|
Hi Everyone,
This is just a quick thought.
I am finally getting around to run an Anniversary Edition of the Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign using Pathfinder 1st Edition rules.
I recently picked up the Core Rulebook for 2nd Edition. And I had a thought about converting my campaign, currently near the end of the Edge of Anarchy, to Second Edition.
But in looking, it was clear it would not work. Second Edition currently does not have the flexibility to convert the characters from the First Edition campaign. That made me think:
And this may have been addressed many times before, but is Paizo moving completely away from First Edition?
From what I can tell, they really are two very different game systems. Second Edition is much simpler. And though there are strengths to this, the complexity of First Edition has an audience too.
I am curious. And this may have been announced and I missed it, but will Paizo write any more APs for 1st Edition. Or at least, will they make their APs compatible for both?
Forgive me if this has been addressed.
Good Gaming,
Mazra
This is all personal anecdote and opinion so take it with a grain of salt:
2e is Paizo's response to DnD 5e, hence the simplicity to it, and going back to 1e in any sense would come across as 2e being a flight of fancy which they wouldn't want to do when competing with the pop culture phenomenon that 5e became.
As nice as it would be to get a few more 1e splatbooks or even just an AP, it just won't be happening.
That said, I'm happy 2e is continuing to play in Golarion, there's plenty of neat little plot threads that'll continue to be tied off for as long as 2e continues to sound like a good idea to Paizo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure others will be able to point up specific quotes or posts where Paizo has said that they are all-in on their PF2 and won't be releasing new products for PF1, but I wanted to respond to this:
2e is Paizo's response to DnD 5e
I think that both DnD5E and PF2 are both in response to the industry, not necessarily that Paizo's design is responding to DnD5E. Yes, PF1 (and any 3.x game) offers a lot of complexity, and a lot of people like that, but that makes it harder to get new players into the game, and it makes the game harder to balance at higher levels. My guess is that PF2 would still have been simpler even had DnD5E never existed.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is all personal anecdote and opinion so take it with a grain of salt:
As nice as it would be to get a few more 1e splatbooks or even just an AP, it just won't be happening.
Thanks for your personal anecdote and opinion. This is actually what I was looking for.
It sounds like Paizo will simply move away from 1st edition. And from a practical business way, that likely makes the most sense.
However, from another business perspective it may not make sense. This may be a poor example for some of you, but how many would go to McDonalds if there were only Happy Meals available? Some of us want Big Macs or Double Cheeseburgers. The point is that, if possible, supporting both game systems could actually generate revenue from both systems for Paizo.
Paizo built Pathfinder into a juggernaut because Wizards abandoned 3.5e for 4e. So which gaming company will step in and revive Pathfinder 1st edition into the next great RPG? Too bad it doesn't sound like it will be Paizo.
Again, thanks for your input.
Mazra
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They stopped releasing APs for PF1 in the middle of 2019, with the last book of Tyrant's Grasp. And it doesn't look like they plan any AP which works for both editions.
A few new products from Paizo are edition-neutral: Maps, pawns, dice etc.. There is more from 3rd-party publishers (Corefinder etc.), the community (monster backports) and Owlcat Games (Wrath of the Righteous as computer game), so First Edition still gets new content, just way slower than before.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just recently picked up the Pathfinder 2E Core Rulebook. And though there is a ton of differences there is also a ton of things alike to 1E.
Printing things cost big bucks. But edited PDFs, though labor intensive, could be a thought if time spent equals or exceed revenue generated. It is all about the gold, man.
I am wondering if Paizo has fully fallen in to the Wizard's mindset of not supporting prior editions. Ironically, Paizo benefited greatly from Wizard's lapse of maintaining legacy products. As Humans, we sometime have a bad habit or repeating the same mistakes from the past.
I am wondering if Paizo has fully fallen in to the Wizard's mindset of not supporting prior editions. Ironically, Paizo benefited greatly from Wizard's lapse of maintaining legacy products. As Humans, we sometime have a bad habit or repeating the same mistakes from the past.
