| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how long it will be before we get a 3rd edition.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the fact that there is a PF 2E already splitting the fan base?
Not really. They've revived a shrinking fanbase. Lots of RPGs have followed the same approach.
TSR was bought out by Wizards, which in turn was bought by Hasbro.
So, you think that Paizo should mess up Paizo until it is basically closed down and another company can buy it for a pittance? I don't think that's a great business model.
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.
Well, that's not what the people who revived DnD thought. They didn't create the OGL out of the goodness of their hearts. They did it to revive DnD, and it worked. You are directly contradicting Ryan Dancey here.
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.
Me neither. I'm sticking with PF1e, I just don't see any reason to suggest that Pazio should still make PF1e content just for me.
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.
I'm not convinced. I think Paizo had an oppportunity (with their experience, talents and subscriber base) that most companies do not have.
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
Even if a better system came out, I still might not bother to learn it.
But I am okay with Paizo moving on to 2e.
|
Historically speaking, games in the D&D family last about 10 years at most before a new edition comes out:
- AD&D 1: Late 1970s - Late 1980s
- AD&D2: Late 1980s - Late 1990s
- D&D3: Early 2000s - Late 2000s
- D&D4: Late 2000s - Early 2010s*
- D&D5: Early 2010s - ????
- PF1: Late 2000s - Late 2010s
- PF2: Late 2010s - ????
Basically, after 10 years of support, you've probably already issued all the 'profitable' topics (i.e., subjects that appeal to the vast majority of your players), player fatigue is probably removing some of your customer base, and attracting new customers is more difficult due to the shear number of supplements you've made over the past decade. At this point, you need to 'reset the board' with a new edition if you are going to remain in business, and continuing to support a previous edition at this point is basically shooting yourself in the foot: It might not be fatal, but it certainly isn't going to help you in any way...
If any game is going to break this cycle, it will be D&D5 because for once the game's owner isn't really dependent on D&D sales, so they can afford to put supplements out at a much slower rate and presumably push D&D6 back another decade or two...
Stuff before AD&D 2nd gets confusing due to the original, 3 versions of the basic set, and advanced D&D, but after that you can go:
April 1989 AD&D 2nd Edition (11 years)
July 2, 2000 3rd edition (3 years)
July 1, 2003 v3.5 (5 years)
June 6, 2008 4th edition (6 years)
August 19, 2014 5th edition (currently 7 years)
2009 Pathfinder 1st Edition (10 years)
2019 Pathfinder 2nd Edition
So Paizo produced material for Pathfinder 1st Edition longer than any version of D&D since they started 3.0.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff before AD&D 2nd gets confusing due to the original, 3 versions of the basic set, and advanced D&D, but after that you can go:
April 1989 AD&D 2nd Edition (11 years)
July 2, 2000 3rd edition (3 years)
July 1, 2003 v3.5 (5 years)
June 6, 2008 4th edition (6 years)
August 19, 2014 5th edition (currently 7 years)2009 Pathfinder 1st Edition (10 years)
2019 Pathfinder 2nd EditionSo Paizo produced material for Pathfinder 1st Edition longer than any version of D&D since they started 3.0.
PF1E is essentially a revised version of 3.5 and 3.5 is a revised version of 3.0. That is 18 years that the 3.0 system (3.0/3.5/PF1E) has been around.
It has from all accounts one of the longest runs of any version. And Pazio owns that space thanks PF1E. They own that brand now thanks to a very savvy move to fill that void when WotC abandoned 3.5.
I want Paizo to be successful. I have very high regard for the work they put into PF1E and in the RPG community as a whole. So I want them to be successful and frankly, WotC doesn't care about D&D in the same regard that Paizo does of the Pathfinder ruleset and that is clear based on what they are producing to support 5E. Even the PF2E product line is much better...
PF1E is still by all accounts more successful than PF2E.
