PF1e is a great game. So is PF2e. Why are some folks treating these as mutually exclusive?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 63 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a Post.

Rather than address individual posts, I am unsure if the intent that this thread was started with, and the resulting conversation is valuable to have. Many seem to feel it is rehashed from past conversations and that many people are tired of hearing the same things.

With that in mind, I would encourage reflection on if this thread needs to continue, and if it continues, what can this subject provide of value to the community at this point? We do want to discourage dichotomization of PF1 and PF2 enjoyment, but this conversation has mostly hyperbolized the extremes of the argument in humor which may take some edge out of the conversation for some, and come across as patronizing to others. Please avoid saying things just because you know it will hurt the people on the other side of the argument, even if it does seem to put an emphasis on your point. Hyperbolizing any side of an argument tries to make someone look foolish for how they feel about something. Since this is a discussion based on preferences, that stabs right into the heart of the issue. Rehashing those points in ever greater extremes likely won't help the community decide to enjoy and let enjoy any game they want, and feel however a new edition makes them feel.

Please, if you continue, continue with mindfulness of the purpose and affect of the conversation.


Artofregicide wrote:
there's a billion other games I'd love to try out. The idea that falling in love with a new game means abandoning previous favorites is ridiculous to me.

It's called progress. The top of the notch becomes obsolete. You wouldn't drive a 50 year old car for anything but memory. Every new model makes the previous one old and you can say that a Ford T is a trashcan compared to modern cars.

That's the reason there's no D&D older editions in your list. Because, despite all you say, we can state rather objectively that D&D first edition is inferior in every way to more modern editions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
That's the reason there's no D&D older editions in your list. Because, despite all you say, we can state rather objectively that D&D first edition is inferior in every way to more modern editions.

1st edition maybe... but there's some hefty replay value to AD&D 2nd edition and the boxed set D&D game that later got compiled into the Rules Cyclopedia.


thenobledrake wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
That's the reason there's no D&D older editions in your list. Because, despite all you say, we can state rather objectively that D&D first edition is inferior in every way to more modern editions.
1st edition maybe... but there's some hefty replay value to AD&D 2nd edition and the boxed set D&D game that later got compiled into the Rules Cyclopedia.

I run B/X via Old School Essentials, not for nostalgia either. It is a simple system with harsh stakes and the mechanics present an entirely different experience to most modern systems.

As for 3.x systems. I am unlikely to ever run one again, the time vs payoff when it comes to running a game past level 7 is just not worth it for me. I love concepting characters out, but when it comes to playing them I am fairly flat and feel restricted in play.

It isn't for me, likely never was. I didn't have better options at the time, now I do. PF2e despite everything I love about it, has a number of deficits which keep me running other fantasy RPGs.

This is to say, in the 19 years of running/playing 3.x games I enjoyed it more in spite of the core system rather than because of it. If a PF2e topic warrants or asks for comparisons and they drive a conversation forward then no special dispensation to criticism needs to be given just because of PF1e's venerable status.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artofregicide wrote:
Kasoh wrote:
Artofregicide wrote:
I don't get why everything has to be a competition - especially between two products from the same company.

PF1 died so that PF2 may live. Its noble sacrifice will be remembered by the people who keep playing it until they don't.

If you like PF1 and wanted more content from it, then obviously the introduction of PF2 is something hostile to you. It isn't a competition, because PF1 is no longer being developed for. There is a finite amount of content to play through now.

Lovecraft influences aside, I really enjoy the Lost Omens setting. If I want to continue to follow developments in it, I have to switch or buy books I can't use and do conversion work I don't have time for.

And if you game with people who are willing to run multiple systems or play multiple games then you're in a great position. A lot of people do not have the luxury of time and money to own multiple game systems, know the mechanics of those systems enough to enjoy it, and play them.

I play PF1 twice a week (down from three) and PF2 once a month and I consider myself someone who plays a lot. For people who have trouble getting their group together consistently, the notion of playing multiple systems is probably laughable. And the commitment of a game system for a year or two of play in a campaign means that yes, you abandon old favorites.

I'm going to be charitable and hope that you just didn't read my post very closely.

I'm not saying that Paizo should maintain two different editions. Nowhere was that brought up. PF1e has 10 years of material under it's belt, I think that's plenty.

People still play D&D1e. And have fun. Or traveller. If you want to play the newest, flashiest thing, good for you. If your group wants to play GURPS, hey, that's cool too.

Obviously, most of us have more games than time. That's just life. I'm not talking about whatever game(s) you choose to play, that 100% up to your table.

I'm talking about acting like that somehow...

I think the problem is... Well people barely have time to keep up with 1 rpg system. And well a new one comes and then you need to justify staying with the one before or going with the new. Then later it gets to mob mentality, i don't think most people hate one or the other system. But because they need to justify their purchase... It goes bad.

Also trolls and the fact that the old must 'die' so the new can succeed does not help.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:
Also trolls and the fact that the old must 'die' so the new can succeed does not help.

