| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still here. Still writing for PFRPG. I'm thinking about starting up a Pathfinder 1e game over Fantasy Grounds in the new year. Message me if you are interested.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are parts of 2E I do like, but those parts are mainly just stuff from Pathfinder Unchained with a little more polish.
The rest of it is just something me and my friends aren't interested in. It seems like a fine game and all, it's just not for us.
We still have some 1E adventure paths to play and I'm homebrewing some stuff, plus i'm in the middle of converting Dragon Mountain from AD&D2 to Pathfinder.
It is a shame Paizo doesn't have any more content for me to buy. Really wish they had done up a Worldscape source book before going to 2E but ah well. I'm looking at a lot of 3rd party stuff now for new things instead.
Me and mine will be sticking with 1e simply because that is the game we enjoy playing
We're two groups playing PF1. Not going to Play the new game.
But ... we started to play Savage Worlds Adventure Edition - pretty cool!
Friendly reminder: every time anybody posts "I'm not switching over ... I have enough PF1 books to last me a lifetime!", you validate Paizo's decision to put out a new edition. After all, there's no money to be made on you anymore.
Unless, of course, you don't actually have enough books to last that lifetime and you'd keep buying new ones and this was just a rhetoric figure to make you feel better about your decision to stick with PF1 :)
I've always supported Paizo through the Golarion sourcebooks, which I buy and read for fun (marking it as the ONLY campaign world EVER I do that for, bar a few scattered bits of Rolemaster's Middle Earth books, and even that was ostesibly to run a game once), in lieu of the rulebooks. (Plus some APs[1].) Which I will continue to do when they bring out stuff for new areas. I wasn't buying much of PF1 rulebooks to start with. (As until as recently as September, we were still playing predominatly 3.5 with a few bits of PF1.)
That said, PF1E being around with the wiki is what actually encouraged me to get more APs, since it meant (with a little[2] tweaking), I could run them more or less as is, rather than converting everything like I did when I ran AD&D modules.
[1]It is just a sobering thought when you hit 40, you're not the oldest of your group and you realise that there probably isn't much point getting any more in (unless then REALLY, REALLY appeal), when you still haven't finished the first two you started and it takes approximately 3 years (in chunks) to get through one and that you have over ten currently and that, not including stuff like the other DM's Starfinder games, that by the time you could have played all of those, your gaming group could very well have started to attriciate due to old age.
[2]Actually, as of last revision, estremely extensive revisioning, our rules are now arguably a goodly chunk more PF1 than 3.5.
Looks like I will not be gaming this coming Sunday because of work. If the gaming group still gets together they should finish the first AP of Strange Aeons, so at least I will get to level up my character.
| 21 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth saying that most players (including every single one I know) don't give a damn if they are "validating Paizo's decision".
No one is trying to sabotage Paizo. We simply don't like PF2e. At least not as much as we like PF1e. And certainly not enough to spend hundreds/thousands of dollars on it.
Paizo is free to sell whatever product they want. If I like it, I will buy it. If I don't, I won't.
If Paizo can make do without the money from those that didn't join PF2e, good for them! If they can't... Tough luck. I don't care either way. I just want to play and support a game I love, and PF2e isn't it.
Learning a new ruleset? Ain't nobody got time for that!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wasn't able to play last session because of work but next time I will be on vacation. Sad I missed the final battle of volume one but at least I got to level my character.
MaUC, I agree with everything you just said.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Learning new rules is fine, liking new rules is the issue.;)
Another big reason for not going to another edition(or another game completely) is money. I do not have as much extra cash to spent on stuff like this, like I used to. So even if I was interested in 2nd Ed, I just can't afford to buy everything I want translated from 1st Ed all over again. I really do wish that 2nd Ed was more a 1.5 with the same basic mechanics, classes, races, etc. but improve the areas it really needed like simpler/streamlined class mechanics(not simpler classes), some combat and feat fixes, better stat progression, less relying on magic equipment, make magic items feel magical again, 3 action system, fix the problem spells(but not all magic), only really needed a few tweaks to the skill system, etc.
Anyway glad to see that are still 1st Ed players still around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Running 2 APs right now so not in the foreseeable future.
