|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but 1e d&d compared to pf2 is as different a rules set as comparing warhammer to either. RPGs don't exist in a vacuum. As pathfinder proved, players will jump brands.
I disagree. Warhammer was built from a miniature wargaming system and added RPG elements. D&D was an RPG from the get. PF2 is far closer to PF1 and the original D&D than Warhammer. But, that is just my thoughts and opinions.
And yes, we will jump brands. I jumped from D&D to Pathfinder. And if I find something I like better than PF1, I will jump away from it. But at present, PF2 or 5e, aren't it for me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but 1e d&d compared to pf2 is as different a rules set as comparing warhammer to either. RPGs don't exist in a vacuum. As pathfinder proved, players will jump brands.I disagree. Warhammer was built from a miniature wargaming system and added RPG elements. D&D was an RPG from the get.
This is flat out wrong, DnD came from wargaming. Chainmail?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The original product titled Dungeons and Dragons was printed in 1974 and said on the cover: "Rules for Fantasical Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures." It was straight up exactly a miniature wargaming system with added rpg elements.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is flat out wrong, DnD came from wargaming. Chainmail?but 1e d&d compared to pf2 is as different a rules set as comparing warhammer to either. RPGs don't exist in a vacuum. As pathfinder proved, players will jump brands.I disagree. Warhammer was built from a miniature wargaming system and added RPG elements. D&D was an RPG from the get.
You are right. D&D grew from the Chainmail wargame system. But it became the definitive RPG. And since then it has not been a wargame system. Sure, there will always be combat elements, but for many of us it is the role-playing elements that makes it different.
I played Warhammer, and it was more about moving fantasy armies on a battlefield than RPG. It may be different now, but what I played was nothing like D&D. Pathfinder is like D&D. And with it, so is PF2e.
People like different things for different reasons.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a constructive result from people with different tastes quizzing one another. (It can be useful if someone ignorant of a game says “what do you like about it?”).
I love PF1 and bought everything they put out for it, but that’s irrelevant to Paizo’s decision - they have to make decisions based on market realities not ephemeral judgements about “quality”.
I think the fact there isn’t a flood of publishers pouring into the “fill the gap left by Paizo” suggests they made the right call. We’ll know for sure in another three or so years, I’d guess.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both Purpleduck and Legendary Games have put together PF1.5s however. Which is much more relevant to the thread topic than if PF is the best system, however you define best.
Both Purpleduck and Legendary Games have put together PF1.5s however.
Yeah - but there isn’t a big fight for market share in that space. And they’re both going pretty slow.
That’s kind of my point - I’m sure there’ll always be some PF1 support but the market really had turned down - for both Paizo (I’m guessing) and 3PP.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Steve, that doesn't change my thought processes.
It is like a family business. The younger child has more income potential to the family business now than the older child. So let's just get rid of the older child.
I get that it is all about money. And I am fine with Paizo devoting the bulk of their talents to their new game system. That makes good business sense to support the new product line. I just don't understand totally abandoning the old product line, particularly when they are very different from one another.
They could rebrand PF1e as PATHFINDER CLASSIC. And write APS for both 2e and Classic. It is mostly about the stories anyway. That way Paizo will still get my money too. Because they will not be getting my money for PF2e. At least not anytime soon.
Ironically, I have still been buying Paizo stuff for my 1e campaigns.
Steve, I am just not ready to let it go. It looks like most of you are. And that is your choice.
Cheers,
Mazra
|
|
Judging by my Rise of the Runelords, Hell’s Rebels, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Shattered Star, and soon to be Strange Aeons campaigns, I’m not letting go of it any time soon.
And that is awesome. However, I am just running CotCT and playing in a Skull and Shackles at present. Shattered Star maybe next. But I am curious, why are you not leaving PF1 for PF2 or 5e?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven’t learned PF2 enough to be confident in the system, although I have been in a few scenarios recently. And my 5E GM rage quit when they reneged on the digital support he expected, so we haven’t tried it since.
