|
Can you or someone else help me understand how this is different than Paizo’s model? You have the Core Rulebook, but if you want all the options for the core classes you still need the APG. And then the classes in both are likely to be expanded in Secrets of Magic and Guns and Gears later this year. There will likely be Wizard/Sorcerer/Druid/Cleric options across three books in this model, and we don’t know exactly how the martials will shake out. Likewise, Ancestry options for the core classes were expanded in Lost Omens: Players Guide while adding new ancestries, but then those new ancestries were expanded in a later book that included even more new ancestries, and those newer ancestries are likely to be expanded in an even later book.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.
The first PHB for 4e only had 8 classes and was missing many classic classes. But I can see your point as well. I can still see D&D veterans feeling a bit cheated from it though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you or someone else help me understand how this is different than Paizo’s model? You have the Core Rulebook, but if you want all the options for the core classes you still need the APG. And then the classes in both are likely to be expanded in Secrets of Magic and Guns and Gears later this year. There will likely be Wizard/Sorcerer/Druid/Cleric options across three books in this model, and we don’t know exactly how the martials will shake out. Likewise, Ancestry options for the core classes were expanded in Lost Omens: Players Guide while adding new ancestries, but then those new ancestries were expanded in a later book that included even more new ancestries, and those newer ancestries are likely to be expanded in an even later book.
If you bought the PF1 or PF2 Core Rulebook you walked way with a book containing enough material to play all of the traditional Core Race/Ancestry and Class options that reach back across the storied history of the game. The APG gave you more feats and features to supplement those options or replace the ones presented in the initial release while also providing you with new Races/Ancestries and Classes and their own unique options. You're getting expansions to something that was already presented in a complete and playable form.
Conversely. If you bought the D&D 4th Edition Players Handbook and you wanted to play a Barbarian or a Bard - you had to wait 9 months for the Players Handbook 2 to come out because they were not printed in the first PHB. If you wanted to play a Monk you had to wait a year from the release of PHB 2 to play it when you bought PHB 3.
Yeah, we didn't get all of our Pathfinder 1e race/ancestry and class options in the PF2 CRB, and they are still expanding the feats and features for what already came out but we got all the D&D legacy ones that are considered "core" without having to wait almost 2 full years for them to come online at all.
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.
As does OD&D, AD&D, 2e, even 4e. Having a fanbase with a preference for an older game doesn't automatically mean that the current game fails when it doesn't follow in its predecessors footsteps exactly. The market is different now, and WOTC is navigating that in the way they choose to, why is your opinion on their success level somehow more valid than their own metrics of determining success?
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.
No I meant that the "race to the top" analogy suddenly augmented by cheating with an aircraft is an incredibly poor analogy for "releasing a new edition of a game." The fact that you're doubling down on it as if implying that WOTC somehow cheated their way to success makes me think this conversation might be about to enter some difficult terrain.
|
Can you or someone else help me understand how this is different than Paizo’s model? You have the Core Rulebook, but if you want all the options for the core classes you still need the APG. And then the classes in both are likely to be expanded in Secrets of Magic and Guns and Gears later this year. There will likely be Wizard/Sorcerer/Druid/Cleric options across three books in this model, and we don’t know exactly how the martials will shake out. Likewise, Ancestry options for the core classes were expanded in Lost Omens: Players Guide while adding new ancestries, but then those new ancestries were expanded in a later book that included even more new ancestries, and those newer ancestries are likely to be expanded in an even later book.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.
I don't think anyone is complaining about core classes getting more options in splatbooks. Didn't many of the popular races and classes from 3.5E PHB1 not get a 4E release until PHB2. Maybe the complaint was that 4E split content that should have been in the first PHB into three pieces?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Howdy All,
Over on Enworld there's a sort of mini-flame war brewing over whether or not Pathfinder 2e should be considered a failure or not - mostly revolving around the number of people playing on virtual table tops.
