I sure hope that we get a PF2e ORC licensed CRPG!

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

ikarinokami wrote:

truthfully as a video game company there is no reason to make p2e over p1e. in my opinion strictly as a computer game where there is no DM and the computer keeps track of all options, I think pf1e is superior to pf2e.

Owlcat games, in particular Wrath, painfully suffered from the very same problem PF1 itself suffers: system mastery and ivory tower game design = your "freedom to build characters from thousands of options" gets reduced to 20 builds that work which you copy-paste from the Internet, if you want to have a reasonably enjoyable experience and not struggle by trying to play a multiclass Rogue/Sorcerer or whatever else that doesn't work in PF1.

[ikarinokami]

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

ikarinokami wrote:

truthfully as a video game company there is no reason to make p2e over p1e. in my opinion strictly as a computer game where there is no DM and the computer keeps track of all options, I think pf1e is superior to pf2e.

Owlcat games, in particular Wrath, painfully suffered from the very same problem PF1 itself suffers: system mastery and ivory tower game design = your "freedom to build characters from thousands of options" gets reduced to 20 builds that work which you copy-paste from the Internet, if you want to have a reasonably enjoyable experience and not struggle by trying to play a multiclass Rogue/Sorcerer or whatever else that doesn't work in PF1.

It depends, if you play the game on some of the extreme difficulty then yes you are excluding some less-than-optimal ideas.

and core is definitely not baseline.

this is why i think pf1e makes such a great CRPG system there a lot of room, you can play the game very basic, or can go very deep. the same options don't really exist with pf2e which has a much smaller palette to choose from.

[krazmuze]

ikarinokami wrote:

truthfully as a video game company there is no reason to make p2e over p1e. in my opinion strictly as a computer game where there is no DM and the computer keeps track of all options, I think pf1e is superior to pf2e.

I made sure to post this in the PF2e forum, so lets not edition war over PF1e please - you have your own place in the Paizo forums. Owlcat has made it clear when they are done with 40k if they comeback to CRPG it will be another PF1e adventure - so PF1e is covered with CRPG. They dislike PF2e because of its focus on team-based combat and prefer the PF1e system mastery where it is about making your build - which is fine because there is a lot of video games like that so they have their audience.

This thread is about what studio is right time, place, talent and respect for wanting to honor PF2e team-based combat now that ORC remaster is coming out. This is not something you always get with TTRPG because there will always be the 5e expat that wants to move into melee multiattack until HP is depleted then rage quit on youtube when they caused a TPK. So it would be nice to be able to try out different team combos and strategies in a CRPG both for the 5e expat that can learn to play and git gud in private as well as the PF2e fan that is not finding that with the rando groups.

BG3/POE/DOS are more typical RPG which is you are a protaganist and you can meet your companions, that is really not the same thing as team based play - because if you want a specific team build you have to live with a specific companion (until they rage quit the party because you said the wrong thing). Or if they do allow custom party then you are giving up a lot of the game designed for companions because they did not design any game for just a custom party. When I played Skryim sure I like Lydia being a tank but it usually led to her foul murder...

[krazmuze]

Dancing Wind wrote:

krazmuze wrote:

do you think Paizo has enough money to dump on them and willingness to pull their PF1e license if they do not comply?

I am amused by your underlying assumptions in this thread: that Paizo staff are spending time trying to bribe or threaten other companies to force them to convert Paizo's games into other media.

They're still working on remastered classes that won't even come out until next year.

The point is that Paizo does not operate that way so assuming Paizo is going to force PF2e onto Owlcat when they have clearly stated otherwise they will stick with PF1e - I was responding to the comment to just wait Owlcat will do PF2e next. If you want a PF2e CRPG then we need to make it clear that having a PF1e CRPG is not enough because someone at Paizo responsible for biz dev partnerships checks the CRPG box in their biz dev portfolio.