Based on the Orr Industry Group Report:
2019 Q3
Campaign Percentage:
D&D5E 45.03%
Call of Cthulhu (any edition) 18.28%
Uncategorized 13.92%
Pathfinder 1E 5.72%
Warhammer 1.41%
D&D 3.5 1.25%
Account Percentage:
D&D 5E 51.21%
Call of Cthulhu 12.93%
Uncategorized 12.18%
Pathfinder 6.33%
Warhammer 1.52%
D&D 3.5 1.30%
2019 Q4
Campaign Percentage:
D&D5E 47.54%
Call of Cthulhu (any edition) 15.35%
Uncategorized 14.17%
Pathfinder 1E 4.97%
Warhammer 1.48%
D&D 3.5 1.21%
Pathfinder 2E 1.13%
Account Percentage:
D&D 5E 53.36%
Uncategorized 12.51%
Call of Cthulhu 10.50%
Pathfinder 5.64%
Warhammer 1.60%
D&D 3.5 1.24%
World of Darkness 1.24%
PF2E 1.15%
Systems with the Biggest Growth:
PF2E 82.64%
2020 Q1
Campaign Percentage:
D&D5E 50.40%
Uncategorized 15.58%
Call of Cthulhu (any edition) 12.15%
Pathfinder 1E 4.49%
D&D 3.5 1.36%
Warhammer 1.30%
Pathfinder 2E 1.23%
Account Percentage:
D&D 5E 55.74%
Uncategorized 13.83%
Call of Cthulhu 8.35%
Pathfinder 4.95%
D&D 3.5 1.38%
Warhammer 1.29%
PF2E 1.29%
Systems with the Biggest Growth:
PF2E 82.64%
2020 Q2
Campaign Percentage:
D&D5E 53.00%
Uncategorized 16.52%
Call of Cthulhu (any edition) 8.46%
Pathfinder 1E 4.09%
PF2E 1.53%
D&D 3.5 1.30%
Account Percentage:
D&D 5E 57.98%
Uncategorized 14.59%
Call of Cthulhu 5.57%
Pathfinder 4.42%
PF2E 1.57%
D&D 3.5 1.32%
PF2E was not on the Systems with Biggest Growth (not a good sign)
2020 Q3
Campaign Percentage:
D&D5E 53.26%
Uncategorized 14.03%
Call of Cthulhu (any edition) 11.30%
Pathfinder 1E 3.87%
PF2E 1.83%
Warhammer 1.18%
World of Darkness 1.13%
D&D 3.5 1.01%
Account Percentage:
D&D 5E 59.06%
Uncategorized 12.41%
Call of Cthulhu 7.22%
Pathfinder 4.20%
PF2E 1.89%
Warhammer 1.16%
World of Darkness 1.08%
D&D 3.5 1.04%
PF2E not on the Systems with Biggest Growth in Q3.
2020 Q4 has not released so I can't review that data.
Reference - Orr Report
But largely I would say that PF2E has not been even remotely successful as it has not even surpassed D&D 3.5 or PF1E at any point and is in no way in remotely close competition to 5E.
I think if Paizo would have done a revised PF1E they would have seen much better fanfare. My two cents but looking at data I can't see how you would call PF2E successful when weighed against data from PF1E. Now this is just one view but it is a very good view of RPG's and player/campaign density. You would expect based on 5E growth projections to see something in that magnitude for PF2E and yet they can't even eclipse PF1E and D&D 3.5.
Again just one view but it is a very telling look at PF2E. At one point PF1E was head and shoulders above D&D (4E).
Jack
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My two cents but looking at data I can't see how you would call PF2E successful when weighed against data from PF1E.
I think it’s successful because it met Paizo’s sales targets and the books sold out of the first printing earlier than Paizo expected. The big problem facing PF1 in the last couple of years of being actively supported was declining sales.
Fans tend to overvalue “league tables” because it’s all we’ve got, but it doesn’t really matter in terms of commercial “success”. If nobody’s playing your game online but heaps of people are buying it...it’s a success. If you dominate “top five” lists but can’t sell enough books to remain profitable it’s a failure.
My main go to barometer for an RPG company’s state of health is ongoing staff. Paizo (and WotC) hired more people than left in 2019 (and I believe even in 2020 - during a pandemic!)
It’s not the be all and end all - but it’s hard to imagine a company hiring more people as their game struggles.
|
Reference - Orr Report
The Orr Group Industry Report is a report listing stats and use data on different game systems on Roll20.
