| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah man, I missed an opportunity to trash capitalism.
One thing to consider is the old adage "a rising tide raises all ships". D&D is leading more and more people to the hobby. While certainly people have 5e as their preferred system, a lot of them just start there. Some of those people are gonna branch out or move on entirely.
In the realm of experiences and games, offering different experiences is often enough. It's why Call of Duty and Destiny can both be pretty successful without having to defeat one another.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a few thought reading through here but I didn't read everything.
1) Roll20 doesn't require any payment to use/play it. At least not as far as I'm aware and I've been using it since the pandemic started (as a player). As far as I'm aware there are some real convenient tools if you're a GM that you might want to pay for, but there is no requirement to pay.
2) Regardless of the cost of Roll20 or any virtual table top system, the number of players using it doesn't actually matter! Why?
3) Because sales are the thing that matters! Remember, most of Paizo's character facing content is available completely free. If I want to make a character (doesn't matter 1e or 2e) I can use Archives of Nethys or d20pfsrd to do so. I don't need to spend a penny to look up all the options.
4) The primary money maker for Paizo is selling adventure paths and other scenarios, GM facing products.
Ultimately it doesn't matter how many people are playing a system in terms of health of the business and prospective company health.
What matters is how much they're buying.
I have no idea what the sales data looks like between PF1 and PF2, or how you would account for the influence of the pandemic in the data. I don't think Paizo would reveal such data to us anyways.
From Paizo perspective their main goal would be that their selling as much PF2 materials as they were PF1 materials (or more).
They really shouldn't care about what Wizards and 5th Edition are doing, only about how they're doing.
If you don't want to self-reflect, you don't need to.His point was that there's nothing to self-reflect on, as we didn't make the game.
No, that's really where he's wrong.
Paizo publishes the game, but the players make the game. There's no "solo" mode for Pathfinder (like video games have), so not only do you as an individual have to be sold on the game, someone else has to be as well - and likely, 3-5 other people.
And I'm guessing in our little bubbles, the day-to-day / week-to-week is mostly the same. We (the people who post) have found our groups, and we're generally pretty happy with the game. Given the survivorship bias on forums, that's all a given.
But sooner or later our little bubbles burst, and we find ourselves having moved away, or watched our friends move away, or changed our schedules, etc., and cast into the ether of finding a new group to play with.
Suddenly, the nebulous, collective experiences of the wider community become very relevant. What's the overall culture like "out there"? Well, you've got little slices, right here, if people are willing to be a little introspective and take a broader view than their own microcosms. I don't Reddit, and I don't really Discord, so I depend on others to import their experiences from there. I'll share what I see, and others can share what they see, and we can find some common threads - or not.
If "self-reflection" is too vague a term, let me pose some specific questions to get at what I mean.
1. Does the #2 popularity of Pathfinder lead to sub-critical masses of players in less populated areas?
2. Does the complexity of Pathfinder draw intense gamers to the degree that it deters new players?
3. Is Pathfinder (or are RPGs) priced so that a new player's financial security factors in to which system they choose?
4. Does Pathfinder suffer from the moral panics that plague D&D?
We have no direct control over those answers, but our feedback is worth something to TPTB.
---
And just so it's clear these aren't pointed questions with some secret hidden agenda:
1. I live in an urban area, but I do wonder about this.
2. One of the reasons I like PF2 over PF1 is the deliberate reduction in the rewards for powergaming. I find people are more open to being open.
3. This hasn't been a barrier for myself, but my kids have asked about starting an RPG club at school, and I imagine the cost of rulebooks would be a factor for kids.
4. For better or for worse, I never read about Pathfinder in mainstream media. So yay in the sense that nobody yells "GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN" when I tell them I play Pathfinder, but boo in the sense that I inevitably have to give the layman's explanation that Pathfinder is D&D.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
self-re·flec·tion
/ˈˌself rəˈflekSHən,ˈˌself rēˈflekSHən/
noun
noun: self-reflection
meditation or serious thought about one's character, actions, and motives.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
........going back to roll20 (a much more worthwhile and less needlessly incendiary topic). My friend bought extinction curse on the platform a few months ago and as a player I've had a blast. All we really needed was a virtual tabletop which roll20 accomplishes quite well when purchasing the adventure paths. If you're fine playing your character from your character sheet or pathbuilder, its a great product with a low learning curve and small to non-existent investment for those who just need a virtual table for the visuals and spacial awareness.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, that's really where he's wrong.