Of course Paizo is not as big and bully as WOTC - who have in fact dropped studios leaving them hanging (in fact the same studio doing the PF2e ARPG they previously had a good gig doing the D&D adventure system digital game (https://www.pcgamer.com/dandd-board-game-tomb-of-annihilation-is-being-pul led-from-steam/). They most certainly not sitting there waiting for people to come to them either so letting it be known that we actually do want another CRPG that is PF2e turn/team based is important. I am actually concerned they think otherwise because when they announced the ARPG they did mention we are expanding the types of games - meaning they think the CRPG box has been checked.

[Temperans]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

ikarinokami wrote:

truthfully as a video game company there is no reason to make p2e over p1e. in my opinion strictly as a computer game where there is no DM and the computer keeps track of all options, I think pf1e is superior to pf2e.

I disagree. If nothing else, just having the interface clearly show "your three actions" is a lot clearer for the player than having to separate move, standard, full-round, swift, etc. actions. Particularly since basically everything costs 1 or 2 actions to do now.

This was a thing I found very frustrating in the owlcat games, it was very easy to move too far and not be allowed to cast a spell, for example.

I disagree with this.

The interface did clearly show how far you could move before 5-ft step, 1 move, and 2 moves was being used. Not to mention that it had the toggles to make sure you never moved more than you wanted. Not to mention the fact that the system they used is very much the system used for other turn based RPGs where you can see the amount of actions taken by the color of the line/area.

As for displaying the actions. I think that both have their pros and cons. The benefit of PF2 3 actions being equal is that the design can be simplified; But the con is that its information overload to control 6 character with so many different options: This problem is why NPCs and monsters have simplified stat blocks in PF2. The benefit of PF2 is that 2 actions per character are easier to manage, and the actions being so distinct makes it hard to get overwhelmed; But the con is that it requires a more specific UI to know what action you are spending (which part of the action bar have you spent?).

[krazmuze]

Temperans wrote:

But the con is that it requires a more specific UI to know what action you are spending (which part of the action bar have you spent?).

This is actually an issue with Solasta - it has been so long since I played 5e that the UI leaves me confused why I cannot do something because I do not remember what is a bonus and what is a main and often screw myself of a turn. The worst is when I intend to rearrange the pack and sacrifice my turn to do so (like switch to xbow and load the poison bolts and drop a torch), or wait you get one inventory action a turn so now I wasted a turn as I intended but now I need to scrap that plan as that needs three inventory actions. Very hard to go back to 5e after PF2e (most DMs would just let you do that - loose rules)

DOS was the action dots and you just did different things until it was used up - much like PF2e. It was far more intuitive GUI. If you start new to TTRPG players with the PF2e beginner box, I think you find the same thing they pick it up very easy it just makes sense - because there is a long history of videogames that work the same way - you have an action bar and different things cost different amounts of action. There have been a lot of RPG that are party turn based, it is a lot easier than the TTRPG versions to play a whole party because so much is automated - no need to do math and mess with your sheet distracting you from what you plan to do with the char up next.

[Deriven Firelion]

WWHsmackdown wrote:

Zaister wrote:

The biggest strike against my having any interest in BG3 is that it is set in the most boring campaign world imaginable.

I don't think it's boring per se; like Golarian faerun is a kitchen sink if you go back and look at lore from previous editions. The only issue is that WOTC spent a decade not fleshing out or retreading that setting to the millions of new inductees (like myself) that started playing with the release of 5e (maybe bc sword coast was the least liked book?) so most people people don't even consider faerun a developed setting. One of my biggest draws with P2e was the interest and drive to show off Golarian to the customer. WOTC really doesn't seem to care about faerun. Eberron, dark sun, and spell jammer are definitely more interesting, but they're also more niche in theme/conceit (despite eberron being my fav setting). I chalk faerun being boring squarely on WOTCs apathy moreso than the content itself being boring.

