| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Data from Roll20's Orr report, Fantasy Grounds, sales from ICv2, amazon sales, views and engagement in general from shows, liveplays etc. all point to it. Even if those datasets have questionable statistical value and each fails to paint a full picture on it's own, taken altogether they seem to point to a decline in popularity.
And this pains me, as Starfinder is my favourite sci-fi rpg!
What do you think Paizo should do, if anything?
Personally, I said before that a Starfinder 2nd edition would be madness, but honestly I don't know for how long that can be stalled. Looking at the near future, I am changing my mind and I find myself yearning for a complete, radical, overhaul of the game on the level of what they did with PF2e (the absolute BEST fantasy rpg system currently out there, in my opinion, even if personal taste is often just as, if not more, important than objevtive quality in the rpg world).
Also, since PF2 is a modern rpg that is still built on solid "somewhat classical" d20 system foundations... How about a new completely different system for Starfinder 2? Maybe one based on a more narrative system. Something along the lines of the Year Zero engine, or Savage Worlds, or a PbtA, or some other, but developed by Paizo as a brand new Starfinder 2 system. Is that something that would even be conceivable or feasable (or advisable?).
Let me know what you think.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Resetting the game back to 0 so short in it's lifespan will not likely increase it's interest, you'd be mainly just resetting the content back to core-book levels and killing off some of starfinder's primary draws:
1) probably the best designed d20 system game
2) only 'living' d20 game around (M&M is so diverged from d20 at this point I don't really count it).
Paizo making an rpg using a completely different system framework sounds very unlikely to me, since they're not seen as having system expertise in any system but d20 derivations & because you'd be likely be removing the current fanbase too severely. Plus, you'd likely need to ditch the current starfinder staff and rehire a completely new team for "PbtA/FitD/Fate/Savage Worlds/Chuubos/etc. Starfinder".
Finally, it's anecdotal, but I also know a decent number of people who specifically play starfinder because it's the best D&D style game out their for them, since they don't enjoy the design style of PF2e.
starfinder's primary draws:
1) probably the best designed d20 system game
2) only 'living' d20 game around (M&M is so diverged from d20 at this point I don't really count it).
On these 2 points I strongly disagree: Pathfinder 2e is just one other living d20 game that is doing extremely good and is, in my opinion, much better designed.
About Paizo people not having experience with different systems outside of the d20 world, that I don't know, but you are probably correct. I think it would be brave (and admittedly a little crazy) for them to diversify their portfolio and push themselves to really innovate with their next game. It could bring a lot more ppl in that would otherwise not be interested in another d20 sort-of-maybe-better iteration that tries to compete with PF2 and D&D 5 (or 6 even!).
That being said, given Paizo's schedule for Starfinder stuff, you have nothing to worry about for a couple of years at least. It's clearly still too early for them to shift gears.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer Pathfinder to what I have read of P2e as a general rule, once DnD did 4e I think it died for me.
From my own little network of gamers, most stopped DnD at 4e and those who didn't really do DnD did Pathfinder and have stuck to the first.
I agree that resettng the game to a 2e would be a mistake, having to re wait for everything to be redone would seriously hurt the game, especially if you thing its loosing its player base.
A change in the game style could also hurt the game. A good example from my perspective was Modiphius. I really enjoyed their 2d20 system with Mutant Chronicles and Conan, I would still play them. I am a fair Star Trek fan, however their ST game which simplified the game for the more narrative approach killed it. I understand it might fit into the 'tv series' feel, but as a game it sucks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On these 2 points I strongly disagree: Pathfinder 2e is just one other living d20 game that is doing extremely good and is, in my opinion, much better designed.
That wasn't a comment on PF2e's quality. PF2e diverted a lot from the d20 system to become it's own thing. Starfinder is still has many parts of the d20 skeleton, while PF2e ditched a lot of it in the same way 4e D&D was not a d20 system game even though some elements remained.
About Paizo people not having experience with different systems outside of the d20 world, that I don't know, but you are probably correct. I think it would be brave (and admittedly a little crazy) for them to diversify their portfolio and push themselves to really innovate with their next game. It could bring a lot more ppl in that would otherwise not be interested in another d20 sort-of-maybe-better iteration that tries to compete with PF2 and D&D 5 (or 6 even!).
That being said, given Paizo's schedule for Starfinder stuff, you have nothing to worry about for a couple of years at least. It's clearly still too early for them to shift gears.
Some Paizo people have experience with other rpgs iirc, but it's not all of the same varieties. And while it may bring in people who wouldn't be interested in D&D type systems.... that sorta ditches the fanbase you have and the adventure paths you have.