But largely I would say that PF2E has not been even remotely successful
And you'd be flat out wrong. If it was doing as bad as you want it to after 2 years we wouldn't have a Paizo anymore most likely.
You don't have access to their sales data, and having share holders they can't lie about how well they're doing. Sales on pbp site is not a metric I would use to determine how well a company is doing overall.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sales on pbp site is not a metric I would use to determine how well a company is doing overall.
It’s a useful statistic for showing the popularity of games actually being played. Granted there’s a bias against those games which don’t get a lot of roll20 support, but at the “big end” of town, it’s probably useful.
It’s bound to be a lagged variable though - Paizo certainly expected some people planning to take up PF2 to wrap up PF1 games (both in train and planned) first.
I think if PF2 is still below 2% in 5 years time, we’re likely to have seen visible impact at Paizo - via staffing, as I suggested above or by way of change in product releases.
If PF2 fails or is failing to capture a big enough share of games actually being played (“big enough” in the sense of sufficient to keep them functioning and profitable), I think it will take time for Paizo to see that and then take time for their response to trickle out into public view.
The numbers are closer to parity between PF 1-2 on Fantasy Grounds. I can't find any actual figures for the Foundry VTT due to the way it's set up but supposedly it works better for PF2 than roll20 does. And no, none of these covers games at home, school, conventions, prison or whatever, they're just the data points we peons can actually access.
PF2 hasn't taken the roleplaying world by storm but it might be a steady midlist seller like Savage Worlds, or OTOH it's not impossible it might be D&D 4e crashing (note on the Fantasy Grounds figures that it actually decreases from its release in August-December 2019) but given a boost in the above figures by online games becoming popular during a pandemic.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The future of PF1 is looking super bright for me. About to start "The Skinsaw Murders". Can't wait!
Not sure about its future for anyone else, but as long as I have people to play with, I'm happy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reference - Orr ReportThe Orr Group Industry Report is a report listing stats and use data on different game systems on Roll20.But largely I would say that PF2E has not been even remotely successfulAnd you'd be flat out wrong. If it was doing as bad as you want it to after 2 years we wouldn't have a Paizo anymore most likely.
You don't have access to their sales data, and having share holders they can't lie about how well they're doing. Sales on pbp site is not a metric I would use to determine how well a company is doing overall.
You seem to think I want Paizo to do poorly and I don't. I don't play D&D, or any other rule set at this time, so there is no benefit on my part of wishing Paizo ill will. A matter of fact I want Paizo to be successful. Which is why I am spending my valuable time pointing out my point of view of what I see.
Companies don't fall apart immediately...that happens often over time and it happens due to not one poor decision but a chain of poor decisions that leads them down a road they can't recover from. TSR is a perfect case example of this... It was not one thing that lead to TSR's down fall but a whole host of poor choices that put them in the position they fell into.
Sales usage on a large vendor site gives you insight to how the game is being utilized and it a very reliable metric on the popularity of game. Especially when it tracks back to 2014 and the roll out of 5E. If you track the data back at one point PF1E was the leader on Roll20 and it took 5E only three quarters to surpass PF1E. Now Paizo does not have the marketing strength that WotC/Hasbro has but put to scale you would think PF2E would at the very least out perform D&D 3.5 and PF1E and it has not even done that on Roll20. And lets be honest for a moment it has not done that on this forum either. There are still more PF1E games coming out than PF2e. I took the time to look through the last two quarters and the PF1E to PF2E is nearly double. Now a valid point made was that PF2E doesn't have the breadth of material that PF1E has but I can say the same for 5E when it rolled out in mid 2014 and was competing against PF1E and that didn't hold 5E back from overtaking PF1E and everyone else in three quarters.
I am not sure about Fantasy Grounds as I have not looked and as you stated without looking at sales/revenue data it is hard to tell what their profits are like. But usage and popularity are important aspects of game longevity and right now it doesn't appear PF2E has it. I did out of curistoy look at Amazon as it is a great indicator of sales in comparison to related competition.
Also a look at Amazon data indicates the PF2E CRB is #85 currently with a whole host of D&D 5E books way ahead of it... With 13 of the top 15 being 5E books.