To be fair, Paizo added several pocket editions of PF1 lately, including Curse of the Crimson Throne. The PF1 books are still for sale here (well, the physical ones as long as they have them), the PF1 boards are still online and there even was a Humble Bundle in 2020 with many PF1 books.
There was some discussion in the community whether Paizo should release APs for both editions. An argument against it was: They would compete with themselves, as WotC did during DnD 3.0 with their many campaign settings.
Personally I'd like to see a PF1 version of Abomination Vaults (the first three PF2 APs aren't interesting IMO), but porting it back might still be worth it.
Paizo has made it pretty clear they've moved away from PF1e, though they're still finishing things up.
In terms of conversation, it's very doable, though keep in mind that 2e and 1e are very much different systems and there's no 1:1 compatibility like there was for PF1e and 3.5. Think more PF1e and 5e.
I'm planning to convert a 1e campaign to 2e soonish and there's no mesmerist class out, so that will be challenging.
I'm rather amazed by the number of ideas that 5e took from PF1e, but people somehow assume were spun from ether or something.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is because I noticed that there was so much that was different between 1E and 2E is why I created this thread.
If Paizo has made it CLEAR that they have moved away from 1E, then they have either done their homework and saw that trying to maintain both in some way was not economically feasible, or they have not done their homework and they have made a very poor business decision.
I think there is an audience for both. But I have no data to support this idea.
I for one have not left 1E. I have thought about starting a D&D 5E campaign, but we jumped into CotCT instead. Some day I may try a PF 2E campaign, but there is still a lot of APs I have yet to run. And it is all about story telling. And there are some great PF 1E stories I have yet to tell.
I'm rather amazed by the number of ideas that 5e took from PF1e, but people somehow assume were spun from ether or something.
I would love to read some elaboration on this. I'm much less familiar with 5E than with PF, but I haven't noticed anything like this.
I'm rather amazed by the number of ideas that 5e took from PF1e, but people somehow assume were spun from ether or something.I would love to read some elaboration on this. I'm much less familiar with 5E than with PF, but I haven't noticed anything like this.
At will cantrips, to start.
It's a small, random thing, but the ogre mage is now an oni in 5e.
The roll twice take the higher/lower system pre-existed both systems, but it was pretty fleshed out in PF1e.
Skill consolidation (both in the core game and the unchained? rules).
I had a list a long time ago, for the life of me I can't find it now.
Obviously, wizards would never admit to taking inspiration from another system, but there's plenty of concepts that 5e takes advantage of (to various degrees of success) that we're developed in a decade of PF1e.
In the same way that there's plenty of stuff in PF2e (scaling cantrips, consolidated proficiency bonus that is pretty obviously inspired by 5e).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you look at the greater world of rpg publications and other tabletop gaming, no company goes back to a previous edition. Ever. It's always move forward and make a new edition.
D&D has had 6 editions over 46 years (8 editions if you count revised AD&D and 3.5e).
Vampire the Masquerade had 5 editions over 20 years.
Shadowrun had 6 editions over 31 years.
Warhammer 40k had 9 editions over 33 years.
Pathfinder 1e had a long run compared to many other games. Baring the company going under, we can expect many more editions of Pathfinder to come.
As for similarities between various editions of D&D and Pathfinder, go take a look at the list of authors on various products from both companies and you will notice there's some of the same people who've worked on both.
Obviously, wizards would never admit to taking inspiration from another system, but there's plenty of concepts that 5e takes advantage of (to various degrees of success) that we're developed in a decade of PF1e.
In the same way that there's plenty of stuff in PF2e (scaling cantrips, consolidated proficiency bonus that is pretty obviously inspired by 5e).
Well, Paizo didn't make up hero points either, they added it from somewhere else (can't track it down at the moment). And never bothered to inform readers about the roots of the idea, so it's easy to get the impression it was their original idea.
However, copying ideas is a good thing in general. It gives game designers a way larger pool of ideas to work with, so the resulting game tends to be significantly better. I'd wager to say that most of the very popular games are grounded on a lot of copy (and modify) work. Even if you are the one who gets copied you can still investigate how the copy works out, in a different system, with some modifications - which is valuable input for your future work. I wouldn't like a game industry where everyone desperately tries to make up something unique, ignoring or avoiding all the ideas and lessons from other games. Weird games like Black & White or Spore come to my mind - lauded by the press, but easily forgotten by many players.
