doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
No wonder I like her so much!With rapiers. Must not forget the rapiers.
is it possible she’s a Gnome!?
No wonder I like her so much!With rapiers. Must not forget the rapiers.
I think Paizo may find a problem that Pathfinder's core fanbase likely contains a number of players who were so devoted to 3.5 D&D that they refused to go along with 4e (and now won't go on to 5e). [This is the majority of the local Pathfinder players I personally know, YMMV.] I would be surprised if these players go along with the conversion to PF2. So I expect we'll see Paizo will be cannibalizing a sizable chunk of their own market.
I believe they should have went for an Advanced 5th Edition for their game.I'm not really sure if this belongs in the Pathfinder or D&D forums, so put it here in General as it touches upon a variety of topics and is more meta than system-specific.
I don't know a lot of details about Pathfinder 2 and haven't been following whatever discussions might have happened over the year, but upon doing a cursory browse, I'm reminded of what happened with 4E. Like 4E, P2 seems to be annoying traditionalists; like 4E, the big danger is that rather than having the intended effect of unifying and adding to the fan-base, it will only fraction it (e.g. of 10 P1 players, 4 stay with P1, 4 go with P2, and 2 go to 5E or elsewhere out of frustration).
I mean, what exactly is Paizo hoping for? Are they hoping that 2nd edition is a huge success, that the majority of 1st edition players migrate over and they begin a fresh edition cycle?
I'm honestly trying to understand. I have no horse in the race - I don't play Pathfinder, although buy the occasional setting book (and am intrigued by the "Lost Omens" world guides line and will check that out). Nor am I a traditionalist or think that game companies should just re-hash the old. From what I've seen of P2 (mostly just scanning the playtest book at Barnes & Noble), I like the vibe of it more than P1. It just seems like a head-scratcher to me, that they would diverge substantially from 1st edition considering that the whole impetus behind Pathfinder in the first place was to keep 3.5 alive and well. From what I've read, P2 does more than clean up P1...it seems like a significantly different new edition.
I mean, it almost seems like Paizo saw their base diminishing with the surging popularity of 5E and realized that they had to take a risk. Maybe they're accepting a smaller base, but are going all in on something newish rather than just the diminishing returns of "P1.1" and more of the same type of books.
Anyone have any insight into the thoughts behind Pathfinder 2? Is it Paizo's 4E?
Then most people would just keep playing 5e. Why play the same game with a bit more crunch?I believe they should have went for an Advanced 5th Edition for their game.
That is, a game that uses 5E's advances in fixing d20 as a base, then opening up a select number of subsystems to add crunch.
Not literally using 5E, of course, but similar enough to entice the huge market of 5E gamers looking for a bit deeper mechanics.
I don't think that you have demonstrated in past conversations on this subject matter that you have seen much. And I think that Paizo has a far greater grasp on the state of the TTRPG market than you do.The biggest risk of the actual PF2 is if comes across as a new d20 game: wild imbalances, ultra-heavy DM workload, Christmas trees all around. From what I've seen, I'm not even sure Paizo realize how great 5E is, even as the crunch-constrained game it is.
One other aspect that is implied in this discussion but not stated, Is it known that PF1 is no longer sustainable? Was their an evolve or die mandate?
I think the problem they have is they've saturated the Pathfinder 1 system. There isn't a ton of obvious things to do. So I don't think they're in so much of an evolve or die situation as needing to reboot.