No that’s really where you don’t understand what “self reflection” means. It’s a cute term you’re using - but the right term for it is one I threw out earlier. You want to Armchair Quarterback this game for a bit. As if somehow there is an objectively right approach that will make PF2 #1.
If "self-reflection" is too vague a term, let me pose some specific questions to get at what I mean.
. Since you’ve tripled down on it though - let’s look at this from the concept of the introspection you think will derive us some answers.
1. Does the #2 popularity of Pathfinder lead to sub-critical masses of players in less populated areas?
Self, if I can dream a popular PF2, can I manifest it? That’s not an internal question that I can find the answer to deep in myself, that’s an answer that requires data. Data we don’t have. Should this really be more of a survey?.
2. Does the complexity of Pathfinder draw intense gamers to the degree that it deters new players?
Another demographic question I’m supposed to soul search for, as far as I know I’m the only one in here. It’s like the words introspection and self reflection mean something other than the author of this series of questions realized.
3. Is Pathfinder (or are RPGs) priced so that a new player's financial security factors in to which system they choose?
Self, I ask myself, why don’t the players get to set the price a publishing enterprise uses for their products. I know what I can afford, never mind what their break even point is - they should cater to my wallet if they want my money. Never mind that the company we’re self reflecting about provides its rules for free on the internet, or that they release their material in two different price points for budget conscious players. Why don’t they just listen to me, I have the right answer in my plucky little heart.
4. Does Pathfinder suffer from the moral panics that plague D&D?
Self, do I think Pathfinder is experiencing a second satanic panic decades after the first satanic panic ended? No, self, I don’t think it is.
This self reflection was oddly outward focused with a need to develop answers to marketing strategies and demographic queries... weird.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since we're just going with personal experiences, anecdotes, and self reflection 15+ of my friends that never played TTRPGs started playing PF2 over D&D5E since the pandemic started. None of us use Roll20 because if you're entering the market today there are other free options, like Astral or Owlbear Rodeo, or better options like Foundry.
Separately, it's unlikely that you'll see tons of new players asking questions here because in the current year most people don't seek out company forums and tend to go to places like Reddit to ask their questions.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I generally agree with the responses above, I think PF2 players are missing an opportunity for some self-examination.
Did PF2 miss an opportunity this year? A *lot* of people started playing D&D. Like ... a LOT.
I barely know anyone who started playing Pathfinder. There hasn't been an influx of new players asking basic questions on the forums. I haven't walked more new players through their first game in the last year than I did in the previous year (PbP).
Did the PF player base grow to expectations?
To that, I'll reply that maybe you're not looking at the right place. The Pathfinder_RPG discord server CONSTANTLY gets new players/GMs asking questions and looking for a first game to play. The people now don't go to forums, they go to discord servers. It's more fluid, you get an answer usually immediately, and it's often more convivial.
Like... I don't remember a day where the discord server didn't get a new player/GM in there since APG got out.
And yes, a lot of these people come from playing DnD5 but hearing that there's more customization available in PF2.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
3. Is Pathfinder (or are RPGs) priced so that a new player's financial security factors in to which system they choose?
The majority of the content paizo produces is available legally for free on Archives of Nethys. The only content not available is the majority of setting-specific information and official pre-made adventures, neither of which are necessary to run the game.
Between that at the robust Organized Play program, I'd say Pathfinder 2E is very accessible to newcomers.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
3. Is Pathfinder (or are RPGs) priced so that a new player's financial security factors into which system they choose?The majority of the content Paizo produces is available legally for free on Archives of Nethys. The only content not available is the majority of setting-specific information and official pre-made adventures, neither of which are necessary to run the game.
Between that at the robust Organized Play program, I'd say Pathfinder 2E is very accessible to newcomers.
Also, TBH... TTRPG books as a whole are underpriced. That brings the problem that TTRPG writers/designers are underpaid. Which I don't like. And I'm not even working in that industry.
AND yeah. AoN and PF2 being entirely OGL still make the answer to that question: Yes, it's priced in a VERY competitive way. And way easier to access than any other systems I've known.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the argument "Roll20 doesn't reflect the success/ failure of Pathfinder 2 because PF2 isn't well supported by Roll20" very interesting. Almost a chicken-and-the-egg situation.
If Pathfinder 2 were a run-away success and had a huge player base, Roll20 would support it because not doing so would be leaving money on the table. And even if there wasn't official support, said large community would be producing fan mods and packages for running the game.