Initially sales looked good on release date in Amazon. On release, the PF2 Core Book was third for "Fantasy Gaming" specifically, beating out the 5E Monster Manual, and coming in behind the 5E Starter Set for that week. The Bestiary was number 12, the Special Edition was 36. Within one quarter those sales dropped off. Amazon is a good indicator of sales...so using that and the Orr Report you start to see a trend...
Jack
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My two cents but looking at data I can't see how you would call PF2E successful when weighed against data from PF1E.I think it’s successful because it met Paizo’s sales targets and the books sold out of the first printing earlier than Paizo expected. The big problem facing PF1 in the last couple of years of being actively supported was declining sales.
Fans tend to overvalue “league tables” because it’s all we’ve got, but it doesn’t really matter in terms of commercial “success”. If nobody’s playing your game online but heaps of people are buying it...it’s a success. If you dominate “top five” lists but can’t sell enough books to remain profitable it’s a failure.
My main go to barometer for an RPG company’s state of health is ongoing staff. Paizo (and WotC) hired more people than left in 2019 (and I believe even in 2020 - during a pandemic!)
It’s not the be all and end all - but it’s hard to imagine a company hiring more people as their game struggles.
Those are very valid points.
I would say there are two reasons why a company hires additional staff.
1) AS you stated - Sales are good and they want to grow the product base to ride/increase sales revenue and streams.
2) To recover from a bad launch/opening and try to build some sort of momentum off of a perceived decline. There is a tipping point and if you can hit some sort of momentum before that tipping point you can recover/overcome it. Investors/Shareholders typically don't give up on a known product line with out a fight.
To be honest I am not sure which one they are in...It is really hard to tell what is happening. Rysky makes some very valid points and are worth taking into consideration along with other's comments. I work in a AI/Data Analytics team so I look at and parse/model data for living and for one of the biggest financial companies in the world. So I see a lot of good and bad "business" data so I can only compare what see here to what I have seen through experience.
For me when I start looking at the data we can get our hands on it doesn't appear good...
I was just comparing the Fantasy Ground data that someone posted and going back in time with it and comparing it to 5E, 4E, 3.5, and PF1E.
That data is on par with the ROLL20 data. At present (Q4 2020 data is not out at the moment so this might all change) PF1E/3.5 is still stronger than PF2E from every indication I can see. Tie that it with declining AMAZON sales and the fact that PF1E books are still selling off the site it is hard to tell how PF2E overcomes this unless they have somee really awesome product releases. This might be a matter of not having enough product/material in play to drive revenue if their entire product line for 2E sold out (which would be great). However, one of the primary reasons PF1E is so popular is it blends with 3.5/3.0 product lines. If a REVISED PF1E would have been produced that did a rule set clean up/refresh they could have easily rode the momentum of that and I would imagine they might have given 5E a run for their money. At the end of the day loyalty (brand) and (edition) are pretty strong in that regard and would have benefitted PF. Again this is all my two cents which matter little but I do think this is very interesting conversation to have.
Jack
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to think I want Paizo to do poorly and I don't. I don't play D&D, or any other rule set at this time, so there is no benefit on my part of wishing Paizo ill will. A matter of fact I want Paizo to be successful. Which is why I am spending my valuable time pointing out my point of view of what I see.
Of course you don’t want Paizo to do poorly. However, your suggestions are not in line with Paizo prospering, no matter your intentions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to think I want Paizo to do poorly and I don't. I don't play D&D, or any other rule set at this time, so there is no benefit on my part of wishing Paizo ill will. A matter of fact I want Paizo to be successful. Which is why I am spending my valuable time pointing out my point of view of what I see.Of course you don’t want Paizo to do poorly. However, your suggestions are not in line with Paizo prospering, no matter your intentions.
How so?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo's focus in on Pathfinder Second Edition.
Nearly 18 months after the biggest RPG launch in history, in terms of page count and number of products, Pathfinder Second Edition is thriving. It is easier to learn, faster to play, and offers more meaningful character choices at every level than ever before. The new three-action, proficiency systems, and sub-systems have proven to be popular.
100,000+ people have copies of the Pathfinder Second Edition Core Rulebook. Compared to Pathfinder First Edition at the same age, and despite a world-wide pandemic affecting distribution and in-person play, we are pleased.