The CEO has posted that 2E is a success by company standards, which is the only standard that matters. Not how many people are playing on VTTs, not how many books are sold. What matters is the company is earning profits, and it doesn't matter if other companies are earning more profits.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.As does OD&D, AD&D, 2e, even 4e. Having a fanbase with a preference for an older game doesn't automatically mean that the current game fails when it doesn't follow in its predecessors. The market is different now, and WOTC is navigating that in the way they choose to, why is your opinion on their success level somehow more valid than their own metrics of determining success?
I am not questioning 5e's success. It is a very obviously successful system. Denying that would be absolutely ridiculous. I am questioning Hasbro/WotC's commitment to optimizing quality and player satisfaction. An incentive to that could be further success but I am not at all dismissing they are by far the most successful brand of the hobby.
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.No I meant that the "race to the top" analogy suddenly augmented by cheating with an aircraft is an incredibly poor analogy for "releasing a new edition of a game." The fact that you're doubling down on it as if implying that WOTC somehow cheated their way to success makes me think this conversation might be about to enter some difficult terrain.
I'm not really saying that WotC cheated to get where they are (though I do believe within our economic system [U.S.], disproportional success in a market can lead to unfair advantages [my opinion] - but yes, that's a discussion completely inappropriate for this forum). I do believe that D&D's influence on the hobby of TTRPGs makes it more difficult for some (not all) to find people to play more developed (non-5e) yet less popular systems with. Due to that, I think 5e is selling its player base short and also losing players by minimizing releases with mechanical heft. And remember, 5e losing players doesn't necessarily mean players are moving to different systems, nor does players taking on different systems mean they would altogether abandon 5e. Players looking for more could abandon the hobby altogether if they can find no other alternative. But I think if 5e produced some crunchier and more original material, the entire TTRPG community would benefit. But is 5e going to be successful regardless and am I thankful for its influence on growing the TTRPG community in general? Absolutely. Are they riding on that success at the cost of a more developed system? I think so.
I am questioning Hasbro/WotC's commitment to optimizing quality and player satisfaction. An incentive to that could be further success but I am not at all dismissing they are by far the most successful brand of the hobby.
Based on what do you draw these questions? The case you seem to have made is that since the less successful or popular 3.X put out more material and it’s grognards haven’t stopped playing it that somehow means that 5e isn’t committed to quality.
I think 5e is selling its player base short and also losing players by minimizing releases with mechanical heft. And remember, 5e losing players doesn't necessarily mean players are moving to different systems, nor does players taking on different systems mean they would altogether abandon 5e.
In what world does the 20 - 30% increase of players in the hobby that continues to take place year after year as evidenced by ongoing yearly reports of new sales of the PHB - indicate that 5e is losing players?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am questioning Hasbro/WotC's commitment to optimizing quality and player satisfaction. An incentive to that could be further success but I am not at all dismissing they are by far the most successful brand of the hobby.Based on what do you draw these questions? The case you seem to have made is that since the less successful or popular 3.X put out more material and it’s grognards haven’t stopped playing it that somehow means that 5e isn’t committed to quality.
Maybe there is something 5e could add to convert those "grognards" over to enjoy both systems equally.
I think 5e is selling its player base short and also losing players by minimizing releases with mechanical heft. And remember, 5e losing players doesn't necessarily mean players are moving to different systems, nor does players taking on different systems mean they would altogether abandon 5e.In what world does the 20 - 30% increase of players in the hobby that continues to take place year after year as evidenced by ongoing yearly reports of new sales of the PHB - indicate that 5e is losing players?
Doesn't mean those numbers couldn't be 25-35% or higher.
|
| 1 person 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.
The AP *was* the core product. And it still was when they released Ultimate Combat for Jade Regent and Mythic Adventures just to tell the Wrath of the Righteous story.
But I think it moved away after that. There were more and more hardcovers released just to do more content and not to support the AP. And you had stuff like Strange Aeons released a year after Occult Adventures.The APs feel secondary now.
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.
Which feels like a foolish choice: if they release an entire edition's must-have content in two years, what do they fill the next eight with?