Of course, contributing some own ideas to the genre with every game should be a given. This way you offer players new things to explore, yourself a challenge where you can be curious how it turns out, and finally your fellow game designers something to copy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you look at the greater world of rpg publications and other tabletop gaming, no company goes back to a previous edition. Ever. It's always move forward and make a new edition.
Thanks for your input. It does look this way.
However, this point is valid. Paizo benefited greatly from Wizards abandoning 3.5. They took that solid game system and built Pathfinder.
Now it does look like Paizo will do as all these other companies have done an abandon their prior work. After all, that is how everyone else has done it before. But is that the smartest move?
The reason Pathfinder 1E worked was because it was built on a tried and true system. That tried and true system is still there. It is likely that Legendary Games, or someone like them, will benefit from Paizo' s move just as Paizo benefited from Wizard's move.
Que sera, sera.
Cheers,
Mazra
|
|
We live in a world run by capitalism. There's more profit in making new versions then there is in sticking with the same thing. There's also an underlying cultural belief that newer = better
That aside, I also thing pf2 had a lot to do with the people at Paizo wanting to do their own thing. They'd been the guys who revamped D&D 3.5 for a decade. They probably wanted to move on, create something new, create something their own, not just a derivative of other peoples' work. I think you can see this reflected in how they doubled down on integrating their game setting into the rules for pf2.
And lastly, there's a ton of content for pf1. Even for those of us who play an excessive amount, there's still many many more years of games to be played with the system without needing new material released.
Obviously, wizards would never admit to taking inspiration from another system, but there's plenty of concepts that 5e takes advantage of (to various degrees of success) that we're developed in a decade of PF1e.
In the same way that there's plenty of stuff in PF2e (scaling cantrips, consolidated proficiency bonus that is pretty obviously inspired by 5e).
Well, Paizo didn't make up hero points either, they added it from somewhere else (can't track it down at the moment). And never bothered to inform readers about the roots of the idea, so it's easy to get the impression it was their original idea.
However, copying ideas is a good thing in general. It gives game designers a way larger pool of ideas to work with, so the resulting game tends to be significantly better. I'd wager to say that most of the very popular games are grounded on a lot of copy (and modify) work. Even if you are the one who gets copied you can still investigate how the copy works out, in a different system, with some modifications - which is valuable input for your future work. I wouldn't like a game industry where everyone desperately tries to make up something unique, ignoring or avoiding all the ideas and lessons from other games. Weird games like Black & White or Spore come to my mind - lauded by the press, but easily forgotten by many players.
Of course, contributing some own ideas to the genre with every game should be a given. This way you offer players new things to explore, yourself a challenge where you can be curious how it turns out, and finally your fellow game designers something to copy.
Oh, I completely agree that each generation of RPGs is somewhat derivative, hopefully of the best parts of the previous. PF1e was obviously not spun out of pure ether either.
Just find it funny when people say "I hate x game, x newer game is far superior" they don't realize how much in common the two have.
The farther you go back, it obviously with indie games the less this is true.
Spore was forgotten primarily because it was an unfinished, over promised and under performing product. A bit of a NMS before it's time.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have found that PF1E has hit the sweet spot for myself. I don't intend on changing to 2E. I have read through the rule set a few times and even done some comparison analysis and play testing and I simply don't like it and I find it a poor advancement from 1E to something better. That is a purely a personal opinion based on 42 years of RPG experience and what I prefer as a player and a GM.
What I have decided to do is go through the PF1E ruleset and make a complete set of house rules that suit my GM style including the 3PP material I like as a GM. There are few things I liked from the PF2E play test but those didn't seem to carry over that I will probably add as well. That is going to take me some time...I am interested in CoreFinder but as I read it I am starting to lean away from it as well.
