the sooner we get Flumphs

[PFRPGrognard]

Yeah, Second Edition is so bloated already. I'm going back to Pathfinder 1E where it's easy enough to have a core only game.

[PossibleCabbage]

I'm not sure we can comment on the rate of PF2 books yet, since we had "the 3 essential books you need" at the launch (with the LOWG released later because of logistics) and the LOCG a couple of months later, and the Gods/Magic book a couple of months after that along with the GMG.

I have no idea what the rate is going to be once they have the essential books out and aren't pushing to get stuff out all at once.

[Joan H.]

I have removed some posts. Please stay away from personal attacks on other community members.

[State of confusion]

PFRPGrognard wrote:

Yeah, Second Edition is so bloated already. I'm going back to Pathfinder 1E where it's easy enough to have a core only game.

Not sure if serious or not.

[Steve Geddes]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I have no idea what the rate is going to be once they have the essential books out and aren't pushing to get stuff out all at once.

I thought Erik stated somewhere that the aim was "kinda quarterly" for the campaign setting and two or three rulebooks a year. (Alongside the APs, modules and accessories).

That's certainly what I've been working on in judging it too slow for my tastes.

[CorvusMask]

Meanwhile on D&D 5e they took at least 2 years until to have new bestiary book :P

...Seriously, besides that 5e only sells physical books and no pdfs, they have painfully slow schedule for new books that aren't adventures.

[Steve Geddes]

CorvusMask wrote:

Meanwhile on D&D 5e they took at least 2 years until to have new bestiary book :P

...Seriously, besides that 5e only sells physical books and no pdfs, they have painfully slow schedule for new books that aren't adventures.

I think it's slightly more complicated than that, given WotC's support for DM's Guild - the Core books aren't available in PDF (in deference to brick and mortar stores, I believe) but there is a host of PDF material out there. The two companies have quite different models in terms of distribution of both core material and support products.

The DM's Guild is more than just a 3PP marketplace, given there's a lot of support products featuring Wizards' IP (and that the publishers give up a lot of their rights to what they release there). It's kind of quasi-3PP, really - more of a hybrid.

[Gratz]

Steve Geddes wrote:

I think it's slightly more complicated than that, given WotC's support for DM's Guild - the Core books aren't available in PDF (in deference to brick and mortar stores, I believe) but there is a host of PDF material out there. The two companies have quite different models in terms of distribution of both core material and support products.

The DM's Guild is more than just a 3PP marketplace, given there's a lot of support products featuring Wizards' IP (and that the publishers give up a lot of their rights to what they release there). It's kind of quasi-3PP, really - more of a hybrid.

Agreed, not only are the two companies' distribution methods vastly different, but also their business models. The only disagreement I have with your post is the part about no PDFs being available due to WotC catering to FLGS and bookstores. I don't know if WotC is saying that, but I doubt that to be true because their business model seems to be very much about licensing stuff out to other companies to sell them online and PDFs would undercut that part of their business. And PDFs are more easily pirated and distributed online, so it might also an anti-pirating measure.

[Vidmaster7]

Heck the main reason I didn't get into 5th is because of how slow their release of new class options is.

[Gorbacz]

There's substantial space between PF1's breakneck "let's put out Dance Halls of Golarion this month is there time to check whether some archetype in it has the same name as two archetypes we already printed in earlier books no there's no time gotta go gotta go fast" schedule and 5e's glacial "no, no, no it's the bloat that killed two previous editions of the game and we need to steer clear of that by the way of super-safe" pace.

I don't have a problem with a slight front-load so that folks can have their grippli gunslinger sooner than later, but both I and my wallet are looking forward to a more relaxed approach to getting player-side content out.

But Bestiaries could as well be bi-monthly ;-)

[Steve Geddes]

Gratz wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

I think it's slightly more complicated than that, given WotC's support for DM's Guild - the Core books aren't available in PDF (in deference to brick and mortar stores, I believe) but there is a host of PDF material out there. The two companies have quite different models in terms of distribution of both core material and support products.

The DM's Guild is more than just a 3PP marketplace, given there's a lot of support products featuring Wizards' IP (and that the publishers give up a lot of their rights to what they release there). It's kind of quasi-3PP, really - more of a hybrid.