Yes, there's better VTTs for PF2 online, but they cost money while Roll20 is free. Other VTTs are more of an investment. They're what people are using if they expect to be playing online regularly. But this past year, I think most games moved online in a temporary sense. And a free platform like Roll20 makes much more sense in that regard. You don't drop $50 for a VTT you only expected to use six or seven times.
One of the times this came up last year, Lisa Stevens popped on to say they weren't worried because people wanted to finish that final PF1 campaign before switching. That makes sense: before I switched from PF1 to 5e I ran that final AP.
But it's now been two years (three with the playtest), which feels like more than enough time for those final campaigns to wrap up. And there hasn't been a huge transition. The PF1 players continue to play that game and PF2 seems to have largely plateaued/ stabilized in its growth.
So it really depends on what you consider a "failure."
I don't think anyone expected PF2 to hit the same height PF1 did when it passed D&D. But I think people were hoping PF2 would at least pass what PF1 was doing in terms of sales in 2015 or 2016, when it was the second best selling game. That the game would preserve its current audience while growing slightly. And instead it seems to have lost a significant audience. It divided its audience while not significantly pulling in new gamers or attracting gamers from 5e.
Which shouldn't be a surprise. 5e has reinvigorated the whole industry and brought in fantastic numbers of gamers. But many of those have been pulled in by streaming, which focuses heavily on the story and narrative aspects of the game and less on the crunchy character building and optimization that drove 3.X and PF. 5e is already more complex and dense than many gamers need, so Pathfinder 2—arguably the most complex and dense game modern game—is the opposite of what they desire.
I know I bounced off PF2, largely for that reason.
I wanted to like it. I wanted a game that was partway between 5e and PF1 that would appeal to the min-maxers at my table while not overwhelming the casual gamers and not handicapping my storytelling as a DM. And instead I found it updated PF1 in the exact opposite direction I desired. I really, really wanted to support Paizo again and give the company my money. But the game system just didn't seem like it would be easier to use to tell the stories I wanted to tell over 5e.
Given that Paizo has multiple books slated for release in the future, (Secrets of Magic, Guns and Gears, etc), it doesn't really seem to me like Paizo is hurting.
The number of books does feel fast to me. D&D really slowed down its number of releases and splatbooks with great success. Class content only every couple years. Playtesting each new class for a couple years. In contrast, Pathfinder has three big books of player options in 2021 alone with four classes that were each playtested for a fortnight.
Which feels risky. Pathfinder isn't competing with D&D anymore so much as Star Wars Roleplaying, Cyberpunk, and the Alien RPG. (And Starfinder for that matter.) Smaller games that seldom have more than one or two products each year.
I really think Paizo needs to slow down their releases rather than risking hitting "bloat" too early: the point when players realize they have enough content for a dozen campaigns and stop buying new books. (Which is why I stopped buying PF1 after 2014, although I should have stopped in 2012 given how little use I made of the 2013+ releases.)
As an example, after the Lost Omens Ancestry Guide there doesn't ever need to be another ancestry published for the game. (You could run 9 four-person campaigns without a single repeated race.) They didn't do themselves any favours with that book: they could have easily halved the number of ancestries and tripled the amount of lore for each people, making the book more enjoyable to read and thus a worthwhile purchase even if you don't need a new PC option while also leaving room for a follow-up.
The catch is Paizo has a fairly large staff that exists solely to produce books. They need something for said staff members to work on or they have to engage in layoffs. And Lisa Stevens is heavily against that. NOBODY wants that. We all want Paizo to succeed and flourish.
Moving staff over to the Adventure Path line might help. Refocusing their efforts back on their former flagship product line and really making that shine. Moving it mostly in-house rather than being written by a parade of freelancers. Which would allow the individual authors to better coordinate and work closer with the editors. And since it'd be their day job rather than a side hustle, the adventures might be written faster allowing more time to playtest, resulting in a higher quality overall product.
A third RPG alongside Starfinder might not be a bad idea. Something equally different so there's no crossover between players or competition in the audience. The Pathfinder Modern concept that has been floated about for some time might be an idea. Or make a superhero RPG, drawing inspiration from Mutants & Masterminds. Heck, they could partner with Green Ronin to make a 4th Edition of that game that uses PF2 as the engine rather than gender d20.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
5e publishing one usable book a year for player content, if they're lucky, is definitely not a good thing.
|
|
PF2 aimed at least in part to get the 5e players (and GMs) who wanted something more. I would not be at all surprised that novice players start with 5e, then a part of them go to PF2, some of whom will become PF2 GMs.