There is an equal size trolling element devoted to the idea of "kill the new thing in its crib so they'll go back to the old." The point some of us are trying to make is their neither of those views are necessary.

Like PF1? There is 10 years worth of PF1 content, and 10 years worth of easily adaptable 3.X content. With 20 years of material to use in your campaign, PF1 will continue to be around for a very long time.

Like PF2? Get on board the train, we're pulling out of the station and headed that-a-way.

Like OD&D, AD&D, 2e, 3.x, 4e, 5e, OWoD, NWoD, CoD, GURPS, Traveler, GeneSys, whatever...? Good. Play what you like, do what you like, you're limited only by your preferences and your imagination.

The problem is when you start telling other people what their opinion SHOULD BE about the game you like, or espousing to them that your opinion of that game is fact and more valid than theirs.

This whole industry is a subjective medium driven by personal taste and opinion. Let's try to be cognizant of that and let people express their opinion of products without feeling like it's an attack against our own taste and experience.


New to the post just tossing in.

I play both games concurrently myself


dirtypool wrote:
oholoko wrote:
Also trolls and the fact that the old must 'die' so the new can succeed does not help.

There is an equal size trolling element devoted to the idea of "kill the new thing in its crib so they'll go back to the old." The point some of us are trying to make is their neither of those views are necessary.

Like PF1? There is 10 years worth of PF1 content, and 10 years worth of easily adaptable 3.X content. With 20 years of material to use in your campaign, PF1 will continue to be around for a very long time.

Like PF2? Get on board the train, we're pulling out of the station and headed that-a-way.

Like OD&D, AD&D, 2e, 3.x, 4e, 5e, OWoD, NWoD, CoD, GURPS, Traveler, GeneSys, whatever...? Good. Play what you like, do what you like, you're limited only by your preferences and your imagination.

The problem is when you start telling other people what their opinion SHOULD BE about the game you like, or espousing to them that your opinion of that game is fact and more valid than theirs.

This whole industry is a subjective medium driven by personal taste and opinion. Let's try to be cognizant of that and let people express their opinion of products without feeling like it's an attack against our own taste and experience.

O no i am talking about the old must die not as a troll. But as a 'sales person'. Troll is when you want it to die just because, but not launching pf1 anymore for example is a calculated move because paizo can't keep printing pf1 new content and launch pf2.

I am not saying it's wrong or anything but the old must die mentality can come from a place of change and not from a troll space got it? I don't know if i am expressing myself well haha.

And yeah there's a healthy debate in there too of people talking about how others should stick to PF1 specially since pf2 content is too basic yet. And pf2 mecanics are quite a bit simplified. And there's the same debate but why the change should be made.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
oholoko wrote:
O no i am talking about the old must die not as a troll. But as a 'sales person'. Troll is when you want it to die just because, but not launching pf1 anymore for example is a calculated move because paizo can't keep printing pf1 new content and launch pf2.

What does it matter who is saying it or why they're saying it? If someone is a proponent of PF2 and is saying that PF1 should be left to die, why do we have to have a debate about that? If someone doesn't like PF2 and is saying it isn't worth the paper it's printed on, why do we have to have a debate about that?

Why do we have to have a debate about how to have a debate that has no value?

There is no purpose here. PF1 is there and it's not going anywhere, those who enjoy it can continue to do so in peace. PF2 is here and it's not going anywhere, those who enjoy it can continue to do so in peace.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I've not looked, are pf2 players going to the pf1 section to talk about how bad it is? If not so then the bad actors are only operating in one direction.


In the end, there can be only one.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For me, it isn't that I didn't love PF1. I started roleplaying with 3.5 D&D, and after 4e D&D didn't allow me to tell the stories I wanted to tell, finding Pathfinder was an incredible relief for me.

However, from 3.5 on, I've always made the stories work more despite the system than because of it. Oh, I love the options, the variety of the game, the way you could do so incredibly much with characters... but at the same time, as the one usually GMing, it was an enormous drain on my time and energy.

I was just about to the point of throwing in the towel on Pathfinder when Starfinder was announced. I gave that a try, but while it fixed a few of the issues I had with Pathfinder, it didn't fix enough of them (and it introduced other major issues with it, but I digress). I'm an author now, and the time I spend working on trying to balance a game draws on the same 'well' as what I use for writing. It just doesn't work anymore, not for me.

I'm burnt out on 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e. Not because I don't love the games, but because I can't put in the time to force them to work anymore. I just can't.

Pathfinder 2e doesn't fix all of that, but it appears to fix a lot of it. I've been idly working on ways to convert Starfinder stuff to PF2's engine, and overall I'm pleased with how it looks so far. I think that Pathfinder 2e is significantly better balanced than PF1, but that doesn't make it perfect. It just makes it better for me.

51 to 63 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / PF1e is a great game. So is PF2e. Why are some folks treating these as mutually exclusive? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.