I prefer Faerun. It's old hat now, but it was a fun world when it first was created. It has so much material to draw from. I loved buying those boxed Forgotten Realms sets. Forgotten Realms was a high point for D&D and the books produced for Forgotten Realms were some of the best I ever purchased. I loved to read them. What they did with clerics was amazing. Never seen any game do clerics so well as 2nd edition Forgotten Realms with the Faiths and Avatars books. Really made FR clerics amazing and fun to play.

Faerun has so many iconic settings. Myth Drannor. Menzo B. Waterdeep. Shadowdale. Forgotten Realms was D&D's most developed setting. Too bad they also proved how hard it is to make money from setting material that only a handful of their player base would purchase. They put all that work into creating amazing setting products and it ended up up being a net negative in the long run because average player wasn't spending money on setting items.

[Deriven Firelion]

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

ikarinokami wrote:

truthfully as a video game company there is no reason to make p2e over p1e. in my opinion strictly as a computer game where there is no DM and the computer keeps track of all options, I think pf1e is superior to pf2e.

Owlcat games, in particular Wrath, painfully suffered from the very same problem PF1 itself suffers: system mastery and ivory tower game design = your "freedom to build characters from thousands of options" gets reduced to 20 builds that work which you copy-paste from the Internet, if you want to have a reasonably enjoyable experience and not struggle by trying to play a multiclass Rogue/Sorcerer or whatever else that doesn't work in PF1.

PF Wrath doesn't have as smooth of gameplay as Kingmaker. Different type of story and some of the parts are a real slog. I do like being mounted though. That was cool. You really have to think about your actions to ensure you pick the right Mythic Path.

[magnuskn]

Hard disagree, Wrath was a big step up from Kingmaker. Not that I disliked Kingmaker (except the House at the End of Time bit, ugh...), I even stumbled into the 90% of the secret ending in my second playthrough and only had to re-do two hours of gameplay to get it. But Wrath had more interesting combat, NPC's, story, mechanics, everything for me. The only "slog" I ever felt in that game was the technological dungeon, which was a Kickstarter contribution by CoohCarnage. And even that went pretty well with the right damage type (i.e. "bring electric damage").

[Deriven Firelion]

magnuskn wrote:

Hard disagree, Wrath was a big step up from Kingmaker. Not that I disliked Kingmaker (except the House at the End of Time bit, ugh...), I even stumbled into the 90% of the secret ending in my second playthrough and only had to re-do two hours of gameplay to get it. But Wrath had more interesting combat, NPC's, story, mechanics, everything for me. The only "slog" I ever felt in that game was the technological dungeon, which was a Kickstarter contribution by CoohCarnage. And even that went pretty well with the right damage type (i.e. "bring electric damage").

What companions did you use? Do you recall?

I'm using at the moment: Camellia, Seelah, Lann, Woljif, and Daeran.

[magnuskn]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Hard disagree, Wrath was a big step up from Kingmaker. Not that I disliked Kingmaker (except the House at the End of Time bit, ugh...), I even stumbled into the 90% of the secret ending in my second playthrough and only had to re-do two hours of gameplay to get it. But Wrath had more interesting combat, NPC's, story, mechanics, everything for me. The only "slog" I ever felt in that game was the technological dungeon, which was a Kickstarter contribution by CoohCarnage. And even that went pretty well with the right damage type (i.e. "bring electric damage").

What companions did you use? Do you recall?

I'm using at the moment: Camellia, Seelah, Lann, Woljif, and Daeran.

Seelah, Ember, Daeran, and Arueshalae (Lann before I got her, with Woljif filling the trapfinder spot) were the core four companions I always took everywhere. Then I had a floating companion slot, which was either filled by Nenio or whomever was needed for a character mission. I did a full run as a Bloodrager and then two-thirds of a run as a Crossblooded Sorcerer (1) / Elementalist Wizard (all other levels), so in the second run Nenio was not as necessary. In my second run I got tired of the game mid-Alushynirra and so far haven't picked up the gusto again for another go. Although I sunk 246 hours into it, according to Steam, so I think I got my moneys worth. I did both runs as an Azata, so maybe I still want to go Angel for the third one somewhen in the future.