Which is all good for PF2 IMO.
The thing I think that Paizo needs to be aware of is the IMO inevitable digitalization of the hobby. A game company that makes the work of VTTs, character build apps and other such tools' designers really easier will gain a significant advantage, as those are keys to improve the user's experience and thus increase their fun which translates in passion for the game (and in the end more money for the company).
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really think Paizo needs to slow down their releases rather than risking hitting "bloat" too early: the point when players realize they have enough content for a dozen campaigns and stop buying new books.
I think this really misses that Paizo's core product is and always has been the Adventure Path line, by their own admission. Basically everything else they produce exists to sell that, and it's been moving at the same "one book per month" pace since it existed.
I also think Paizo is currently pushing to "catch up" to 1e to an extent, because a lot of their player base is still feeling the lack of 1e staples like Magus, Gunslinger, Summoner, Kineticist, etc.
The thing I think that Paizo needs to be aware of is the IMO inevitable digitalization of the hobby. A game company that makes the work of VTTs, character build apps and other such tools' designers really easier will gain a significant advantage, as those are keys to improve the user's experience and thus increase their fun which translates in passion for the game (and in the end more money for the company).
I suspect Paizo is highly aware of this, and that's exactly why they just announced their combat tracker app.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
For one thing we've had designers commenting in this thread about Pathfinder 2e books selling much better than Pathfinder 1e books ever did, so we already know that your analysis is wrong to some extent Jester. The RPG market as a whole is much larger and from what I've seen 2e absolutely appeals to a subset of veteran 5e players (who were maybe new a few years ago, but have since cut their teeth) who want more system mastery, character customization, and a faster release schedule.
The other thing that's interesting is that I don't know that 'bloat' is the same problem it was. When the ancestry guide was coming out, people weren't really thinking in terms of a need to use everything in it or talking about their being too many options already, you mostly see people hyping a handful of things they're actually excited about in each release rather than focusing on the arbitrary amount of things they could play.
For example, I own the book, and I'm very happy with it, but I'm not too interested in Fleshwarps, just on a personal level, I have players who are, but I personally, will likely never use that character option. This means that the options I want to use, aren't equal to the total numbero f options currently in the game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry I meant to write more but had to switch desks at work.
I think that players today are much more amenable to a veritable sea of options of which they're interested in a fraction of. Focusing on a handful of classes they like, ancestries that interest them, and flirting with things to expand that palette. They're more comfortable with online tools ala DND Beyond, Pathbuilder, or Archives of Nethys where they aren't necessarily paging through a mountain of actual books at the table. These tools really streamline the reference overhead thats always been a bit of a problem for these complex TTRPGs. They buy books to read and collect them, and support the company that produces the material, rather than simply to play out of them.
Similarly, Pathfinder 2e is itself better designed to facilitate more options without them turning into Bloat. The siloing on feats was a stroke of genius, looking at your level 5 options for fighter class feats is such a smaller list than looking at every feat at once in something like Pathfinder 1e or DND 4e, even for new players who don't already know what they're looking for. A lack of real feat taxes also means that if you don't want to look at all your options, you don't really have to, your character's effectiveness isn't at risk to the same degree-- you really can just take a feat you stumble over idly that seems neat or suits your flavor.
When the Ancestry Guide came out, I immediately made the observation that I still wanted more, having Kitsune is wonderful, but I don't have many choices at all at certain levels, and none of the levels really feel saturated. If they come out with more Kitsune options in a Tian Xia lost omens book or something, I'll be much pleased by that. I'm still looking forward to more options for all of the Core Rulebook classes, and they've already received expansion! I desire it even more for the APG classes, and obviously we don't even have the base of the four new classes coming out this year yet, much less additional options for them after that.
The only real risk I can see, is if they cover all of the fantasy concepts players would actually be excited to see-- are there an infinite number of things like Sprites, and Geniekin? But even then, they have talented writers, so they can come up with new stuff. We're not even caught up to PF1e and they're doing new stuff too, like the Inventor.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone expected PF2 to hit the same height PF1 did when it passed D&D. But I think people were hoping PF2 would at least pass what PF1 was doing in terms of sales in 2015 or 2016, when it was the second best selling game.
So the hope was that it would remain the # 2 game? Shock of shocks:it did
I fail to understand how one can use its current sales ranking (knowing full well it's just a spot on a list without specific sales figures attached) as evidence of it falling short of expectations. "No one expected it to become the #1 selling game, but the fact that it went from #2 to #2 shows there are problems"
Quoi?