No new Pathfinder First Edition material is currently planned. The one exception is the Kingmaker Anniversary Edition. It will be written for Pathfinder Second Edtion, with expanded content from the computer game, and we will sell Pathfinder First Edition and 5e Bestiaries to conversion the adventure separately.
We are keeping all the Pathfinder First Edition rulebooks in stock, including a couple of Adventure Paths, either as hardcovers or as softcover pocket editions. We will keep them in stock as long as there is sufficient demand.
The third party compatibility license is not changed, and publishers are still making Pathfinder First Edition products as evidenced by my monthly blogs. By continuing to publish the rulebooks, we are supporting the community.
While we are not making more first edition Pathfinder Society scenarios, we are still supporting organized play gameplay with the Pathfinder Legacy program.
The first edition adventures continue to find new life through licensed partnership agreements.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest I am not sure which one they are in...It is really hard to tell what is happening.
Paizo executives have commented publicly on how sales are going and that they’re pleased.
They have a history of sharing more info than most companies (both good and bad news) so I tend to believe them.
My point was really that “what proportion of games on roll20 are PF2 games” is a pretty poor proxy for “health of PF2” as seen through the prism of sales. Number of staff is a better proxy, imo. Although you may be right that companies may also hire staff when in crisis management mode more broadly, this isn’t the case in the world of TTRPG publishers. There just isn’t the capital to support that if sales are declining.
I don’t disagree with your methodology long term, but I think it’s going to be a very lagged statistic. By the time the % of roll20 games is significant, we’ll already know the answer by looking at how many staff members are at Paizo and seeing what they’re working on.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the fact that there is a PF 2E already splitting the fan base?Not really. They've revived a shrinking fanbase. Lots of RPGs have followed the same approach.
Of course it is. Anytime someone stops playing or supporting a system to play another, that systems fan base has been eroded. 5e has clearly eroded the fan base for PF1e. PF2 is a response to that. And PF2 has already replaced PF1. I am sure Paizo is hoping to pick up 5e support. But 5e has become a different animal. It is juggernaut. Not only has it garnered support from those that once played other systems, it has attracted new supporters. My issue is that neither 5e or PF2 are better systems than PF1e. This is my opinion. I don't like seeing the best system not being supported. And that is what is happening.
TSR was bought out by Wizards, which in turn was bought by Hasbro.So, you think that Paizo should mess up Paizo until it is basically closed down and another company can buy it for a pittance? I don't think that's a great business model.
This comment had nothing to do with Paizo. It was a comment of what factually happened in the past to TSR and then Wizards.
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.Well, that's not what the people who revived DnD thought. They didn't create the OGL out of the goodness of their hearts. They did it to revive DnD, and it worked. You are directly contradicting Ryan Dancey here.
At the time, Wizards did not benefit from the 3.5 OGL. They were focused on 4e. Paizo benefited greatly from the 3.5 OGL. It made them an RPG gaming force. Paizo had lost their publishing rights for their D&D magazines. The 3.5 OGL gave Paizo a lifeline. It in effect created Pathfinder. For Wizards it created 4e. I think Paizo won that one.
However, I will give Wizards credit, they have seriously revived their D&D brand with 5e. I am just not a fan.
Me neither. I'm sticking with PF1e, I just don't see any reason to suggest that Pazio should still make PF1e content just for me.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.
If it is just you, then you are right. Is it just you? I am sticking with PF1e, at least for now.
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.I'm not convinced. I think Paizo had an opportunity (with their experience, talents and subscriber base) that most companies do not have.
3.0/3.5/PF1e may very well be a dying game system. I hear there are some out there still playing 1e. The content is still available. But, you said yourself that you are sticking with PF1e. For now, I am too. There are others here also. Are we it? I don't think so. I think there is life out there for PF1e. Someone like a Legendary Games may see an opportunity and latch on to the 3.5 OGL and support the system. The 3.5 OGL is still out there.
Right now, I honestly believe that if I took some serious three or four year 5e players and introduced them to Rise of the Runelords Anniversary edition under the PF1e system, they would jump ship. Now if they are just casual gamers that want something simple, then no. But if they have a taste for RPG and want to take it to the next level, then PF1e is the next level. It maybe older, but it is far more robust.