Good reasons. I have always liked Paizo's digital support system. In addition to face-to-face campaigns, I have run message board campaigns on this site and email campaigns with friends and family. Paizo's digital content has made that possible and richly so. I actually thought about running a 5e campaign, but was discouraged by the lack of digital support.
But my main motivation for starting this thread was the fact that there was no way I could convert my Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign to PF2e. It just wouldn't work. And then we started to compare them more and more. It became clear to us that PF2e was nowhere near as robust as PF1e. Maybe someday. But it will take years for PF2e to become anywhere near what PF1e currently is.
And then I wondered if PF1e was a dead system to Paizo? And I found it that it is. And that makes me very sad. Sure we still have the content. But I will be looking for more. And there is so much more that can be added, tweaked, improved upon, etc. But this Baby has been thrown out with the Bathwater.
And with no support, more and more will fall away until there is nothing. And the problem with that, and here I go again, is that PF1e is the best D&D based RPG game system to date. It is better than all the others. Again, that is my opinion. YMMV. But you are still running several 1e campaigns. If it wasn't a solid system, you would not be running them, nor would I.
Cheers,
Mazra
I played Warhammer, and it was more about moving fantasy armies on a battlefield than RPG. It may be different now, but what I played was nothing like D&D.
Warhammer Fantasy Battles and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying are two quite different games. If you're playing a ratcatcher or a herbalist you're in the latter, if you're moving armies you're playing the former. In the first and second editions of WHFRPG the characters could be converted to Fantasy Battle stats (but never were IME), but in 3e they certainly couldn't.
Clunky as f@%+ with plenty of minutia, also swingy and easy to fall behind if you prioritize fun over numbers in a build.
Are you talking about Warhammer or PF1e?
In Warhammer, that's probably a selling point. I mean, depends on the product but crunchy is a badge of pride, not a stumbling block. One of many reasons Warhammer is so niche.
In PF1e, that's a more complicated question. I've found there's just as much optimization culture around PF2e as PF1e, and PF2e in actual play is *far* less balanced than people claim. I still love it though, it's a great game. I'll also give you that consistent and specific wording of PF2e brings much joy to my shriveled, blackened heart...
In both cases, you're using the term "objectively" incorrectly. See "subjectively".
See? I knew we couldn't agree! The stars have not yet aligned for that dreadful day when we fall into concordance and the Great Old Ones waken...
Why would I say 1E is objectively terrible? And why do we need another rehash of 1E vs 2E/5E?
This time it's not even Rysky's fault. :P
But yeah, I'd be happy with a civil discussion of the merits and flaws of all three systems.
Not this "x" system is terribad and badwrongfun nonsense. Both PF1e and PF2e are great, and they're not everyone's cup of tea. I love both and don't like tea because it spills all over my rib bones...
Steve, that doesn't change my thought processes.
It is like a family business. The younger child has more income potential to the family business now than the older child. So let's just get rid of the older child.
I get that it is all about money. And I am fine with Paizo devoting the bulk of their talents to their new game system. That makes good business sense to support the new product line. I just don't understand totally abandoning the old product line, particularly when they are very different from one another.
They could rebrand PF1e as PATHFINDER CLASSIC. And write APS for both 2e and Classic. It is mostly about the stories anyway. That way Paizo will still get my money too. Because they will not be getting my money for PF2e. At least not anytime soon.
Ironically, I have still been buying Paizo stuff for my 1e campaigns.
Steve, I am just not ready to let it go. It looks like most of you are. And that is your choice.
Cheers,
Mazra
Oh sure, I’m not trying to talk you out of it. (I wasn’t ready either! Only way I could get on board with PF2 was by giving away all my PF1 stuff. I absolutely understand the desire to stick with it and to wish people were still supporting it).
There are just perfectly sensible business reasons Paizo wouldn’t do it. Definitely not saying you shouldn’t want it or shouldn’t ask for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They could rebrand PF1e as PATHFINDER CLASSIC. And write APS for both 2e and Classic. It is mostly about the stories anyway. That way Paizo will still get my money too. Because they will not be getting my money for PF2e. At least not anytime soon.