Nor should Paizo feel mandated to do a kineticist or a brawler just because they were popular in PF1.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people are missing the forest for the trees here. As much as I dislike 5E’s slow pace of content, it’s working well for them. My theory is that because 5E and PF2E cater to different types of gamers. 5E draws new players and more casual players to the hobby that don’t need new options every few months. Having more content is actually too overwhelming and diluted the core game. However, PF2E attracts a more hardcore crowd that either want more mechanical crunch. They aren’t easily satisfied with only one book of character options every couple years and probably prefer Paizo’s frantic release schedule. I see this divide all the time on Reddit and especially in the 5E subreddit where some people actually want less classes! The 5E players like myself that are drawn to PF2E come for a variety of reasons but a big all encompassing one is that we want more crunch whether that’s deeper mechanics or more character customization.
As a result, I don’t think Paizo should slow their content frequency to match 5E as some have suggested. The two systems cater to different crowds and Paizo is catching a niche market of customers that want something deeper than what 5E has to offer.
Maybe there is something 5e could add to convert those "grognards" over to enjoy both systems equally.
Sure , but there are only so many times you should try to kick Lucy’s football when you know she’ll just yank it away like always.
Doesn't mean those numbers couldn't be 25-35% or higher.
Picking up an incredibly number of new players, but not as many as “guy on internet TM” thinks they could is not the same as “losing players.”
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe there is something 5e could add to convert those "grognards" over to enjoy both systems equally.Sure , but there are only so many times you should try to kick Lucy’s football when you know she’ll just yank it away like always.
Not sure where you're going with this? Is attempting kicking Lucy's football the production of more content or playing newer systems?
Doesn't mean those numbers couldn't be 25-35% or higher.Picking up an incredibly number of new players, but not as many as “guy on internet TM” thinks they could is not the same as “losing players.”
If this 20-30% is only based on sales of PHBs and assuming being purchased by new players and not new copies for previous buyers, how many of those new players are actually sticking around? And what about players already part of the TTRPG community?
Not sure where you're going with this? Is attempting kicking Lucy's football the production of more content or playing newer systems?
Lucy’s football is going out of your way to appease or appeal to fans of 3.X.
If this 20-30% is only based on sales of PHBs and assuming being purchased by new players and not new copies for previous buyers, how many of those new players are actually sticking around? And what about players already part of the TTRPG community?
The PHB isn’t made that cheaply, and it was 20% more players in 17 than 16 20% more in 18 than 17 and so on and so on and so on. PHB sales is one metric. Sales of other books is another. Engagement on Reddit is another.
You’re claiming a rocket launch is a death spiral and arguing that it is falling because you aren’t on board.
Pleasure Roleplaying with you tonight - your naysayer character gets 300 Xp
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure where you're going with this? Is attempting kicking Lucy's football the production of more content or playing newer systems?Lucy’s football is going out of your way to appease or appeal to fans of 3.X.
When was the first time 5e tried to appeal to fans of 3.X beyond the core books and were disappointed by their response?
If this 20-30% is only based on sales of PHBs and assuming being purchased by new players and not new copies for previous buyers, how many of those new players are actually sticking around? And what about players already part of the TTRPG community?The PHB isn’t made that cheaply, and it was 20% more players in 17 than 16 20% more in 18 than 17 and so on and so on and so on. PHB sales is one metric. Sales of other books is another. Engagement on Reddit is another.
You’re claiming a rocket launch is a death spiral and arguing that it is falling because you aren’t on board.
Pleasure Roleplaying with you tonight - your naysayer character gets 300 Xp
Again, for the Nth time, I'm not claiming 5e is a failure or is in danger of being a failure. To me you sound like you're OK with settling with mediocrity but I'm not claiming that because you might actually just like being argumentative or are just overly defensive of 5e or are not comprehending what I mean when I say, "5e [is] going to be successful regardless and am I thankful for its influence on growing the TTRPG community in general". I just think it could be better if the company utilized their resources to build upon the system more than they have.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 35 people marked this as a favorite. |
Folks, the game is doing well. It'd be doing better if we weren't in the middle of a worldwide pandemic, but we've sold a TON of books and continue to do so. More importantly, we believe the current game provides a design infrastructure and presentation that we can better build on toward the future than a system whose infrastructure dates back to the 1990s.