IMHO PF1e just needs tweaking and not replaced. There may be a quality gaming publisher out there that will throw out a lifeline and support the system. I would prefer Paizo. But it looks like that will not be happening.
Cheers,
Mazra
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, how do others experiences or views vary? What makes a game "feel" like D&D to you?
Everyone has different experiences.
All I know is that 4e did not feel like the prior game systems. I had DMed them all 1e, 2e, 3.0, 3.5. Some of 4e's issues had to do with poorly written adventures, but some of it was game mechanics. After over a year of running a 4e campaign we gave it up to give Rise of the Runelords a try. It didn't take long to feel like we were back in to a comfortable pair of shoes after one that was not comfortable. Paizo just kept making it better.
Now they are not.
To circle back to another point made several posts ago, I was wondering what it means to players for a game to "feel" like D&D/Pathfinder. I was exposed to D&D originally through the original Monster Manual, but I didn't get to actually play until 4E (I was fine with it) was the default store game.
I've played several editions at this point. While I've noticed mechanical differences (and don't care for what I briefly played of 5e, and am unsure of what I've heard of PF2e), I've always felt like I was playing a D&D style game. For me the feel is about the setting, genre, characters, group experience more than the mechanics. As long as there is enough material to provide a plethora of flavorful options, I'm happy with any system. So, how do others experiences or views vary? What makes a game "feel" like D&D to you?
For me I think it's about my mindset. I've played nearly every edition of D&D (from "0E" through to 5E but skipped 2E) and enjoyed all of them. They all felt the same to me - even 4E (which felt closer to AD&D than 3.5/PF1 to me). Pathfinder one certainly felt like D&D to me too, but I play Rolemaster, Runequest and GURPS like D&D, so it doesn't really have much to do with the mechanics, in my mind.
I think like you, I derive "feel" from setting because Starfinder, Star Wars, Traveller and Shadowrun all feel like something else to me (and all feel pretty similar).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*D&D4 was a bit of an outlier with its short lifespan.
D&D 4e lasted longer than the Confederacy. Just saying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To circle back to another point made several posts ago, I was wondering what it means to players for a game to "feel" like D&D/Pathfinder. I was exposed to D&D originally through the original Monster Manual, but I didn't get to actually play until 4E (I was fine with it) was the default store game.
I've played several editions at this point. While I've noticed mechanical differences (and don't care for what I briefly played of 5e, and am unsure of what I've heard of PF2e), I've always felt like I was playing a D&D style game. For me the feel is about the setting, genre, characters, group experience more than the mechanics. As long as there is enough material to provide a plethora of flavorful options, I'm happy with any system. So, how do others experiences or views vary? What makes a game "feel" like D&D to you?For me I think it's about my mindset. I've played nearly every edition of D&D (from "0E" through to 5E but skipped 2E) and enjoyed all of them. They all felt the same to me - even 4E (which felt closer to AD&D than 3.5/PF1 to me). Pathfinder one certainly felt like D&D to me too, but I play Rolemaster, Runequest and GURPS like D&D, so it doesn't really have much to do with the mechanics, in my mind.
I think like you, I derive "feel" from setting because Starfinder, Star Wars, Traveller and Shadowrun all feel like something else to me (and all feel pretty similar).
This is close to my feeling, but not quite exactly it. Any game where the expected game is to kick I a door and kill the monster is D&D. RuneQuest to me has some of that, but I am expecting to get caught up in the cult intrigue. Star Wars, I'm expecting to fight the Empire against desperate odds. Traveller/Shadowrun, I'm looking to do a job and get paid while not get arrested.
While D&D can have intrigue with various groups, can have you fighting with the one that hired you so you can get your pay day, can have you fighting against an oppressive government, I don't go in expecting that to happen on a typical (especially the first) game session. Kicking in the door and killing the monster is what I expect to do in any first/typical game session that wants to feel like D&D.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There’s nothing stopping you from using the Lost Omens books for P1 just because they have a P2 Feat in them in.