Agreed, not only are the two companies' distribution methods vastly different, but also their business models. The only disagreement I have with your post is the part about no PDFs being available due to WotC catering to FLGS and bookstores. I don't know if WotC is saying that, but I doubt that to be true because their business model seems to be very much about licensing stuff out to other companies to sell them online and PDFs would undercut that part of their business. And PDFs are more easily pirated and distributed online, so it might also an anti-pirating measure.

The argument I heard (not any official statement) hinges on how insignificant D&D is to WotC’s business compared to magic:the gathering - the revenue is orders of magnitude greater.

The way I heard the argument is that WotC won’t risk that revenue and know that Magic requires gaming stores to host events and run demos, competitions, drafts, etcetera. It is well known that FLGSes have a certain antipathy to publishers releasing PDF versions and by not doing that (and not operating a webstore) WotC are not cutting in on the FLGS sales and are, in fact, supporting a second, minor revenue stream. (They also make special edition covers available to those stores who host a certain amount of magic events to help “fight off” Amazon).

It’s only a theory, but it gels with the fact that WotC have no aversion to selling PDFs in general. It’s just not their policy with new release core books. (All prior editions are available for sale and they released more pages of PDF only content for 4E than printed content). The piracy or licensee arguments don’t really address that.

As I say though - not an officially stated reason, just one theory that makes more sense to me than the others often put forth for why WotC don’t release PDFs of their rulebooks.

[Vidmaster7]

Sounds like most gaming stores. Owners tell me that MTG is what keeps their doors open.

[Pandatheist]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Sounds like most gaming stores. Owners tell me that MTG is what keeps their doors open.

I think that if a store builds a community around MtG, MtG becomes their lifeblood. That’s a choice though, not a business truism. Of the 5 largest rpg sellers in Pittsburgh that I’m aware of, 1 relies solely on Magic, one has a reasonable MtG community, but would survive without it, and the other 3 don’t cater to Magic players at all.

[Vidmaster7]

Pandatheist wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Sounds like most gaming stores. Owners tell me that MTG is what keeps their doors open.

I think that if a store builds a community around MtG, MtG becomes their lifeblood. That’s a choice though, not a business truism. Of the 5 largest rpg sellers in Pittsburgh that I’m aware of, 1 relies solely on Magic, one has a reasonable MtG community, but would survive without it, and the other 3 don’t cater to Magic players at all.

Whew different environment then. Every single game store I've been in especially the ones around where I live literally are all in on MTG. They have other stuff but MTG pays the bills.

[MMCJawa]

Pandatheist wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Sounds like most gaming stores. Owners tell me that MTG is what keeps their doors open.

I think that if a store builds a community around MtG, MtG becomes their lifeblood. That’s a choice though, not a business truism. Of the 5 largest rpg sellers in Pittsburgh that I’m aware of, 1 relies solely on Magic, one has a reasonable MtG community, but would survive without it, and the other 3 don’t cater to Magic players at all.

A lot of that probably has to do with Pittsburgh being a major city. High population areas can support more niche stores (whether its gaming or any other hobby/interest). I know locally, and what I assume would probably be true of vast swathes of the state, there are just not enough DnD Gamers around to support a business without also catering to MtG, Warhammer, etc.

[AnCap Dawg]

State of confusion wrote:

PFRPGrognard wrote:

Yeah, Second Edition is so bloated already. I'm going back to Pathfinder 1E where it's easy enough to have a core only game.

Not sure if serious or not.

Not sure if serious or not.

[Corvo Spiritwind]

AnCap Dawg wrote:

State of confusion wrote:

PFRPGrognard wrote:

Yeah, Second Edition is so bloated already. I'm going back to Pathfinder 1E where it's easy enough to have a core only game.

Not sure if serious or not.

Not sure if serious or not.

Not serious or sure if not.

[ograx]

I think with the fact Paizo needs PF2 to be successful for their company to be viable as far as profits and keeping the doors open yeah they need to publish frequently.

I think alot of people are forgetting how little money RPGS actually make in the gaming scene.

CCGS, Wargames (Warhammer,Hordes,Etc.), Board games all are bigger money makers than RPGS by quite a bit.

Paizo needs 2E to be accepted and utilized and purchased or they aren't going to be in a good situtation.