I started playing D&D back in the late 70's as a kid (78ish). So I have played through basic, 1E, 2E, 3E, and 3.5E. I stopped at 4E when I thought it was a complete rip off to move from 3.5E to 4. Plus I didn't care for the changes they made in 4E which I thought was a complete dumb down of the game (it seemed like they wanted to turn table top RPG into a video game). There was a lot of complexity in 3.5 but the 4E rule set was just poorly crafted (again my opinion). I have zero desire to move back to D&D and their continued iterations. PF1E did a much better job of revising the ruleset and frankly Paizo lost a lot of credibility with their abandonment of the PF1E with me (not that it matters ).
I also find it a bit ridiculous that the driving theory in the RPG world is that you have to create a new edition to make money. That is a head scratcher for me for a lot of reasons I won't bother going into but again it is personal opinion but having gone through this numerous times I know they lose people every time they do it so I would be very interested in real data showing they are actually growing their player base with these new editions (it is highly doubtful).
I am fifty now and just don't have any desire to learn a new rule set when there is so much quality content from old D&D resources along with 3.5E and PF1E 3PP. I would rather spend my money on the PF1E material and the 3PP material associated with it. If I run across 2E material I want to convert (cool stories/adventures) I will.
(I will stop ranting...)
Jack
|
|
If you purchased a chair 20 years ago and tried to find that exact same model of chair new today, you probably wouldn't. Making new versions of things to drive sales isn't exactly a rpg specific issue. It's pervasive throughout every business as one of the fundamental ideologies of capitalism.
That said, there are thriving second hand markets for everything, including rpgs. Pick any rpg and go troll some forums and you'll find people playing every edition that was made for it. Pf1 was a popular game with a long run of publications. There will be people playing it for many years to come.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have found that PF1E has hit the sweet spot for myself. I don't intend on changing to 2E. I have read through the rule set a few times and even done some comparison analysis and play testing and I simply don't like it and I find it a poor advancement from 1E to something better. That is a purely a personal opinion based on 42 years of RPG experience and what I prefer as a player and a GM.
To say we are kindred would be an understatement. I have been DMing campaigns since the late 70's. Yes. I am old. But it was precisely your sentiments that made me start this thread. I realized that it would be impossible to convert an existing 1E campaign into a 2E campaign. And the simple reason is that 2E lacked the complexity.
As ALLENDM said, Pathfinder 1E is the SWEEET SPOT. 3.5 was close to the SWEET SPOT. If anything needs to happen, it should be tweaks on the crowning jewel, things that can make the best system work better, Pathfinder 1.25. (You need room for growth.). Pathfinder 1E is not like a 20 year old chair. It is brand like Cadillac.
Paizo became what they became on the 3.5 game system. Giving it up would be like General Motors giving up Cadillac. Really!!! How does that financially make sense?
I get the need to create new systems. New system sells books and Paizo is a publisher. Selling books is their business. But General Motors does not only have Cadillac. They have Chevrolet too, Pontiac, etc.. Does it make sense to give up an entire brand? Pathfinder 1E is a far more advanced game system. Simpler? No. More complex. Yes! It is the Cadillac of RPG game systems. And with Cadillacs you pay more for what you get. PAIZO, do you get this point?
Cheers,
Mazra
|
The boss at Paizo, Lisa Stevens, has described several times on various Auntie Lisa’s story time episodes that dnd2e (and TSR itself) was destroyed by splitting the fan base and revived by the OGL.
I can’t imagine Paizo will ever create a new campaign setting or support separate fantasy RPGs.
I seem to remember that Starfinder nearly never happened for the same reason.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the fact that there is a PF 2E already splitting the fan base?
TSR was bought out by Wizards, which in turn was bought by Hasbro.
The OGL is what gave Paizo life and the ability to create Pathfinder from the 3.5 system. Wizards did not benefit from the OGL, at least not by much.
Now Fifth Edition revived the D&D brand for Wizards. Before that Pathfinder 1E was king. Fourth Edition was all but a dead RPG system. But then Fourth Edition was a terrible system.
Don't get me wrong, Fifth Edition and PF 2E may have their place in the world. Fifth Edition is very popular. But at present, I have no interest in moving to PF2E or D&D5E.