Companies really shouldn’t chase every potential revenue stream - there are other considerations. Your comment here focussed on revenue, but profit is the important driver here.There are primarily two issues that make this approach problematic:
1. Paizo would need to maintain a PF Classic staff - this is the investment in people who are going to remain familiar with the pros and cons of writing for PF1 (it can be the same people, although I’ve heard it expressed by writers that there is a certain limit to how many systems you can write for). Doing this is a monthly drain on resources and is only sustainable long term if the revenue from selling books is greater than the cost of making them.
My impression is that it was beginning to cost more to produce PF1 stuff than they were getting back. There just weren’t enough of us buying the books to cover all the costs.
2. If they’d continued to support both, at least some people who currently buy PF2 products wouldn’t have switched. This is the whole “split the fanbase” problem which nearly nixxed the production of Starfinder and which ensures Paizo aren’t going to launch a whole new world alongside Golarion.
The upshot would be that although PF2 and Starfinder may currently be profitable enough to subsidise a small PF1 team - the risk would be that trying to do so would reduce the profitability of PF2 and not reverse the ongoing trend of declining sales of PF1 products.
There’s lots about size of print runs and that impact on profitability too, but the two issues above are the big ones - splitting the fanbase is an enormous risk and no matter where you and I are, the market has moved away from PF1. This is why I think 3PP is the best chance of ongoing support - they don’t have to support 50+ staff members and they’re not risking as much by going all in on PF1. They can test the waters and grow organically to meet the demand of the market. They also don’t need to worry about going purely digital or print on demand which would be a big change for Paizo and it’s customers.
For you and me it’s about what game we like best, but for Paizo and it’s employees it’s an existential question. They really have all the information and the experience to make the right call. I’d be very surprised if they got it wrong.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There’s lots about size of print runs and that impact on profitability too, but the two issues above are the big ones - splitting the fanbase is an enormous risk and no matter where you and I are, the market has moved away from PF1. This is why I think 3PP is the best chance of ongoing support - they don’t have to...
Steve you may be right. My crystal ball is broke, so I cannot predict the future. But history is often a great teacher.
Ironically, Paizo is following the same pattern of another prior company...TSR. What happened to them?
Wizards of the Coast has a vast lifeline. It is called HASBRO. They are not going anywhere.
My hope is for the long term success of Paizo. They are the best. D&D Second Edition did not help TSR in the end. I am not sure PF2E will help Paizo. I sure they know what they are doing.
So long PF1e. It was great!
Cheers,
Mazra
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still bit confused by notion that 2e is completely different setting from 1e pathfinder. Like maybe its different from 3.5 pathfinder? But I don't really see early 1e pathfinder being different setting just because setting doesn't focus to bringing up edgy things anymore
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There’s lots about size of print runs and that impact on profitability too, but the two issues above are the big ones - splitting the fanbase is an enormous risk and no matter where you and I are, the market has moved away from PF1. This is why I think 3PP is the best chance of ongoing support - they don’t have to...Steve you may be right. My crystal ball is broke, so I cannot predict the future. But history is often a great teacher.
Ironically, Paizo is following the same pattern of another prior company...TSR. What happened to them?
Wizards of the Coast has a vast lifeline. It is called HASBRO. They are not going anywhere.
My hope is for the long term success of Paizo. They are the best. D&D Second Edition did not help TSR in the end. I am not sure PF2E will help Paizo. I sure they know what they are doing.
So long PF1e. It was great!
Cheers,
Mazra
The. CEO of Paizo was the person at WotC who was tasked with digging back through the records of TSR and understanding why it failed. It wasn’t the creation of 2E that sent TSR bankrupt.
There were many factors, some inter-related, but her conclusion was that the single, biggest factor was the “splitting the fanbase” problem. In TSR’s case, it wasn’t systems but campaign worlds. By creating multiple, distinct product lines which competed with one another for sales amongst the customer base, they reduced the number of each book sold.