I'm not going to speak for Paizos financial situation because I have no idea what it is but I imagine everything is riding on 2E being a success for the company to be able to sustain and grow.

[RiverMesa]

Yeah, Wizards is nowhere near as reliant on D&D's financial success as Paizo is on Pathfinder (which is to say, WotC could straight up cancel D&D tomorrow and be totally fine since so much of their profit comes from Magic) - thus the former can kinda just ride it out on sporadic supplement releases and (let's be honest) D&D's immense brand recognition, while Paizo needs to continually support their game to stay afloat - thus we have several product lines and some kind of substantial release basically every month (even if it's 'just' another AP book).

I know they don't make this kind of information public, but I do hope that things are going okay for them, though by the sound of how the core books seme to be selling at least, it seems to be the case.

[Ascalaphus]

I think as long as Paizo says things to the effect of "we don't have time to fix these bugs/answer these FAQ requests because we're too busy with launching a new product", then yes, they are going too fast.

[tivadar27]

RiverMesa wrote:

I know they don't make this kind of information public, but I do hope that things are going okay for them, though by the sound of how the core books seme to be selling at least, it seems to be the case.

I don't think this is a good metric for how things are going, overall. Similar to 4e, I think a lot of people will buy the CRB sight unseen because it's "the next Pathfinder". Granted, we did get a glimpse into it with the playtest, but no one really knew how much the new edition would be like that.

I think we'll see how well later books sell as a sign for how Paizo's future prospects look. I'd say the ACG that's coming out in October(?), or the GAM next year will be better benchmarks about sustained success.

Either way, this is all, of course, speculating :). But first prints of new editions do tend to do well, whether or not those editions themselves do well.

[tivadar27]

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think as long as Paizo says things to the effect of "we don't have time to fix these bugs/answer these FAQ requests because we're too busy with launching a new product", then yes, they are going too fast.

Yeah, unfortunately I kinda agree here... There are *a lot* of errors in the CRB, and they've mentioned some of the fixes, but still have a bunch more to address. I get why they're doing this, at least for the first few months, to get a wide variety of options available to players quickly. But I really do hope they slow down going forward to address the backlog of "bugs" in their "software" :-P.

[Arakasius]

It doesn’t make sense to rush to errata the game unless it’s truly game breaking. And none of it is so far. It doesn’t unbalance things that wizards get one too many feats. The untrained not going to expert doesn’t even matter much unless you were being a melee sorcerer. And them mentioning that one opened up the question on mutagenists.

They need time to actually collect data and make an informed decision on changes. For example plenty have suggested that mutagenist first feature should be a +1 bonus to their mutagens when they use them and that does seem reasonable. However we have no idea what is coming in regards to the APG and the feats/features/archetypes that are in there that these changes might conflict with. They also don’t want to overreach and overbuff a class in answer to fixing a weak class. One thing I’m sure is on the table in some regards is adding an item to “increase your caster dc/attack by 1” if feedback and testing shows that casters need it I’m sure that will come back.

They’re doing a lot of work. There is the GMG that they’re working on (including releasing monster creation rules early), the next bestiary, the APG, errata, inevitable PTO that would come up after shipping a big product and you have to remember there is just 4 devs on PF2. Be a little patient on the errata there is plenty of valid reasons why it’s mot out yet.

[Staffan Johansson]

RiverMesa wrote:

Yeah, Wizards is nowhere near as reliant on D&D's financial success as Paizo is on Pathfinder (which is to say, WotC could straight up cancel D&D tomorrow and be totally fine since so much of their profit comes from Magic)

Not sure that's true anymore. D&D has grown enormously since the release of 5e, to the point where Hasbro's annual (or maybe quarterly) reports have included language to the effect of "Dang, that D&D game sure is bringing in a lot of dough."

According to ICV2, RPG sales in the USA and Canada have increased from $15M in 2013 to $65M in 2018. That increase is pretty much all D&D.

I mean, it's still significantly smaller than Magic, but now it's at least a significant chunk of their income.

Quote:

- thus the former can kinda just ride it out on sporadic supplement releases and (let's be honest) D&D's immense brand recognition, while Paizo needs to continually support their game to stay afloat - thus we have several product lines and some kind of substantial release basically every month (even if it's 'just' another AP book).