And instead it seems to have lost a significant audience. It divided its audience while not significantly pulling in new gamers or attracting gamers from 5e.
I'm assuming you can prove that statement as more than just "what you've seen online."
We all want Paizo to succeed and flourish.
It doesn't seem like you do. Or at least, it doesn't seem like you want them to succeed and flourish if they don't do it by following the map to success that exists in your head.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I can't imagine why people would choose Roll20 as their go-to VTT for Pathfinder 2e in particular.
To answer this question, I use Roll20 because I really dislike how battle maps work on Fantasy Grounds and my computer is kind of garbage so Foundry doesn't run well on it. I still have plans to run Sundered Waves in FG to give it a proper shot, but man I can't get used to having maps be in a window within the program.
Yeah I can't imagine why people would choose Roll20 as their go-to VTT for Pathfinder 2e in particular.To answer this question, I use Roll20 because I really dislike how battle maps work on Fantasy Grounds and my computer is kind of garbage so Foundry doesn't run well on it. I still have plans to run Sundered Waves in FG to give it a proper shot, but man I can't get used to having maps be in a window within the program.
FWIW, you can "pin" a map, which makes it into a "background window" like other programs do. This works much better with the Unity version of Fantasy Grounds, since it lets you zoom out arbitrarily far. I've settled into a routine of stretching the program window across both my monitors, pinning the map, and then scaling it to fit the parts I care about on just one monitor - that way I can reserve the other monitor for combat tracker, chat, etc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As noted earlier, Wizards of the Coast is big enough that they could probably stop releasing 5E stuff entirely and be fine for a good long while, so I'm not sure how much that matters.
I don't have judgement on the system health or business sense of such a release schedule, but I will say as a player that it kinda bites to wait so long for new options that aren't UA, especially when balancing lands awkwardly for the official version.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
As noted earlier, Wizards of the Coast is big enough that they could probably stop releasing5E stuff entirelyeverything except Magic The Gathering and be finefor a good long while, so I'm not sure how much that matters.
FTFY
|
5e publishing one usable book a year for player content, if they're lucky, is definitely not a good thing.I mean, it seems to be working out fine for Wizards.
I feel 5e's success can be attributed more to the brand name, its ability to afford a ton of marketing and it being a great entry point for TTRPGs. As far as quality, I think the system has been piggybacking off of the great design of its initial releases but hasn't really brought anything substantial since. Anything really innovative is likely only found in 3pp/homebrew. I don't want to blame the designers though. Its likely Hasbro corporate is worried more about profits versus product quality and the risks this requires to deviate from what they have found to be successful. It doesn't help that one cause of the preceding system's (4e)"failure" was the output of too many expansion books. One book of player content per year (if that) is not a good thing. Do they need to release a new book every month? No. Should they have more classes than PF2 when its got 4 years of so advantage on it? Yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't help that one cause of the preceding system's (4e)"failure" was the output of too many expansion books.
I'm going to challenge that notion a little bit - the output of "too many expansions" wasn't the issue, 2e and 3.X put more expansions out than 4e did and did so at about the same pace. The expansion issue was that the expansions were structured in such a way that you needed three books to get each of the core materials that were separated into those expansions. 3.X had multiple Players Handbooks, but if you purchased PHB I you got the core races and classes while PHB II got you additional content. You had to purchase both PHB 1,2 & 3 to get all of the core classes in the 4e model.
One book of player content per year (if that) is not a good thing.
It is neither hurting their bottom line, nor the interest of their entrenched fanbase - so where is the down side?
Do they need to release a new book every month? No. Should they have more classes than PF2 when its got 4 years of so advantage on it? Yes.
Why? Why does one games release pace need to be compared against the other if both companies are releasing content on a schedule they are comfortable with?
|
|
Fair enough. Good point. I have heard that releasing too much content too quickly was a problem but this also sounds like a good reason for the player base to feel cheated and abandon the system.It doesn't help that one cause of the preceding system's (4e)"failure" was the output of too many expansion books.I'm going to challenge that notion a little bit - the output of "too many expansions" wasn't the issue, 2e and 3.X put more expansions out than 4e did and did so at about the same pace. The expansion issue was that the expansions were structured in such a way that you needed three books to get each of the core materials that were separated into those expansions. 3.X had multiple Players Handbooks, but if you purchased PHB I you got the core races and classes while PHB II got you additional content. You had to purchase both PHB 1,2 & 3 to get all of the core classes in the 4e model.