Essentially, there was an easy way for customers to exclude most of TSR’s products from consideration. People would tend to buy the rulebooks and the campaign material for one of TSR’s plethora of worlds. That meant smaller print runs, which meant higher costs, which meant lower profits and eventual losses. (There were several other issues too but this was the big one, in her opinion). If Paizo were to produce material for both PF1 and PF2 they would be repeating the mistake made by TSR which led to its demise.
PF1 isn’t dead. It’s a great system. But the size of the player base no longer supports a company the size of Paizo. A 3PP is the best answer, in my opinion because they can take that risk that a fifty employee company can’t.
I'm still bit confused by notion that 2e is completely different setting from 1e pathfinder. Like maybe its different from 3.5 pathfinder? But I don't really see early 1e pathfinder being different setting just because setting doesn't focus to bringing up edgy things anymore
For me, the fact it’s had 24 APs happen to it is a substantial enough change.
The situation around Lake Encarthan is entirely different (and obviously impactful, if you try to use PF1 sourcebooks in a PF2 game). There are many other sourcebooks that are also now incorrect.
“Completely” different is too strong, but things are different enough that it’s not worth trying to transplant campaign lore from one to the other, imo.
I'm still bit confused by notion that 2e is completely different setting from 1e pathfinder. Like maybe its different from 3.5 pathfinder? But I don't really see early 1e pathfinder being different setting just because setting doesn't focus to bringing up edgy things anymore
Significant lore changes, revisions, and such. I'm not talking mechanically (that's another can of purple worms), but the very pronounced shift in focus from PF1e and PF2e. It's not even a bad thing, inclusivity is a big motivation for the changes. Each version of Golarion has its share of good and bad.
But the result is two very different looking Golarions. That's my opinion, anyway, not everyone (like yourself) agrees and that's not an issue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I can sort of understand what you mean if you mean APs being canon now, but I don't really feel like they are "separate settings" anymore than D&D editions for Forgotten Realms are. Its just same setting with couple of changes and adventure material being taken in account. Unlike D&D where they ignore Tiamat being defeated hundred times but take video games with canon apparently. Yeah I really prefer this format to what D&D does x'D
I consider the different versions of the FR to be brand new settings too.
My preferred option is that no adventures change canon. That the world is presented and the adventures may be world altering, but future sourcebooks are always preadventure.
There’s a lot of love in the community for “living campaign worlds” though, it seems. Not many companies follow my preferred approach.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with "no adventure changes world" is that it kinda leads eventually to either company reusing same plot line over and over or it eventually creates situation where you can't run games in same setting because adventures would conflict with each other <_< (that or they do D&D thing of "and team rocket gets blasted off again and things are back to status quo")
(or the rare "when writers want to make adventure that deals with implications of another adventure" the confusion of what counts and doesn't count as canon for the adventure)
(I think Paizo has done this well and consistently: aps don't usually presume other aps have happened, but none of them are impossible to run if others have been run and ones that are sequels to other ones are pretty clear about which aps have been assumed to have happened.)
Your preferences are much more common than mine, I think.
I consider the different versions of the FR to be brand new settings too.
My preferred option is that no adventures change canon. That the world is presented and the adventures may be world altering, but future sourcebooks are always preadventure.
There’s a lot of love in the community for “living campaign worlds” though, it seems. Not many companies follow my preferred approach.
I'm with you on that one. APs tend to have big epic world changing effects, and one of the things that put me off PF2e is that, because of the way they track in game years against real world years, it felt like a series of huge, but unrelated changes had all happened within an unrealistically short timespan. My preference (and it os only a preference) would have been for a 100 year skip in the timeline to spread out the events and let the new paradigm bed in a bit.
On the original question, I can see why Paizo wrote a new system. They had pretty much run out of things to write about the core world, and they made a decision not to develop either a new world or the non-Inner Sea buits of Golarion (to avoid splitting the fanbase). Inevitably there were going to be people who didn't like it enough to switch.