Starfinder will need to eventually iterate and update itself (likely a PF2e style one after a couple more years), but replacing the core experience with something that does not align itself with the core concept of well... 'D&D in Space' as it's gameplay loops is going to create friction.
|
I'd be curious to see how Starfinder's decline in those datasets compares with other games' info. Specifically, is it Starfinder specifically that is faltering, or are TTRPGs in general just in a slump? I know that online VTT gaming has really taken off over the past year since, well, what choice is there, but I would not be surprised at all to hear that that uptick in online gaming is not enough to make up for the overall decline caused by a worldwide pandemic.
Regarding a 2nd Edition of Starfinder: I agree with others that I would feel pretty upset about losing all of the base content in Starfinder already; but if Paizo came out and said "we've run the numbers, and 2E is the only way to save this game" I would probably get over it :D
In a perfect world, they'd be able to launch a 2nd Edition with many, many, species ported over since that Cantina Feel is such a huge part of the IP's allure to me (and, I suspect, many others.) It would be a huge system shock to go back to only having 7 playable core species again. (Even 13, if Legacy species were included, would feel pretty stifling compared to the, what, 115+ we have now?)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Starfinder has ever managed to be particularly "big" in comparison to other properties, but I'm not sure you can say that it is currently in a particularly significant decline. Looking at Roll20's Orr Report data, for example, shows Starfinder consistently within 0.65-0.9% of the games hosted, with no particular rise or decline over the last year and a half.
Its currently being outsold by other small-fry TTRPGs, so its not on the top 5 ICV2 list. I don't think you can say that its definitely not viable or that its popularity is declining. Just that its not the new hotness any more and that it doesn't have a large market share in a general sense.
Sci-Fi RPGs are already a pretty small niche within a niche industry.
---
That said, I don't think Starfinder does a particularly good job of being a scifi-fantasy RPG. Its most science fictiony mechanics, Hacking and Starship Combat, are some of its weakest. And that isn't just in a "many people don't find them very fun" sense. The game is shackled to the PF1E/D&D3.5E chassis, and the sci fi elements feel like they've been tacked on. Its a game primarily designed to enable dungeon diving and finding loot, just like its predecessors, and at least from my perspective, it suffers from that.
I wouldn't be against a Paizo-created from-the-ground-up Science-fantasy-themed TTRPG. I *think* there's probably room in the market alongside Cyberpunk RED and Star Wars for something mechanically rich in that genre (rather than creating a PbtA-type game). But at the same time, I don't think they're in a position where they have to do it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe it would be in their best interest to bring Starfinder under the PF2 design umbrella, and make the games cross compatible. They would be able to avoid the "leap frog" problem where their two systems cannibilize each other's sales with each new edition as people move to the new hotness.
I loved Starfinder when it came out and it significantly dampened my enthusiasm for PF1 because I enjoyed a lot of the innovations. PF2 came out and my enthusiasm for Starfinder was similarly choked. Now I'm not even buying any new starfinder books.
It's the same universe. I have regularly brought sci-fi elements to Pathfinder and vice versa. It seems to me the mechanical separation isn't worth the ache of putting up with out of date rules.
Also, fantasy ttrpgs have a lot more steam. Starfinder might benefit from more closely riding along with Pathfinder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you think Paizo should do, if anything?
Some amazing entrance-level standalone cheap or free adventures.
It's kinda tough to still have to suggest Into the Unknown as a first dip after all these years... society scenarios don't quite fit the bill, too much "extra" stuff on them that doesn't relate to the core game; the skittermanders adventures, well, uh... nah; and suggesting an AP to someone who just wants to give the game a try is kinda ludicrous.
It seems to be the biggest hurdle I see in forums and reddit.
What do you think Paizo should do, if anything?Some amazing entrance-level standalone cheap or free adventures.
For sure! Up until now, I've been pointing people toward ATAT (Against the Aeon Throne) Book 1 because I think its the most intuitive thematic entry point. But an adventure that stands alone and isn't too expensive would be very welcome.
Unfortunately, the beginner box for Starfinder is a bit clunky as an intro due to using different rules from the base game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, anyone that won't game online is stuck not gaming at the moment. Thats going to take a chunk out of gaming no matter what.
|
What do you think Paizo should do, if anything?Some amazing entrance-level standalone cheap or free adventures.For sure! Up until now, I've been pointing people toward ATAT (Against the Aeon Throne) Book 1 because I think its the most intuitive thematic entry point. But an adventure that stands alone and isn't too expensive would be very welcome.
Unfortunately, the beginner box for Starfinder is a bit clunky as an intro due to using different rules from the base game.