There is a reason 3.5 did not go away. There were way too many of us that did not like 4E and stuck with 3.5. Pathfinder was the lifeline. And there is many of us still with Pathfinder 1E. If Paizo doesn't throw us a lifeline, then someone else will. Just like Paizo did with PF1e. It is amazing how some things come back around full circle.
Give us a better gaming system than 3.5/PF 1E and I may go to it and never look back.
I am not convinced that either 5E or PF 2E are better gaming systems.
YMMV
|
Not in the way you’re thinking since Paizo is no longer producing P1 content. TSR was producing multiple settings that competed with each other. Starfinder and P2 don’t have that issue.
And you made many others may not have liked 4th edition (I didn’t, aside from the art) but to call it a dead system is very misleading. It sold well, with Pathfinder only beating it in one sales quarter I believe.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How many people are still playing D&D 4E? There maybe some. But I doubt it is anywhere near the numbers sticking with PF1E.
4E had sales because it was D&D. They had sales on the strength of the Brand Name. It took a while for Pathfinder to build its Brand Name. But where is 4E now?
I guess you could say that PF1E is heading that same way. However, the big difference is that PF1E is a great game system. 4E never was. Again,YMMV.
I honestly believe there will be too many PF1 players and GMs that will feel that the other systems are a dumbing down their RPG.
If Paizo gives up the product, then someone, ironically like Paizo previously, will pick up the mantle. The OGL is still out there.
I appreciate the discussion.
Cheers,
Mazra
|
|
For me it was the company's awful community interaction that killed 4e, nothing to do with the rule set. Wotc cut all ties with the fans who organized games and wrote scenarios for their living campaign, putting an end to the rpga (an organization that had been operating for over 30 years). Then for the final nail in the coffin, they axed the Greyhawk campaign setting completely. They couldn't have done a better job at alienating their fan base if they tried.
The advertising for 4e was also a slap in the face to me, featuring a tiefling murdering a gnome and laughing about how they were the hero now and gnomes were monsters (there was no gnome race in the first 4e phb). It felt like a personal attack. Like this game isn't for you any more, us popular kids own it now, gtfo nerd. To this day, I have a strong distaste for tieflings due to that ad.
I stopped playing. For 2 years I didn't touch an rpg. When I came back, I found a welcoming community in pathfinder, a fantastic living campaign program, and a company that felt like it cared. I'm currently still playing pf1, but I'd say that's just because it's what the groups I'm in are playing. When we finish our current campaigns, maybe we'll try a different system for the next game. Personally, there's aspects that I like about both editions of pathfinder, and neither are my all time favorite rules set (I'd rank Hero system, L5R, and WOD higher).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I played a couple dozen 4e games virtually last year due to the lockdowns and zero PFS 1e. Don't get me wrong, I'd strongly prefer PFS 1e, but I couldn't really find a group for it. Meanwhile 4e has a fairly significant Discord (7 games scheduled for just this week, though 4 of those are different groups in the same adventure) and forums with all the resources you need to play, in The Guild.
4e mechanics actually lend itself really well to virtual table tops.
I find it interesting that you couldn't find a PF1E group.
I am curious to see how many out there are still running 4E games.
And how many are still running or playing in a PF 1E game.
I am playing in one PF 1E campaign and running another virtually through email. I don't have issues running PF 1E virtually. There are plenty of online resources to make it doable.
I am actually thinking of running my CotCT email campaign on the Paizo Message Board with another group. But now I am wondering if there would be any interest.
This is discouraging.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me it was the company's awful community interaction that killed 4e, nothing to do with the rule set. Wotc cut all ties with the fans who organized games and wrote scenarios for their living campaign, putting an end to the rpga (an organization that had been operating for over 30 years). Then for the final nail in the coffin, they axed the Greyhawk campaign setting completely. They couldn't have done a better job at alienating their fan base if they tried.
The advertising for 4e was also a slap in the face to me, featuring a tiefling murdering a gnome and laughing about how they were the hero now and gnomes were monsters (there was no gnome race in the first 4e phb). It felt like a personal attack. Like this game isn't for you any more, us popular kids own it now, gtfo nerd. To this day, I have a strong distaste for tieflings due to that ad.