Personally, I love Golarion 1.0. I love Glorantha. I love Symbaroum. I loathe the Forgotten Realms because it's Ren-faire fantasy, and at the moment Golarion 2.0 ... just doesn't feel right, so I am not switching games.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There were lot of big events in short time spawn in 1e too though. But yeah that is more of straight up "Yeah can't argue with that since it IS preference question" and I can't nor wouldn't want to argue with it <_<
Like I can definitely understand not liking idea of 20 different almost level 20 parties popping out in rapid pace in ten years in setting where level 15-20 characters are legit rare.(they would still be rare in overall world, but concentrated on inner sea region in statistical anomaly x'D) I don't mind it myself (because I see the setting as a rpg world not a book world and I categorize those differently. I dislike Forgotten Realms because I don't think it makes for particularly good rpg experience), but its really easy to see why that would bother other people.
(have to admit that my dislike of how Forgotten Realms handles things influences a lot in what I like about how Paizo handled setting in their edition transition. Like one of reasons I don't like idea of time skips between editions is that they lead to all favorite non long lived pcs and npcs being dead between editions unless they would pull same crap Wizards did and have Volo be petrified for 500 years or something because apparently iconic characters can't ever die in Forgotten Realms :P )
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would have preferred a longer jump into the future as well. It would have made the changes to Golarion feel natural instead of retcons.
I understand why not to do that though, it's a whole lot more work.
I'm glad they didn't go the Forgotten Realms route. Having an apocalypse every edition change gets a little old.
I would have preferred a longer jump into the future as well. It would have made the changes to Golarion feel natural instead of retcons.
I understand why not to do that though, it's a whole lot more work.
I'm glad they didn't go the Forgotten Realms route. Having an apocalypse every edition change gets a little old.
I'm actually okay with the changes. Just... not the explanation.
"It was totally this way before, narrative trumps mechanics (GM fiat)".
Narrative has always trumped mechanics in their Pathfinder.
Did it, though?
Were NPCs doing things "just cause the GM/writer felt like it?" Or was there a logical if not mechanical explanation for the the narrative? These abilities generally weren't gated off from PCs by GM fiat.
Basically, in PF1e both players and GM are playing a sport with rules. Whether you like the rules or think they're good rules is subjective and irrelevant.
In PF2e, the players are still playing a sport with rules. The GM, on the other hand, is playing Calvinball.
Keep in mind, this is specific to how mechanics interact with the narrative, as that was assertion made.
Saying that "but PF2e combat totes has rules" is irrelevant to the conversation.
Disclaimer: I like both PF1e and PF2e, but see both systems for their flaws.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GMs have always played Calvinball, the good ones just don’t make it obvious.
Ah, a proponent of fudging the dice and lying about it to the players, I see?
Or are there actually rules you follow even if it doesn't conform to the narrative you're trying to create? Do you fudge that natural 20 that kills a PC in an ignoble and anticlimactic way, or let the dice land where they land?
I'd argue *good GMs* set honest expectations with the players about whether they're playing in a game with real agency or just illusion of choice.
The rules exist to arbitrate the relationship between storytellers and control of the narrative in RPGs. PF2e actually does a somewhat better job of defining the roles than PF1e out of the gate. But the heavy reliance on GM fiat (often by omission) is much worse, though not as bad as in D&D5e.
See well-written narrative first games like anything Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA) or especially Blades in the Dark for clear, concise rules on who controls the narrative at what time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. All you have to do is look at the terrible mechanics that don't work or functionally do anything as well as the plentiful examples of things just happening because the author said so.Narrative has always trumped mechanics in their Pathfinder.Did it, though?
Hm. I disagree with both assertions, but refuse to let you shift the conversation.
Whether you think the mechanics of PF1e as a whole are good or bad is irrelevant to this specific discussion, and honestly, just side-stepping the issue. Whether any given mechanic is bad or good is also irrelevant, unless it's a narrative focused mechanic.
The consistency and accuracy of writing for Paizo is also irrelevant, and rather subjective.
Certainly, there are cases of "The BBEG does XYZ just cause" but many more where the mechanics are specifically designed and even built out as options for players.