In terms of the overall timeline, we are not in the "2015" of Pathfinder Second Edition. We are in the "2011" of Pathfinder Second Edition. And the fundamental business (and the game's fundamental design) is much more sound, and the potential for growth much more significant, than it was back then.
Online engagement with the brand, from people making, watching, and commenting on online videos to participation in online forums, is something that actually happens now. That activity was dead prior to second edition, and now it is vibrant and getting more so.
Most of our subscriptions are higher now than they were 2 years ago. In ALL of those cases they are also higher than they were 3 years ago. And 5 years ago.
The RPG hobby has grown monstrously in the last 3-5 years. There are plenty of gold pieces to share among the party.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks, Erik.
I always appreciate your clear and direct answers.
Paizo stuff has got better and better over the years, imo. Im glad that is showing through in sales!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, for the Nth time, I'm not claiming 5e is a failure or is in danger of being a failure. To me you sound like you're OK with settling with mediocrity but I'm not claiming that because you might actually just like being argumentative or are just overly defensive of 5e or are not comprehending what I mean when I say, "5e [is] going to be successful regardless and am I thankful for its influence on growing the TTRPG community in general". I just think it could be better if the company utilized their resources to build upon the system more than they have.
I don’t even like 5e, let alone play it. We do however live in an objective reality where D&D 5e is both more popular than ever and has more players than ever. It is ticking along just fine without my input - or yours. It’s player base is by and large happy with the product. The majority of the people with complaint seem to be players of older editions.
The idea that the current edition would only reach its highest heights if it moved toward us older players to provide us a game more like the one we liked that reached a smaller audience and sold less copies. The proven track record of going backward...
There are other games for you if you don’t like D&D 5e. The idea that the older players are the untapped market that needs to be met is the height of arrogance, as if to say all those new players aren’t real players and the game they like is only “mediocre” unless it becomes more like the game you - a real gamer - liked before it was cool. This of course disregards older players who came back to the hobby because of 5e and those who do play it.
Like what you like, but there isn’t a need to invent a reality where it’s “losing players” because it doesn’t lay the way you would prefer it did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Which feels like a foolish choice: if they release an entire edition's must-have content in two years, what do they fill the next eight with?
Nor should Paizo feel mandated to do a kineticist or a brawler just because they were popular in PF1.
...I think they do exactly what they did with 1e. Which had, what... Eight or ten classes added in the first two years... and then almost no new classes for the next eight?
It's not like Paizo has ever had a hard time coming up with content that isn't just "more classes".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, for the Nth time, I'm not claiming 5e is a failure or is in danger of being a failure. To me you sound like you're OK with settling with mediocrity but I'm not claiming that because you might actually just like being argumentative or are just overly defensive of 5e or are not comprehending what I mean when I say, "5e [is] going to be successful regardless and am I thankful for its influence on growing the TTRPG community in general". I just think it could be better if the company utilized their resources to build upon the system more than they have.I don’t even like 5e, let alone play it. We do however live in an objective reality where D&D 5e is both more popular than ever and has more players than ever. It is ticking along just fine without my input - or yours. It’s player base is by and large happy with the product. The majority of the people with complaint seem to be players of older editions.
The idea that the current edition would only reach its highest heights if it moved toward us older players to provide us a game more like the one we liked that reached a smaller audience and sold less copies. The proven track record of going backward...
There are other games for you if you don’t like D&D 5e. The idea that the older players are the untapped market that needs to be met is the height of arrogance, as if to say all those new players aren’t real players and the game they like is only “mediocre” unless it becomes more like the game you - a real gamer - liked before it was cool. This of course disregards older players who came back to the hobby because of 5e and those who do play it.