I stopped playing. For 2 years I didn't touch an rpg. When I came back, I found a welcoming community in pathfinder, a fantastic living campaign program, and a company that felt like it cared. I'm currently still playing pf1, but I'd say that's just because it's what the groups I'm in are playing. When we finish our current campaigns, maybe we'll try a different system for the next game. Personally, there's aspects that I like about both editions of pathfinder, and neither are my all time favorite rules set (I'd rank Hero system, L5R, and WOD higher).
As a one-time fan and player of D&D 4E, I would say that it is the combination of all the things they did during that era that drove away players, not any one thing. I stuck with it far longer than most folks here did, but eventually I gave up on it and moved over to Pathfinder.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have found that PF1E has hit the sweet spot for myself. I don't intend on changing to 2E. I have read through the rule set a few times and even done some comparison analysis and play testing and I simply don't like it and I find it a poor advancement from 1E to something better. That is a purely a personal opinion based on 42 years of RPG experience and what I prefer as a player and a GM.To say we are kindred would be an understatement. I have been DMing campaigns since the late 70's. Yes. I am old. But it was precisely your sentiments that made me start this thread. I realized that it would be impossible to convert an existing 1E campaign into a 2E campaign. And the simple reason is that 2E lacked the complexity.
As ALLENDM said, Pathfinder 1E is the SWEEET SPOT. 3.5 was close to the SWEET SPOT. If anything needs to happen, it should be tweaks on the crowning jewel, things that can make the best system work better, Pathfinder 1.25. (You need room for growth.). Pathfinder 1E is not like a 20 year old chair. It is brand like Cadillac.
Paizo became what they became on the 3.5 game system. Giving it up would be like General Motors giving up Cadillac. Really!!! How does that financially make sense?
I get the need to create new systems. New system sells books and Paizo is a publisher. Selling books is their business. But General Motors does not only have Cadillac. They have Chevrolet too, Pontiac, etc.. Does it make sense to give up an entire brand? Pathfinder 1E is a far more advanced game system. Simpler? No. More complex. Yes! It is the Cadillac of RPG game systems. And with Cadillacs you pay more for what you get. PAIZO, do you get this point?
Cheers,
Mazra
I didn't play back then, but the statement is true.
Pf1 really hit the sweet spot. A light tightening of the rules (or a few unanswered faqs) is about all I'd ask
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder was out for ten years. At the rate we play through an adventure path I could have 30 years or more of gaming with just the adventure paths. Maybe in another ten years or so I might get board with it.
It is not a perfect system, but works very well. I love the adventure paths, it helps me look past some of the rough spots of the rules and sometimes drawn out combats.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you purchased a chair 20 years ago and tried to find that exact same model of chair new today, you probably wouldn't. Making new versions of things to drive sales isn't exactly a rpg specific issue. It's pervasive throughout every business as one of the fundamental ideologies of capitalism.
That said, there are thriving second hand markets for everything, including rpgs. Pick any rpg and go troll some forums and you'll find people playing every edition that was made for it. Pf1 was a popular game with a long run of publications. There will be people playing it for many years to come.
I understand what you are saying and appreciate your point of view.
But tell that to Monopoly, Uno, Risk, and many other long running board games... They do variations but they also support their primary product. Amazingly enough they all still have high sales and hold onto their market place... Why because those games have set a specific market place and the hold on to that market place. I am not saying you can't improve on it... But constantly moving to a completely different version to simply recreate sales is not viable and to date it has not really created real growth for any of these companies.
You want to create a market space that you capture and hold on to that creates nostalgia. Yes you can improve upon that specific product but this cycle that the RPG market place has created is pretty silly. When 3.0 came out in 2000 it was then refreshed and improved on with 3.5 (in 2003) (the changes were significant but all the 3.0 products can still be used with 3.5 and PF1E rules with few modifications). When PF1E took off in 2009 the essentially captured that entire market share which essentially means from 2000 to 2018 (18 years) the 3rd edition has been successful. Many people jumped off the 4.0 game which is why D&D scrambled to come up with 5.0 because PF1E took off and 4.0 took a nose dive. That should have been a valuable lesson...