True though to be honest I found the amount of information versus the Inner Sea World Guide to be very lacking imo. Not to mention both are being sold for 50$ Canadian yet the LO is only 136 pages vs ISG which is 320 pages. Someone needs to tell Paizo that ever title especially ones that are not even in 200+ page count need to be in hardcover. It's worth possibly buying in PDf yet again I was comparing both at my LGS and ISG is simply better buy as a product. Where now they seem to want to spread as much world information as possible over multiple books.
Oh good, I'm so happy this thread has devolved into "speculate baselessly about Paizo's financial well-being" and "compare PF2e to D&D 4e". Silly me, thinking we were done with that and could move on to just appreciating how great PF1e still is....
At risk of agreeing with Rysky (gods forbid), the comparison between how WotC handled D&D4e and how Paizo is handling PF2e just isn't credible in my mind.
I'm actually quite interested in how Corefinder turns out. I'm using Legendary's Mythic fix for my PbD WotR.
Worth mention, the lore changes to Golarion in PF2e are so dramatic that you might want to consider it a different setting. That's more or less how I handle it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Usually a Director's Cut actually adds more, not reduces what is there to it's "simplest" form.
Worth mention, the lore changes to Golarion in PF2e are so dramatic that you might want to consider it a different setting.
Could you be more specific re: changes to setting? I have never read a Lost Omens product, but had a general impression the setting was perhaps a bit less dark?Although, I can't exactly recall how I came to this conclusion or if it is accurate.
Worth mention, the lore changes to Golarion in PF2e are so dramatic that you might want to consider it a different setting.Could you be more specific re: changes to setting? I have never read a Lost Omens product, but had a general impression the setting was perhaps a bit less dark?Although, I can't exactly recall how I came to this conclusion or if it is accurate.
They've been walking back the more controversial or darker elements of the setting, which is fine. It's their lore.
Unfortunately, listing all the changes would be a far more extensive project than I can devote time to. Major changes to alignment, ancestries/races, magic, and even deities. It's more canonization of the ongoing revisions than anything else.
It's a director's cut in 10 years of hindsight and many of the original creators aren't involved in the revisions.
To be fair, "Director's Cut" tends to be used loosely to mean better, and that isn't true. I'd call the changes a mixed bag. More direct LGBTQIA+ representation and normalization is always a good thing, as well as stepping away from racial essentialism if ever so slightly.
:shrugs:
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you’re going to say PF1 is the best, you’ll need to define what you mean. Because it’s not the best at everything, if it is even the best at anything.
YMMV. And this is simply my opinion. Clearly, PF1E is not your system. To each his own.
PF1E has the most variety, most options in character classes, vast bestiary, huge number of adventures. And it feels like D&D 1st edition, but more robust. I like that. Could it be improved? Sure. That is why it still needs to be supported.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 is my ONLY system. I started on D&D 3.5. I regret letting my charter subscriber tag go. I regret selling my AP hard copies when they were taking up shelf space I couldn’t afford. I’ve never played anything else for more than a few sessions. And I can say that plenty of other systems have all those things you list and more. PF is good, but it’s not the best, just the best for you and me.
Worth mention, the lore changes to Golarion in PF2e are so dramatic that you might want to consider it a different setting. That's more or less how I handle it.
Yeah, I effectively did the same.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF1 is my ONLY system. I started on D&D 3.5. I regret letting my charter subscriber tag go. I regret selling my AP hard copies when they were taking up shelf space I couldn’t afford. I’ve never played anything else for more than a few sessions. And I can say that plenty of other systems have all those things you list and more. PF is good, but it’s not the best, just the best for you and me.
OK. Which D&D based Fantasy RPG has MORE character classes?
MORE monsters?
MORE rules? ;)
I know it is neither PF2e or 5e. So which is it? There may be one out there, I am just not aware of it.
Now best is a term that is very subjective. That is why I often use the term YMMV. PF1E is the best for me and my group. And it is because you get MORE with it. For me MORE is better. And PF1E has the most. What D&D based Fantasy RPG system has MORE?
For me RUSH is the best Rock Band of all time. I am willing to bet that there are many of you out there that disagrees with this statement. Same is true for PF1E.
Cheers,
Mazra
|
|
Why does it have to be D&D-based? Is that an admission that PF isn’t the best system but instead the best D&D-based system?