Hopefully, the new modules line will have a good intro adventure in it.
|
I think three things coul help Starfinder to become more popular/stand out:
1. Episodic adventures instead of long adventure paths. Starfinder already pays tribute to the old scifi series (e.g. Star Trek or Bab5) so why not use their way of storytelling? Focus on short "one episode" adventures, (maybe some of them could be connected by a story arc).
2. Make it a living world. The world has to change, new powers, broken traties etc. Maybe explain this in form of a ingmae newspaper/broadcast, which is released every two weeks (I thinking of Eve Onlines "The Scope").
3. Admit that some rules are wonky and rework/streamline them.
The first thing which comes to my mind is the ship combat; it feels out of place, do not really tie in to the normal rule system and is more of a tabletop strategy game then a P&P RPG. I hoped the Spaceship Operation Manual would tackle this, but unfortunately it only add on top of the issues.
The second issue are the exploding DCs and differences in skills, aka if you don't maxed out a skill don't even bother to try to make the roll, as you will fail it. I think a more stable approach regarding the DCs and Skill ranks (e.g. like in DnD5) would be very helpfull.
The first two points are already tackled by the Society play scenarios and the upcomming adventure module(s). Paizo just have to shift their focus their and embrace this even more.
The thrid point could be approached with a "Starfinder unchained/revised/alternate rules" book.
For the starship rules & combat there are already a lot of good fan creations out there which tackle this issue (e.g. the StarshipsRevised by Jason Hamilton) and bring the starship combat more to the normal rules.
For the "exploding numbers" a look at systems with "static difficulties" (e.g. DnD5) could help.
I think Starfinder is a nice system, but it's Pathfinder heritage is hurting it (it already started with a content/rules bloat).
What do you think Paizo should do, if anything?Some amazing entrance-level standalone cheap or free adventures.
On this I agree completely! I have high hopes for the upcoming standalone Junker's Delight, but there should be a much higher effort in those kind of products and adventure material different from the 6-book format in general, rather than focusing on new classes and stuff (in my personal priority tastes).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
starfinder's primary draws:
1) probably the best designed d20 system game
WTF?!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
2. Make it a living world. The world has to change, new powers, broken traties etc. Maybe explain this in form of a ingmae newspaper/broadcast, which is released every two weeks (I thinking of Eve Onlines "The Scope").
Metaplot normally makes games less accessible rather that more.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the starship rules & combat there are already a lot of good fan creations out there which tackle this issue (e.g. the StarshipsRevised by Jason Hamilton) and bring the starship combat more to the normal rules.
I think for getting people in the game the biggest thing would be to NOT put starship combat in the low level games.
1) Its its own seperate system too many systems to learn
2) who gives the new guys the nuclear reactor anyway??
3) You get a few levels to pick up some skills.
4) The system isnt really that good. The pilot has decisions and strategy, everyoe else is making repetitive skillchecsks.
4) And almost importantly, starship combat (especially as the book describes it) does not work at lower levels. If you are using the captain science guy gunner engineer paradigm and a premade starship you can easily be plinking at your opponents shields for hours as they regen nearly as fast as they get blown off. You need to know the rules well enough to go pilot gunner gunner gunner gunner or you'll be there a while.
After level 6 and people get more abilities and choices and weapon damage starts to outpace shield regen by more, broadside lets a single gunner work without halving your ships damage per round.
The Starfinder Alexa game won awards and was a best seller... I don't buy into the concept that Starfinder is losing popularity. It's certainly my favorite game, and it's really popular in my local only Discord.
Agreed, I'm running three PBP games on another site and as soon as my local group hits peak immunity we'll be starting up Attack of the Swarm.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no trouble finding a Starfinder Society game on Warhorn.
My group is itching to come back to live play once they get vaccinated.
There's still a full slate of products coming up for sale.
There is no need to Chicken Little this. The sky isn't falling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really think it's going to start taking off a lot more with the sudden surge of awesome books. Seem to be a lot more player options coming out recently and into the near future. Having new classes especially is a huge thing
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really think it's going to start taking off a lot more with the sudden surge of awesome books. Seem to be a lot more player options coming out recently and into the near future. Having new classes especially is a huge thing
This is more or less how my group's feeling. I'm keen on the gm guide, one fella is keen on the upcoming mechs, and we're all looking forward to what Galactic Magic brings.
Having given PF2 a shot right before the pandemic shut down that campaign. I find PF2 to be the superior war game. Outside of the 5ft square grid, PF2 offers the better skill system, but starfinder’s loot and character upgrades actually feel like upgrades. Where PF2’s loot and character abilities are new tools in the tactical warfare toolbox.