Just because something isn't good doesn't mean it's hurtful or even bad but it can be mediocre and unambitious. Again, corporate interests could be the reason that the 5e community is not getting an even better product.One book of player content per year (if that) is not a good thing.It is neither hurting their bottom line, nor the interest of their entrenched fanbase - so where is the down side?
Do they need to release a new book every month? No. Should they have more classes than PF2 when its got 4 years of so advantage on it? Yes.Why? Why does one games release pace need to be compared against the other if both companies are releasing content on a schedule they are comfortable with?
They don't HAVE to but I would think if they wanted to maximize their player base and player satisfaction, they would improve on quality through more original material or more material in general. And if some players want a simpler experience, they can just stick with the core rules. I would also guess that a larger business would be able to hire more people to develop at least as much content at the same rate as a smaller company (unless the D&D team is actually smaller than the Pathfinder team).
Again, corporate interests could be the reason that the 5e community is not getting an even better product.
The Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda's work both ways. Putting out more books a year could diminish the quality and prove that corporate interests were the reason the 5e community is getting the quality of product that they are.
I would think if they wanted to maximize their player base and player satisfaction, they would improve on quality through more original material or more material in general.
They have the largest TTRPG player base in the world, larger than at any time in the history of the hobby - how much more maximized could they get? All the players in the hobby? They grow to the point where they push out any competitors?
It's weird to look up at the guy standing on top of the tallest mountain in the world and say "I know I'm not a climber, but if he just listened to me, he could go even higher." Just as weird at looking at number 2 and saying "That poor sap isn't #1, what a failure."
|
|
Again, corporate interests could be the reason that the 5e community is not getting an even better product.The Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda's work both ways. Putting out more books a year could diminish the quality and prove that corporate interests were the reason the 5e community is getting the quality of product that they are.
The thing is, Paizo (and even WotC itself with 3e) has proven that it can be done without compromising quality.
I would think if they wanted to maximize their player base and player satisfaction, they would improve on quality through more original material or more material in general.They have the largest TTRPG player base in the world, larger than at any time in the history of the hobby - how much more maximized could they get? All the players in the hobby? They grow to the point where they push out any competitors?
It's weird to look up at the guy standing on top of the tallest mountain in the world and say "I know I'm not a climber, but if he just listened to me, he could go even higher." Just as weird at looking at number 2 and saying "That poor sap isn't #1, what a failure."
I see it more as seeing someone who won in the race in climbing the second tallest mountain and succeeding but then climbing up half of the tallest mountain and then using a helicopter to get the rest of the way up and calling themselves the best while I'm thinking, "Something tells me they didn't really deserve this one."
The thing is, Paizo (and even WotC itself with 3e) has proven that it can be done without compromising quality.
3.X expansions routinely introduced feats and abilities that strained the balance of the game because the pace of release didn't allow for adequate playtesting. Scaled back versions of the same feat would be kludged into other books because their release schedule was faster than their errata schedule. That is literally the definition of compromising quality.
I see it more as seeing someone who won in the race in climbing the second tallest mountain and succeeding but then climbing up half of the tallest mountain and then using a helicopter to get the rest of the way up and calling themselves the best while I'm thinking, "Something tells me they didn't really deserve this one."
Huh? That analogy doesn't really work, and the idea that success isn't "deserved" if it wasn't won on your terms is more than a little presumptuous.
|
|
The thing is, Paizo (and even WotC itself with 3e) has proven that it can be done without compromising quality.3.X expansions routinely introduced feats and abilities that strained the balance of the game because the pace of release didn't allow for adequate playtesting. Scaled back versions of the same feat would be kludged into other books because their release schedule was faster than their errata schedule. That is literally the definition of compromising quality.
And 3.X [including PF1 as an extension of that] still has a dedicated fanbase with the option of sticking with the core rules if a group so desires. Sounds like optimized customer satisfaction to me.
I see it more as seeing someone who won in the race in climbing the second tallest mountain and succeeding but then climbing up half of the tallest mountain and then using a helicopter to get the rest of the way up and calling themselves the best while I'm thinking, "Something tells me they didn't really deserve this one."Huh? That analogy doesn't really work, and the idea that success isn't "deserved" if it wasn't won on your terms is more than a little presumptuous.
You're right...not having an explicit rule stating that you can't utilize aircraft in a mountain climbing race makes it totally fair, not only in law but also in spirit.