[Deriven Firelion]

magnuskn wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Hard disagree, Wrath was a big step up from Kingmaker. Not that I disliked Kingmaker (except the House at the End of Time bit, ugh...), I even stumbled into the 90% of the secret ending in my second playthrough and only had to re-do two hours of gameplay to get it. But Wrath had more interesting combat, NPC's, story, mechanics, everything for me. The only "slog" I ever felt in that game was the technological dungeon, which was a Kickstarter contribution by CoohCarnage. And even that went pretty well with the right damage type (i.e. "bring electric damage").

What companions did you use? Do you recall?

I'm using at the moment: Camellia, Seelah, Lann, Woljif, and Daeran.

Seelah, Ember, Daeran, and Arueshalae (Lann before I got her, with Woljif filling the trapfinder spot) were the core four companions I always took everywhere. Then I had a floating companion slot, which was either filled by Nenio or whomever was needed for a character mission. I did a full run as a Bloodrager and then two-thirds of a run as a Crossblooded Sorcerer (1) / Elementalist Wizard (all other levels), so in the second run Nenio was not as necessary. In my second run I got tired of the game mid-Alushynirra and so far haven't picked up the gusto again for another go. Although I sunk 246 hours into it, according to Steam, so I think I got my moneys worth. I did both runs as an Azata, so maybe I still want to go Angel for the third one somewhen in the future.

I'm early in the game. Only level 5. I'm running a cleric for the angel path. An old character of mine from PF1 I ran in the original Wrath of the Righteous campaign. Hopefully it will be as fun.

Clerics are slow starters. That is probably why I see it as a slog right now. Should get better.

I liked the early Kingmaker story a bit better. Kind of hard navigating this wrecked city.

[WWHsmackdown]

I got to the abyss in the game and it's pacing ground to a halt; I bounced off super hard at that point. Somebday I'll go back and finish, maybe an enhanced console edition instead of my PC to play it on a big TV.

[krazmuze]

Please take your playing kingmaker discussion to the proper forum....does not seem relevant to the topic of what studio would do good for a PF2e team/turn based CRPG

[arcady]

krazmuze wrote:

I was excited for the announced video game RPG until the kickstarter came out and found it was ARPG with Golarion iconics rather than turn based CRPG with PF2e characters and systems. Not for me but seems there is a market for that.

Yeah.

I want a CRPG that specifically uses the PF2E rules as well as the Golarian setting. Something to help sell the game.

I want it to really dive into the setting lore though, so people can see just how good of a setting it is. Get tired to explaining to former 5E players that this time the setting is actually good enough to care about, unlike that mess they're used to where they ignore most of it and just use it in brief or to play fanboy with Mary Sue NPCs from novels.

Show people that Pathfinder is a great ruleset to game with, and Golarian is a great setting to put stories in - stories about your character and not somebody else's Mary Sue.

[krazmuze]

arcady

thanks for actually engaging with the topic!

So let me throw some more meat onto this.

SwingRipper is the admin for The Rules Lawyer and he just started his own crunch advice channel, and his video today was how coming to PF2e from other editions is a mindset shift - and video game design needs to understand this for what style of CRPG best fits.

https://youtu.be/_kXgmttzuTI

Intro 00:00
Team Game 00:30
Balance for Difficulty 03:30
Uncommon/Rare don't mean more powerful 06:36
Magic Items are Common 08:00
Resource Management 11:11
Encounter Balance 14:10
Conditions and +1s Matter 18:52