My opinion but they went done the same rabbit hole that WotC did and it was major mistake on Paizo's part. My guess is someone is going to pick up the 3.75 improve it to 3.8 or whatever you want to call it and Paizo will lose that marketshare just like D&D.
I understand what you are saying but like many discussions there is always another viable side of the conversation :)
Jack
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The boss at Paizo, Lisa Stevens, has described several times on various Auntie Lisa’s story time episodes that dnd2e (and TSR itself) was destroyed by splitting the fan base and revived by the OGL.
I can’t imagine Paizo will ever create a new campaign setting or support separate fantasy RPGs.
I seem to remember that Starfinder nearly never happened for the same reason.
But that is exactly what she did...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that is exactly what she did...The boss at Paizo, Lisa Stevens, has described several times on various Auntie Lisa’s story time episodes that dnd2e (and TSR itself) was destroyed by splitting the fan base and revived by the OGL.
I can’t imagine Paizo will ever create a new campaign setting or support separate fantasy RPGs.
I seem to remember that Starfinder nearly never happened for the same reason.
Except they didn't, they're not competing with themselves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except they didn't, they're not competing with themselves.But that is exactly what she did...The boss at Paizo, Lisa Stevens, has described several times on various Auntie Lisa’s story time episodes that dnd2e (and TSR itself) was destroyed by splitting the fan base and revived by the OGL.
I can’t imagine Paizo will ever create a new campaign setting or support separate fantasy RPGs.
I seem to remember that Starfinder nearly never happened for the same reason.
Actually, they are in a way.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But tell that to Monopoly, Uno, Risk, and many other long running board games...Which are board games that you can drop in play at a moment's notice that require zero effort or imagination nor multiple 100+ page rulebooks..
RPG games are no different and you can do the same thing as a parent with a child or friend who has never played in a RPG with PF1E by keeping it simple. The same is true for any previous D&D edition (Basic, Expert, Master, 1E, and so on). My point is still very valid...Any decent GM can simplify the game to its root rules and walk players through a simple adventure. You have to do the same thing with Monopoly for example when teaching a child the basics. Which drives back to the point I was making...nostalgia drives the sales of those games. Which is why they are timeless and family members see the game and buy it to play with kids and family. The nostalgia helps to keep sales moving because the game is passed down from generation to generation (which is my only point in that regard).
Hasbro is worth about $13 billion dollars and its value has increased markedly over its lifespan. Monopoly has been around since 1903 (Hasbro bought Parker Brothers) and it is a major franchise brand for them and even eclipse the profits from WotC (Above Magic the Gathering and D&D) which total about $313 million. Paizo is worth about $10 million...so maybe the model they are pursuing is a bit flawed and they need to start thinking outside of the box (or in this case inside the nostalgia box). And a little known fact is that WotC doesn't really make money off book and content sales of D&D what they make their primary profit off of in D&D is twitch and youtube content (streaming services). I own a large share of Hasbro stock so I often listen to the earning calls.
By the way My Little Pony video sales make more money for Hasbro than D&D does...their focus in not on D&D. Paizo's focus should be on making a product that stands the test of time like Monopoly...
You can sit at a table with a group of kids and in less than hour with pre-generated characters be up and running in an RGP game. It is not that hard... I learned D&D Basic in a Gifted class in school in the 5th or 6th grade in the 70's in 45 minutes from one of the best teachers I ever had.
Jack
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had World of Greyhawk. When Forgotten Realms came out, I bought that too. I didn’t buy Dark Suns, but then regretted the decision. Went back to buy that setting and it was gone. The store never put it back in stock, so I never bought Dark Suns. (Until 4th edition.)
When Birthright came out, I bought that...
So from my perspective, TSR was not competing with itself. Couldn’t really play all the settings, but I enjoyed reading them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except they didn't, they're not competing with themselves.But that is exactly what she did...The boss at Paizo, Lisa Stevens, has described several times on various Auntie Lisa’s story time episodes that dnd2e (and TSR itself) was destroyed by splitting the fan base and revived by the OGL.
I can’t imagine Paizo will ever create a new campaign setting or support separate fantasy RPGs.
I seem to remember that Starfinder nearly never happened for the same reason.Actually, they are in a way.