Now, I am perfectly happy to play or run either. I will enjoy both for different reasons and have no inclination to pay PF1 again. But I appreciate star finder being a different system, it has a different feel and I’d rather that didn’t get folded into PF2, much as I enjoy PF2.
I disagree on Pathfinder and Starfinder being same universe since there are lot of things that makes them broad strokes Alternate Universes at best <_<
Out of curiosity, what things specifically?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree on Pathfinder and Starfinder being same universe since there are lot of things that makes them broad strokes Alternate Universes at best <_<Out of curiosity, what things specifically?
Well Nocticula is still a Demon Lord is Starfinder for one.
Well Nocticula is still a Demon Lord is Starfinder for one.I disagree on Pathfinder and Starfinder being same universe since there are lot of things that makes them broad strokes Alternate Universes at best <_<Out of curiosity, what things specifically?
Is she still a demon lord, or is she a demon lord again?
Is she still a demon lord, or is she a demon lord again?Well Nocticula is still a Demon Lord is Starfinder for one.I disagree on Pathfinder and Starfinder being same universe since there are lot of things that makes them broad strokes Alternate Universes at best <_<Out of curiosity, what things specifically?
We have no mention of her falling/losing power so...
|
I disagree on Pathfinder and Starfinder being same universe since there are lot of things that makes them broad strokes Alternate Universes at best <_<Out of curiosity, what things specifically?
Other things include that Undead aren't anymore inherently evil than other beings and that Aeons are still Neutral instead of Lawful Neutral and inevitables aren't recognized as aeons.
Starfinder also assumes bit weird things regarding planar technology level, but that is bit hard to see if its AU or not since not much planar info in Starfinder yet
There is also this dealio: Starfinder's stated goal is to avoid making up certain future for Pathfinder. But even with Gap, if Starfinder was 100% in same universe as Pathfinder, the Rovagug and Torag and such dealios would be set in stone.
We have no mention of her falling/losing power so...
There's thousands of years that no one remembers for it to have happened in, and Nocticula hasn't gotten any detailed articles in Starfinder where it would be worth mentioning.
Other things include that Undead aren't anymore inherently evil than other beings and that Aeons are still Neutral instead of Lawful Neutral and inevitables aren't recognized as aeons.
Starfinder also assumes bit weird things regarding planar technology level, but that is bit hard to see if its AU or not since not much planar info in Starfinder yet
There is also this dealio: Starfinder's stated goal is to avoid making up certain future for Pathfinder. But even with Gap, if Starfinder was 100% in same universe as Pathfinder, the Rovagug and Torag and such dealios would be set in stone.
Isn't the stated explanation for the aeon retcon - which I'm well on record of not being a fan of - that aeons go through an eons long process of cycling through the neutral alignments & Pathfinder just happens to take place as they're making the transition from true to lawful neutral? Assuming I just didn't make that up then again, the explanation for that is pretty simple; they worked their way back around in the last few thousand years. And no longer being in LN mode, while Inevitables are stuck there, they wouldn't be classified as the same things.
As for the undead thing, eh, I don't find that convincing in the least. I know people have very strong opinions on it but I find it as convincing as if someone tried to argue that PF1e & 2e were alternate universes because of how goblinoids & orcs are presented in the latter.
My issue with that last point is, what's happened to Torag & Rovagug isn't set in stone because we don't know what's happened to them beyond them not being around in the Pact Worlds system any more, because Golarion isn't anymore.
Which, to me, is the biggest thing keeping it from being an AU because if Starfinder was an AU, then there'd be no need to get rid of Golarion in the manner they did. Keeping it from being the overwhelming dominant focus of the setting is one reason to get rid of it but they could have had it explicitly destroyed or rendered unihabitable or just develop into a fairly boring garden world or be conquered by alien carrots and it wouldn't matter because they could just make it explicit "Starfinder is an alternate universe, the fate of Golarion depicted here has no bearing on the fate of Golarion as it unfolds in Pathfinder."
Isn’t the GAP only 300 years?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have very few things I don’t like about Starfinder, but the sorta-kinda link to Pathfinder is one of the biggest.
I see the commercial reason for doing it, but I really wish it had been set in its own universe (or at least it’s own solar system).
Isn’t the GAP only 300 years?
No, the Gap ended 300-some-odd years before the game takes place. The Gap lasted for an unknown amount of time that's generally described in terms of multiple thousands of years, though some mentions of time spans would suggest a shorter frame, the base is covered by the gap's exact length being variable depending on location.