Also been playing this system pretty much since launch in 2000. I know it pretty well and I know it odd faults. I do not see 2e as an improvement, just a different game. Some things in it I like more than 1e, but not enough to make me think it would be a better or a more fun experience for me.
Starting up a new campaign here in the next couple of weeks after changing work schedules broke up my old group.
I did stop buying Paizo products when they stopped supporting 1e.
There's still at least twice as many games for PF1 as for PF2 on Roll20. I'm honestly not sure how PF2 is sustainable at this point. Maybe there are a lot of people buying the books but not playing the game? Or maybe there is something about PF2 that is deflating its Roll20 numbers compared to other sources of gaming?
My suspicion is that at the end of August we will see a dial back of product publication.
Keep in mind a "dial back" is not "dead". I just think they'll have a schedule more similar to Starfinder, as the two seem to be pulling similar numbers.
I have no idea how long Paizo can keep on as they are before they are "dead". The numbers are very hidden. We don't know how much money they have. And we don't know how much less they are making per book than back in the golden age of PF1.
PF2 seems to have been done because PF1 wasn't making much money though, so I'd say the current level of popularity is at least slightly alarming.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no idea how long Paizo can keep on as they are before they are "dead". The numbers are very hidden. We don't know how much money they have. And we don't know how much less they are making per book than back in the golden age of PF1.
PF2 seems to have been done because PF1 wasn't making much money though, so I'd say the current level of popularity is at least slightly alarming.
You have no sales data, and you're basing your opinion on roll20 that's full of ongoing PF1 campaigns. Heck, I'm still running two PF1 campaigns despite having torched all my PDFs of that outdated and redundant system.
The only guesstimate we have advises some caution with the Nostradamus route.
You have no sales data, and you're basing your opinion on roll20 that's full of ongoing PF1 campaigns. Heck, I'm still running two PF1 campaigns despite having torched all my PDFs of that outdated and redundant system.
I'm only looking at the LFG. So, ongoing campaigns are becoming less of a factor as both games have some of those in the LFG. I'm also comparing fresh games that aren't pay to play. There are about half as many people starting new PF2 games as PF1 games.
I guess I could see if Warhorn could be searched for similar statistics, for a second opinion.
So, the Warhorn numbers look a little better, but that is a site more about Society play. PF2 has about 10% more games on Warhorn than PF1. These numbers are pretty fuzzy too, considering that for people who are in a "campaign" with their PF1 character, there are people who have already burned through all of the PF1 content and have moved to PF2.
Still, if the point was to make more money than PF1 was making, then I don't think a current 10% advantage over the old game is meeting that goal.
In case it confuses someone, that doesn't mean that Paizo is making 10% more money, because of PF2. It means that they are not making much money on PF1 and instead relying on money from a game that only has a 10% advantage. The assumption being that the time taken from one could have been used to play the other.
Maybe, people play elsewhere than Roll20 and Warhorn?
That was a possibility I mentioned, but I can't think of why the numbers would be significantly skewed compared to home games. Nothing about PF1 seems more fitting to Roll20 than PF2. If anything, a newer game would seem to draw a younger audience who would be more likely to take to online play. The skew between Warhorn and Roll20 makes sense, because Warhorn is mostly for scheduling Society games. And the current Society season is PF2. I've never been sure how much of the customer base are Society vs non-Society. I doubt there will ever be a number on that.
Also we're all still learning the system, I'm not comfortable yet to run a game with it.
It's possible. But what are the hopes of a game that many of us haven't gotten around to after half a year?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also we're all still learning the system, I'm not comfortable yet to run a game with it.
Same. I still have to sit down and actually read the rules in their entirely rather than look up snippets.
It's possible. But what are the hopes of a game that many of us haven't gotten around to after half a year?
Maybe all the lapsed players it tempted back and new players it collected from 5E? The ones that aren't established here on the forums or anywhere you are actually looking?
If you're not the target audience, you probably have a huge blind spot to what is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe if they slow down on pf2 we can get the rest of the hard backs in pocket editions?
What if everyone's just playing in real life, not online?
But why? What is it about PF2 that would encourage home play over online play, compared to PF1? Do you think the newer PF2 game is more likely to attract an audience that is uncomfortable with online gaming? Does PF2 have some rule that wouldn't translate well to online play, compared to PF1?