This is why you need to define what you mean by “best”. Instead of saying Rush is the best band, you said best rock band, which is a less grand claim for certain.
Edit:
OK. Which D&D based Fantasy RPG has MORE character classes?
After confirming, Warhammer Fantasy RPG.
|
|
PF1 is my ONLY system. I started on D&D 3.5. I regret letting my charter subscriber tag go. I regret selling my AP hard copies when they were taking up shelf space I couldn’t afford. I’ve never played anything else for more than a few sessions. And I can say that plenty of other systems have all those things you list and more. PF is good, but it’s not the best, just the best for you and me.OK. Which D&D based Fantasy RPG has MORE character classes?
MORE monsters?
MORE rules? ;)
I know it is neither PF2e or 5e. So which is it? There may be one out there, I am just not aware of it.
Now best is a term that is very subjective. That is why I often use the term YMMV. PF1E is the best for me and my group. And it is because you get MORE with it. For me MORE is better. And PF1E has the most. What D&D based Fantasy RPG system has MORE?
For me RUSH is the best Rock Band of all time. I am willing to bet that there are many of you out there that disagrees with this statement. Same is true for PF1E.
Cheers,
Mazra
So when P2 has more content than P1 it will be better than P1?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does it have to be D&D-based? Is that an admission that PF isn’t the best system but instead the best D&D-based system?
This is why you need to define what you mean by “best”. Instead of saying Rush is the best band, you said best rock band, which is a less grand claim for certain.
Edit:
OK. Which D&D based Fantasy RPG has MORE character classes?After confirming, Warhammer Fantasy RPG.
Forgive me TriOmegaZero, but this is a PF1e forum. An PF1E came from the D&D 3.5 OGL. So yes. I am talking about best D&D based RPG Fantasy Gaming System. Warhammer has been around for a long time too. But it is not D&D. Personally, I never cared for the Warhammer combat system.
Warhammer may be as robust, if not more, than PF1E. Truthfully, I have no idea. But it is not a D&D based system. It is its own system.
And yes, RUSH is the best ROCK BAND. It is not the best JAZZ BAND. So, I am not talking globally here about every gaming system in the world or every genre of music for that matter. I having been talking about from the very first post I entered in creating this thread about D&D based RPGS. And my observation that PF2 is nowhere near as great as PF1 IMHO. And I am very sad that Paizo has abandoned PF1. And I can add 4e and 5e to that statement that IMHO PF1e is better. PF1e is better than 1e, 2e, 3e, and 3.5. But again that is my opinion. YMMV
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So when P2 has more content than P1 it will be better than P1?
It may be. And if it is, then I too may abandon PF1e for the better D&D Based Fantasy RPG. But at present it is not. And I am talking about right at this point in time. And again, that is my opinion.
In retrospect, I abandoned 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5, and 4e for PF1e. And the reason is because I really enjoy Pathfinder 1e, Golarion, the APs, just about everything about it. PF2e and 5e just isn't there yet. Maybe someday.
Why should I give up what I like best for something lesser? Just because it is new. New does not mean better.
|
|
Forgive me TriOmegaZero, but this is a PF1e forum. An PF1E came from the D&D 3.5 OGL. So yes. I am talking about best D&D based RPG Fantasy Gaming System.Why does it have to be D&D-based? Is that an admission that PF isn’t the best system but instead the best D&D-based system?
This is why you need to define what you mean by “best”. Instead of saying Rush is the best band, you said best rock band, which is a less grand claim for certain.
Edit:
OK. Which D&D based Fantasy RPG has MORE character classes?After confirming, Warhammer Fantasy RPG.
And this is what we call moving the goalposts.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And this is what we call moving the goalposts.
The original goal post was always about the D&D based RPGs. All my points were based on 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e, PF1e and PF2e. And not Warhammer or any other gaming system. When I talked in global terms it was meant as definitive to the D&D Fantasy RPG systems within this PF1e forum. Others brought up other gaming systems. Personally, I don't play other systems. PF1e has been enough for me for much of the last ten years.
As to 2e having more monsters than PF1e, I would need to see a count to believe that 2e has more monsters created than the six PF1e bestiaries and other PF1e monsters in ancillary works. Paizo has been busy.