They're not. They're not producing P1 and P2 at the same time, and Starfinder has a different market than Pathfinder.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When PF1E took off in 2009 the essentially captured that entire market share which essentially means from 2000 to 2018 (18 years) the 3rd edition has been successful. Many people jumped off the 4.0 game which is why D&D scrambled to come up with 5.0 because PF1E took off and 4.0 took a nose dive. That should have been a valuable lesson...
My opinion but they went done the same...
Eighteen years is an awesome point.
The world has room for all these game systems. The question is, does Paizo have room?
At present, they are throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Like I previously said, Pathfinder 1E is a great game system. 3.0 and 3.5 were great game systems. They are not systems for those that casually play the game. They are for committed players that wants a deep and complex system to enjoy a fantasy realm.
Truthfully, Paizo really does not need to do a lot to make this work. After all, they have already created the vast majority of the rules and APs. It just that they need someone to be a watchman for their legacy product. Someone, to tweak it. Maybe covert 2E APs to run in 1E. To make Pathfinder Legacy the Monopoly of RPGs.
Abandoning it seems like a huge waste.
Cheers,
Mazra
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo have to judge profitability, not quality. They’re proud of PF1 but sales were declining.
(I don’t have any direct insider knowledge of Paizo’s figures, but I know a few 3PPs well enough to know that PF1 versions were beginning to become uneconomical for them when they could instead write for 5E and a tiny share of it’s enormous audience. Maybe PF1 sales from Paizo direct were still going strong, but it seems unlikely).
I’m sure paizo would be delighted if someone took up the PF1 mantle as a third party publisher - they are big supporters of the OGL. They need to remain focussed though; chasing disparate revenue streams can lead to a morass of unprofitable product lines, all being poorly serviced.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would have been nice to get some hardcover/pocket compilation books of the various softcover books and a few more bestiaries for 1e. Or at least something for 1e once a year or so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Abomination vaults is also a 3 book dungeon crawl which really isn't everyone's cup of tea, especially in pbp as it can be very slow so isn't really a good one to judge if you're looking at forum gaming.
I think its also a matter of time. At the moment, may haven't tried PF2 as they haven't had time to try a new system. Overtime when they start running out of PF1, maybe PF2 will get more take up. Maybe just take time?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure PF2 will eventually have more players than PF1. It's the nature of a game with support and advertising and all that vs. one that doesn't have such. It doesn't have nearly as many players online as PF1 yet (on Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds) but PF2 is growing and PF1's numbers are shrinking.
OTOH there are people online playing games which date to the 80s and 90s. PF1 won't die in any reasonable length of time.
Most people I know that got tired of PF 1e, went to D&D 5th ed or some other gaming system. If PF 2e gets more take up, it will be when they have all the classes, races, monsters, and other options from 1e that will translate into the current rules. By the time that happens we will be getting PF 3e.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I got to say that I'm currently in the same bucket as AllenDM and Mazra. I started RPGs back with D&D Red box... I bought the 4th edition rules, but moved to PF1 after a bit. Why? 4E didn't feel like a D&D game at the table. PF2 doesn't feel like a D&D game at the table either. So it's pretty likely I'm not going to move... I'm still trying to play PF2, but it doesn't feel right. Call it nostalgia, call it what you will.
It seems to be to some of us old schoolers. PF1E may be the penultimate system extension from the original 1st edition D&D. Sadly, it may very well be the end; at least, in terms of being a continually supported system.
PF1E felt like classic D&D, except with a rich new world with excellently written adventures. I have either GMed or played some or all of Rise of the Runelords, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Second Darkness, Kingmaker, Skull & Shackles, and Giantslayer. Most of these are nothing short of classic adventures. The one reality is that there are PF1E APs that still need to be played. And though it makes me sad that this great game system will no longer be supported by Paizo, I know that I can continue on. And maybe join up with some others to keep it going.
Long live PF1E!
Cheers,
Mazra
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would have been nice if Paizo also did stuff that was campaign specific but edition neutral. Basically campaign setting books with no game rules so all editions could use them. Also no game rules means more room for setting information.