Like what you like, but there isn’t a need to invent a reality where it’s “losing players” because it doesn’t lay the way you would prefer it did.
Dude, I've only been in the hobby since 2017 and started with 5e (alongside PF1) and do generally like it and play it on occasion. Just cuz I find issues doesn't equate to me hating on it entirely and thinking its players are inferior. Maybe I'm just a passionate fan who wants more.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, I've only been in the hobby since 2017 and started with 5e (alongside PF1) and do generally like it and play it on occasion. Just cuz I find issues doesn't equate to me hating on it entirely...
So you aren’t comparing it to 3.X in terms of release schedule because you were there and think that release was better handled at the time. For so new a player, you sure did pick a very specific halcyon golden age to latch onto. Ok then. Let’s look at your arguments
it doesn’t release books as often as “it should,”
Your personal preference for a release schedule is not an actual “issue.”
3.X proves that you can release books much more regularly without quality suffering.
Quality for sure suffered. All of that content was not good, a nearly monthly release cycle resulted in some great material and some tripe that should never have made it to print. They were constantly having to retune things that didn’t work. The reason we have a version of the game called 3.5 is because 3rd Edition was broken on release and very quickly needed to be repaired. Paizo had the benefit of the fact that WOTC had spent years getting the system as refined as it could before they began making Pathfinder, their release schedule also included less player focused splats and they focused on AP’s
People still play the older game so it must be better
People still play the older game because lots of older gamers hate change. There are 3.0 players who refused to make the switch to 3.5. There are players who refused to make the jump to the next edition at every turn. That doesn’t prove that older is better.
They could do something to make it so older players like both systems equally
Revising things to win back the lost 3.X players didn’t work when it was called Essentials, didn’t work in the early 5e playtest and as you can see here on these forums - the dialogue between PF1 die hards and PF2 adopters is often fraught with conflict that can be boiled down to their preference being that you leave their system alone and just give them more widgets they can use at their table. It’s a long wait for a train that never shows up.
They’re losing players
If I introduced 10 new players to the hobby this year, more than in any year prior, I didn’t “lose players” because I introduced 10 and not 20.
They could be doing even better
Sure, and Bill Gates could make more money.
They aren’t committed to quality
Based on their slower and more deliberate publishing schedule? Okay
We get it, you want more books. You’ve made your case. On the forums of the chief competitor of the company you’re critiquing. I’m sure Wizards got the message.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, I've only been in the hobby since 2017 and started with 5e (alongside PF1) and do generally like it and play it on occasion. Just cuz I find issues doesn't equate to me hating on it entirely...So you aren’t comparing it to 3.X in terms of release schedule because you were there and think that release was better handled at the time. For so new a player, you sure did pick a very specific halcyon golden age to latch onto. Ok then. Let’s look at your arguments
it doesn’t release books as often as “it should,”
Your personal preference for a release schedule is not an actual “issue.”
3.X proves that you can release books much more regularly without quality suffering.
Quality for sure suffered. All of that content was not good, a nearly monthly release cycle resulted in some great material and some tripe that should never have made it to print. They were constantly having to retune things that didn’t work. The reason we have a version of the game called 3.5 is because 3rd Edition was broken on release and very quickly needed to be repaired. Paizo had the benefit of the fact that WOTC had spent years getting the system as refined as it could before they began making Pathfinder, their release schedule also included less player focused splats and they focused on AP’s
People still play the older game so it must be better
People still play the older game because lots of older gamers hate change. There are 3.0 players who refused to make the switch to 3.5. There are players who refused to make the jump to the next edition at every turn. That doesn’t prove that older is better.
They could do something to make it so older players like both systems equally
Revising things to win back the lost 3.X players didn’t work when it was called Essentials, didn’t work in the early 5e playtest and as you can see here on these forums - the dialogue between PF1 die hards and PF2 adopters is often fraught with conflict that can be boiled down...
Hey, you know what? I love you. Take care of yourself.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