PF2e is a team balanced game across loot, classes, skills, feats which means that a team/turn based CRPG is needed to represent it - this is a genre that does exist. An ARPG is about getting that hacking/slashing your way to OP loot using OP classes and feats - it is actually a bad fit to use Abomination Vaults as the source adventure for that because that adventure was really not designed that way (and it would be a disaster for an ARPG to use PF2e mechanics)

PF2e is also not a fit for cinematic RPG game that has solo protagonist with companions (you are not the Dragonborn with a Lydia to carry your burdens). You need to be able to customize your party and it needs to be turn-based so you can actually use all those team-based skills/feats, but then where does companion content come from in a team based game? You deal with adding content the same way a GM does - you have your core party and use NPCs that come and go - like Wasteland does. Other games will interact with your builds to provide content (and BG3 finally realized this and introduced a new origin character that can be applied to your build)

Solasta is a team/turn based game with a great modular engine with lots of homebrew available and if Tactical Adventures could respect the principles in this video like they respected the 5e rules (even though it is at conflict with their team based design) I think it would be a good PF2e fit. BG3 is actually a better fit for the 5e playstyle because you are that soloist protaganist you are that Mary Sue (as others have also said about PF1e/Owlcat).

So please those of you arguing PF1e/5e is a better game - take your edition warring elsewhere - need I remind you that you are in the PF2e forum. It is OK that other games are different, but lets talk what is needed to represent PF2e here.

[krazmuze]

arcady wrote:

I want it to really dive into the setting lore though, so people can see just how good of a setting it is.

I can see the benefit of that because adventures/setting is something Paizo is also great at, but then we are looking at a much much longer development cycle of going back and forth between the studio and Paizo to make sure they are representing the adventure setting.

My thinking is getting studio like Tactical Adventures that has a good team/turn-based modular engine and dev cycle for cranking out the DLC adventures, and get them to grok PF2e. That can happen a lot faster (start coding mechanics now with ORC remaster printer copies) and it still aligns with their plans to drop a new game possibly with a new system. But that also means they need to understand the things in the video above ( my experience is it takes a few levels of play with 5e players willing to listen to PF2e players before they grok). If all they did was remaster 5e Solasta as PF2e it would be a disaster much like 5e DMs that say lets just shift our lvl10 campaign over to PF2e because we hate WOTC now then cry on reddit how bad PF2e is because they TPK (because the GM never watched a video about how balance is very different)

Then once you get the mechanics exposing people to this team based play then the Golarion adventures can start dropping even if they are a decade old (Owlcat did fine doing that) BG3 would not have existed now if DOS2 had not made turn-based isometrics popular again a decade ago. Larian dropped the DOS setting for the honor of doing D&D BG, but they could have just as well added open world and 3D cinematics to DOS3 and been a huge success.

OTOH our current video game exposure to the adventure settings is a PF1e game and an ARPG. There is no way the ARPG can respect the PF2e mechanics, PF2e mechanics makes for a very poor ARPG (though I am sure there will be people testing it for them telling them how they got PF2e wrong). So players get exposure to the adventure settings, but they may not like the ARPG or PF1e mechanics - and bounce off Paizo. This happens all the time in the D&D forums where they played the game and said no way would they play that with their TTRPG group.

So maybe better to get a game with the ORC mechanics out first, get them playing the TTRPG and exposed to the adventures if they like the mechanics - and then they will demand the PF2e Golarion adventures as CRPG conversion.

[Rysky]

krazmuse wrote:

So please those of you arguing PF1e/5e is a better game - take your edition warring elsewhere -

Who?

The only one doing that is you, you keep saying people edition warring and talking about other games need to leave… and then you proceed to edition war and talk about other games.

[Tactical Drongo]

I played DoS 1 and 2 and from what I've Seen bg3 is gameplay wise not that different

Divinity was a great Game for party based stuff - it had flankinf, elemental Combos, debuffs (and as Bonus enviromental Interactions)

I think Larian would be able to make an astounding Pathfinder 2e rpg