The slow release schedule seems to be working out great for Wizards. It's likely that it helps with player acquisition - the game really only has two player-facing books so far (the PHB and Xanathar's Guide to Everything - other books may have some player material, but not much), which makes recruiting new players a lot easier than if you want Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, a setting book, and a dozen player companions and whatever else. The PF1 sales model is strongly focused on selling more to existing players, while the D&D model is focused on expanding the audience.

That said, I'm not sure D&D's sales model would work for Paizo. It is strongly reliant on bringing in new players to buy those PHBs and possibly other core books. That's why the PHB is #71 on Amazon's sales rank in the "Books" category five years after release.

[Perpdepog]

Honestly that last point is one of the major reasons that I stick with Paizo and their products so firmly and haven't really been lured over by 5E, even though I am a pretty narrative-focused player and 5E is purportedly a better system for telling narrative. I like that Paizo has all their stuff under open licenses, and that it is easy to read. It makes me feel less like I am forced to purchase their products to enjoy the game, and so consequently I feel more like I am freely supporting them by buying those products anyway, which I do.

That and the fact that 5E seemed to hate accessible PDFs, but that is a different gripe and different discussion.

[Ascalaphus]

Arakasius wrote:

It doesn’t make sense to rush to errata the game unless it’s truly game breaking. And none of it is so far. It doesn’t unbalance things that wizards get one too many feats. The untrained not going to expert doesn’t even matter much unless you were being a melee sorcerer. And them mentioning that one opened up the question on mutagenists.

They need time to actually collect data and make an informed decision on changes. For example plenty have suggested that mutagenist first feature should be a +1 bonus to their mutagens when they use them and that does seem reasonable. However we have no idea what is coming in regards to the APG and the feats/features/archetypes that are in there that these changes might conflict with. They also don’t want to overreach and overbuff a class in answer to fixing a weak class. One thing I’m sure is on the table in some regards is adding an item to “increase your caster dc/attack by 1” if feedback and testing shows that casters need it I’m sure that will come back.

They’re doing a lot of work. There is the GMG that they’re working on (including releasing monster creation rules early), the next bestiary, the APG, errata, inevitable PTO that would come up after shipping a big product and you have to remember there is just 4 devs on PF2. Be a little patient on the errata there is plenty of valid reasons why it’s mot out yet.

Well, "rushing to errata" would be if they called their distributors to burn existing stock because they're doing an emergency corrected second printing.

I don't think the book is crippled by mistakes, I think the amount is actually on the low side compared to other books they've made of comparable size.

I do think they can speed up on the handling of bugs. Some of them are deep and require a substantial rethink (mutagenist), but others are simple typos (wizard feat) and could at least quickly be added to an errata or FAQ document. I would like if they made an effort to do the low-hanging fruit quickly.

Yes, they're doing a lot of work. But is it actually a good idea to load up your schedule this heavy after a product launch with more stuff? Every book you produce now creates dependencies that make it a bit harder to fix mistakes in the CRB. It also creates internal technical debt: you have to carefully check the work of freelancers to see if they aren't writing stuff based on erroneous rules (interpretations).

I realize that after all this work the developers need a breather. But it's also completely predictable that after a product launch of a really new product, a lot of product support is going to be needed. So you would want to provision resources for that.

[cetx]

Nothing's ever perfect. If Paizo waits until all errors are gone, then they'll never publish anything. I'd rather them release early, release often. As long as the errata is announced and easy to find, I'm happy to scribble in my CRB to make adjustments.

[KutuluKultist]

Every day earlier that a book comes out is one day earlier that money starts to come in. If one assumes that total lifetime sales are independent from release date, any publisher has reason to release as early as possible, that is as soon as the product is in a state that will not seriously impact sales. The money to make it has mostly been spend after all and profit is a function of time.

Paizo has been following a successful sales oriented strategy for many years now, continually testing out how many books their audience will.

They will not switch to a quality first strategy. And honestly, for a system designed for bloat, Pathfinder quality tends to be fine.

[Rysky]

KutuluKultist wrote:

They will not switch to a quality first strategy.

Errors are inevitable. Just because they exist doesn’t mean quality wasn’t strived for.