Isn’t the GAP only 300 years?
It’s unrevealed.
(Although some passing reference in Against The Aeon Throne suggests it was over a thousand years. I don’t put much store in those kind of inferences).
This is what the CRB has to say about it, specifically;
What is known, however, is that while the Gap is universal — and a combination of carbon dating and astrochronology suggest it lasted several millennia—its edges are geotemporally inconsistent. Where one star system might have accurate records stretching back 300 years from the present, worlds in different parts of the galaxy might have 310 years of history, or only 275. Some scholars have even uncovered rare “caches” within the Gap—places where accounts seem suddenly consistent for a given period or topic. For an organization like the Starfinders, locating these scattered bread crumbs and syncing them up with ancient pre-Gap records may yet hold the key to unraveling the greatest mystery of the universe.
I imagine narratively this was done to cover any inconsistencies a given writer might put in regarding the gap, if they got the end date wrong or suggested a period of consistent history going back into what should be Gap time it can be written off as one of these "caches" of consistent history.
|
|
We have no mention of her falling/losing power so...There's thousands of years that no one remembers for it to have happened in, and Nocticula hasn't gotten any detailed articles in Starfinder where it would be worth mentioning.
Other things include that Undead aren't anymore inherently evil than other beings and that Aeons are still Neutral instead of Lawful Neutral and inevitables aren't recognized as aeons.
Starfinder also assumes bit weird things regarding planar technology level, but that is bit hard to see if its AU or not since not much planar info in Starfinder yet
There is also this dealio: Starfinder's stated goal is to avoid making up certain future for Pathfinder. But even with Gap, if Starfinder was 100% in same universe as Pathfinder, the Rovagug and Torag and such dealios would be set in stone.
Isn't the stated explanation for the aeon retcon - which I'm well on record of not being a fan of - that aeons go through an eons long process of cycling through the neutral alignments & Pathfinder just happens to take place as they're making the transition from true to lawful neutral? Assuming I just didn't make that up then again, the explanation for that is pretty simple; they worked their way back around in the last few thousand years. And no longer being in LN mode, while Inevitables are stuck there, they wouldn't be classified as the same things.
As for the undead thing, eh, I don't find that convincing in the least. I know people have very strong opinions on it but I find it as convincing as if someone tried to argue that PF1e & 2e were alternate universes because of how goblinoids & orcs are presented in the latter.
My issue with that last point is, what's happened to Torag & Rovagug isn't set in stone because we don't know what's happened to them beyond them not being around in the Pact Worlds system any more, because Golarion isn't anymore.
Which, to me, is the biggest thing keeping it from being an AU because if...
Well do note that creative director of Pathfinder considers Starfinder to be AU and purpose of it is so that Pathfinder writers don't have to read Starfinder lore to be consistent and wise versa :p
So even if you disagree with inconsistencies, its still officially broad strokes AU "they could take place in same continuity, but don't have to". Like Gap DOESN'T have to exist in Pathfinder's future and such and each of APs could have happened successfully or failed in Starfinder's past, but you wouldn't know because of Gap.
Like do note, Starfinder isn't JUST alternate universe, its "broad strokes" one where you can if you want to assume it could take place in same continuity as your pathfinder games. Hence why Gap and Golarion disappearing exists, so game doesn't automatically become AU where it is impossible for it to co exist in same setting as pathfinder. Its left open for you to decide whether or not it takes place in same continuity.
Well do note that creative director of Pathfinder considers Starfinder to be AU and purpose of it is so that Pathfinder writers don't have to read Starfinder lore to be consistent and wise versa :p
So even if you disagree with inconsistencies, its still officially broad strokes AU "they could take place in same continuity, but don't have to". Like Gap DOESN'T have to exist in Pathfinder's future and such and each of APs could have happened successfully or failed in Starfinder's past, but you wouldn't know because of Gap.
Like do note, Starfinder isn't JUST alternate universe, its "broad strokes" one where you can if you want to assume it could take place in same continuity as your pathfinder games. Hence why Gap and Golarion disappearing exists, so game doesn't automatically become AU where it is impossible for it to co exist in same setting as pathfinder. Its left open for you to decide whether or not it takes place in same continuity.
Okay now that's fair.
My initial question was coming more from a place of, have I missed something that was a rather immutable "these two things can't be in the same universe" detail, because thinking of them as being the same enhances my personal enjoyment of the setting.
Having said all that I'm personally opposed to Starfinder being given a rules overhaul to put it in line with PF2e as I am very much not a fan of PF2e's mechanics. So the fact that I'm a proponent of considering them the same universe is not a vote in favor of giving them the same rules.