I'm more worried about the opposite question: "What if most are just playing online and not in real life?"
What if everyone's just playing in real life, not online?But why? What is it about PF2 that would encourage home play over online play, compared to PF1? Do you think the newer PF2 game is more likely to attract an audience that is uncomfortable with online gaming? Does PF2 have some rule that wouldn't translate well to online play, compared to PF1?
I'm more worried about the opposite question: "What if most are just playing online and not in real life?"
I have no clue what the long-term or medium-term viability of PF2 is and beyond wishing Paizo well don't care.
That said, it would actually make sense to me for more/most people to start learning/playing a new game face-to-face than remotely. I can absolutely see a group of people who know how to play a particular game opting to do so electronically if they can't get together IRL. On the other hand, learning a new game while people are distributed... that seems harder. Not impossible. Just (much) less efficient and likely. It's so much easier to discuss/research/learn rules in a group setting than in a play-by-post or chat environment.
The online games pretty much all use discord. So, discussion is much the same. The only thing you really miss are the nonverbal cues.
The roll20 numbers are from its LFG, so aren’t much effected by pre-existing groups. Rather, the older game is more likely to have missing representation, as once you find a good online group for a game you tend to stick with them through multiple campaigns and not renter the LFG.
I don't play online and I am very thankful that I have a local gaming group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the Warhorn numbers look a little better, but that is a site more about Society play. PF2 has about 10% more games on Warhorn than PF1. These numbers are pretty fuzzy too, considering that for people who are in a "campaign" with their PF1 character, there are people who have already burned through all of the PF1 content and have moved to PF2.
Still, if the point was to make more money than PF1 was making, then I don't think a current 10% advantage over the old game is meeting that goal.
In case it confuses someone, that doesn't mean that Paizo is making 10% more money, because of PF2. It means that they are not making much money on PF1 and instead relying on money from a game that only has a 10% advantage. The assumption being that the time taken from one could have been used to play the other.
on the 31st December, Lisa Stevens said she’s happy with how PF2 is doing. I suppose she could be lying, but it wasn’t a press release or anything, just a messageboard chat and she didn’t have to wander in to the discussion - she could have just stayed silent. I’d put more store in that than on online gaming statistics in the first couple of years of PF2’s life.
She mentioned that there is always a drop off of games being played with a new edition as everyone is still winding up their old games. If you wanted to measure stats (I doubt this is easily available). You’d be better off watching what happens to groups that finish a campaign, rather than raw numbers.
And some people will never change, which is also cool. It is great when you are able to give people their perfect game on the first go around and also give them a lifetime of content to play with that game. Actually quite proud that we seem to have done that for quite a few people.
But make no mistake, Pathfinder 2 is doing really well and I expect will continue to grow over the next five years or so. So many new customers in the marketplace that it is the most fertile ground to launch a new edition on in the history of our industry.
She looks to me to be very pleased that there are lots of people sticking with PF1 and to be focussing on winning new customers from the recent influx of new customers to the market, rather than trying to persuade PF1 players to convert.
She looks to me to be very pleased that there are lots of people sticking with PF1 and to be focussing on winning new customers from the recent influx of new customers to the market, rather than trying to persuade PF1 players to convert.
This makes sense. Existing players will either convert or they won't. If the GM wants to keep going with PF 1e, the group will stick. If a Pathfinder Society player wants to keep playing once they run out of adventures to play in, they'll convert. Education existing players, sure, And some will come, but focus on growing the field.
Strangely, book sales aren’t always an indication of how many people are playing a game and vice versa. I used to own many 4E books but never got to play a single game of it. Yet there are probably people who played multiple 4E campaigns but never bought a book for it.
I guess as a publisher, Paizo only cares about book sales. If book sales are fine, then good for Paizo.
I guess as a publisher, Paizo only cares about book sales. If book sales are fine, then good for Paizo.
As a publisher, I can say those that play the game don't immediately impact the bottom line, they impact it over the long haul. This thread alone at least one person has said they stopped buying Paizo products since they went 2e. That is a person not playing the game. If someone starts off buying the books but can't find a group, eventually they'll stop buying as well.