I.e:
1) In PF1e, an NPC wizard casts dimension door to avoid an encounter, allowing the PCs to fight it. They have a familiar and two buddies.
No problem, the rules that apply to PCs also apply to NPCs.
2) In PF2e, an NPC wizard wishes to avoid an encounter, but at the level they're supposed to be the severely nerfed options that a PC would have access to won't work.
So you: give them an ability no PC has or could ever have, create a unique spell that beats the pants off everything of that level, or in most PF2e APs I've read just sort of handwaive it.
You can argue that PF1e still had this problem, and do so accurately. But the problem is far less pronounced than PF2e, much less D&D5e.
Like I mentioned above, narrative first games actually handle this problem much better. They specify how the narrative is controlled, by who and when. But while you gain clarity, you do absolutely lose the crossover between GMs and player gameplay - as a forever GM, I've run far more classes as NPCs than PCs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It’s more obvious in adventures, where often things just happen with no mechanical justification, or in the initial release of new subsystems. I can’t count the number of special mechanics for challenges that just outright don’t matter or are unwinnable. (Rum rations in Skull and Shackles for one.) I’ll be halfway through running something and realize we’re just rolling dice to no actual effect on the story. So it’s just a diversion for the players and I play it up as such. Sometimes it becomes an amusing anecdote and sometimes it’s a brutal slog of boredom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ignoring rules for narrative reasons in Adventure Paths:
The first book of Hell's Rebels has the worst example of it that I've seen.
So... ignore the rules to find invisible creatures because the players are focused on trying to find an invisible creature?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
John Reyst over at d20pfsrd.com posted an update on the Fans of d20pfsrd.com Facebook page yesterday. The January 2021 listings show that Pathfinder 1e is far from dead. He didn't post the numbers for PF2e but he said "2e is literally a drop in the bucket compared to 1e. I've about given up dedicating *any* effort to working on the 2e SRD."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMs have always played Calvinball, the good ones just don’t make it obvious.Ah, a proponent of fudging the dice and lying about it to the players, I see?
Or are there actually rules you follow even if it doesn't conform to the narrative you're trying to create? Do you fudge that natural 20 that kills a PC in an ignoble and anticlimactic way, or let the dice land where they land?
I'd argue *good GMs* set honest expectations with the players about whether they're playing in a game with real agency or just illusion of choice.
The rules exist to arbitrate the relationship between storytellers and control of the narrative in RPGs. PF2e actually does a somewhat better job of defining the roles than PF1e out of the gate. But the heavy reliance on GM fiat (often by omission) is much worse, though not as bad as in D&D5e.
See well-written narrative first games like anything Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA) or especially Blades in the Dark for clear, concise rules on who controls the narrative at what time.
Moving the numbers up and down on creatures as needed.
And yes I've adjusted my rolls down too, rather than let the 3 crits in a row I got on a PC play out. If you TPK your party the campaign ends, that's no fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't even know there WAS a 2E section, which may be a contributing factor to that statistic.
(Also, it shows that lack of work now that I've looked at it. Being less useful than AoN also probably contributes.)
I agree that the 2E section isn't nearly as well-known, just like his 5E and other Open Gaming sites. But also, I imagine the licensing aspect of 2E is different than the OGL (I'm assuming; I don't know), and that is likely to make his 2E site less useful than AoN. And certainly less useful than his PF1E site.
Still, it may be a good way to indicate the level of play 1E still has.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But also, I imagine the licensing aspect of 2E is different than the OGL (I'm assuming; I don't know), and that is likely to make his 2E site less useful than AoN. And certainly less useful than his PF1E site.
I don’t think it is. You can publish PF2 stuff under the OGL or under the CUP, same as PF1.
However, I suspect the new players all go to the AoN site (because it’s “official” and you don’t have to deal with differently named abilities). Many PF1 players were already comfortable with navigating those issues and we tend to remain with what we’re familiar with.
I think PF1 is clearly still thriving and I hope the market is big enough to support continued development.
I wonder if 3PP would do better filling the AP void first, before trying to supplant Paizo’s ouput of PF1 rules?