[Angel Hunter D]

Rysky wrote:

KutuluKultist wrote:

They will not switch to a quality first strategy.

Errors are inevitable. Just because they exist doesn’t mean quality wasn’t strived for.

And just because you want an A doesn't mean you don't flunk out.

[Rysky]

Angel Hunter D wrote:

Rysky wrote:

KutuluKultist wrote:

They will not switch to a quality first strategy.

Errors are inevitable. Just because they exist doesn’t mean quality wasn’t strived for.

And just because you want an A doesn't mean you don't flunk out.

If it’s only straight As or flunk with no inbetween I don’t know what to tell you.

I don’t consider any of the P2 lineup thus far to be flunks.

[Temperans]

It's clearly an example, nothing is perfect and everyone can and will at some point make mistakes.

We dont know what was a mistake and what was a success without talking about it.

[HeHateMe]

Rysky wrote:

KutuluKultist wrote:

They will not switch to a quality first strategy.

Errors are inevitable. Just because they exist doesn’t mean quality wasn’t strived for.

As someone who writes plans for a living, some of which are a few hundred pages long, I couldn't agree with you more, Rysky. No matter how many times I proofread a document, even when I get other people to proofread it as well, some typos and grammatical errors are inevitable. The little bastards always sneak through somehow.

[Rysky]

HeHateMe wrote:

Rysky wrote:

KutuluKultist wrote:

They will not switch to a quality first strategy.

Errors are inevitable. Just because they exist doesn’t mean quality wasn’t strived for.

As someone who writes plans for a living, some of which are a few hundred pages long, I couldn't agree with you more, Rysky. No matter how many times I proofread a document, even when I get other people to proofread it as well, some typos and grammatical errors are inevitable. The little bastards always sneak through somehow.

And they love to jump out of the bushes right when you hit send too >_<

[Master Pugwampi]

Rysky wrote:

HeHateMe wrote:

Rysky wrote:

KutuluKultist wrote:

They will not switch to a quality first strategy.

Errors are inevitable. Just because they exist doesn’t mean quality wasn’t strived for.

As someone who writes plans for a living, some of which are a few hundred pages long, I couldn't agree with you more, Rysky. No matter how many times I proofread a document, even when I get other people to proofread it as well, some typos and grammatical errors are inevitable. The little bastards always sneak through somehow.

And they love to jump out of the bushes right when you hit send too >_<

*flies out of the bushes in a bungee harness to mess with Rysky's post, but misses*

Ah, shoot.

*snaps fingers in disappointment, then gets yanked back into the concealing shrubbery by the bungee*

[Alsolomir]

The main reason that I feel they can accomplish the speed that they are now showing is because they set up a very intelligently modular approach to their classes. This allows them to create many options that won't break the game. This system is set up in a way that it is stable and requires minimal oversight to avoid disrupting the whole. As an example, there are only three categories of buffs; status, contingency and item. The multiclass options now require you to give up options to gain other options. The proficiency system always keeps players and monsters of the same level in a reasonable range of hit and miss success.

What I'm saying is that with a firm foundation you can fairly safely add features without breaking the system, with reasonable oversight.

With other aspects of the game, such as geography and history, they have 10 years of this world and can easily translate the ideas and changes they have created and changed over that time.

So, I think they have the system and background that allows them to put out new content rather quickly.

[Angel Hunter D]

Alsolomir wrote:

The main reason that I feel they can accomplish the speed that they are now showing is because they set up a very intelligently modular approach to their classes. This allows them to create many options that won't break the game. This system is set up in a way that it is stable and requires minimal oversight to avoid disrupting the whole. As an example, there are only three categories of buffs; status, contingency and item. The multiclass options now require you to give up options to gain other options. The proficiency system always keeps players and monsters of the same level in a reasonable range of hit and miss success.

What I'm saying is that with a firm foundation you can fairly safely add features without breaking the system, with reasonable oversight.

With other aspects of the game, such as geography and history, they have 10 years of this world and can easily translate the ideas and changes they have created and changed over that time.

So, I think they have the system and background that allows them to put out new content rather quickly.

I think you're right for the most part, but we do need to keep an eye out for "technical debt," I think thats the term? So we don't have books upon books of stuff that rely on a mistake or just a bad rule that's easy to fix now, which results in nothing being done.