Big Changes in ICv2's RPG Industry Charts, as Pathfinder Drops Off Before 2E's Release!

Morrus said:

The audience they’re targeting isn’t the 5E audience. It’s the folks who want something more complex than 5E. Thus complaints that it’s more complex than 5E are kinda missing the point.

Click to expand...

I can't speak to whether the size of a book is characteristic of a well designed game, but the point that Pathfinder is indeed more complex than 5e is a good one, and now couple that with the intended size of the book. Even with 5e, the more streamlined system, there's constant checking of the rules and referral to the wording, hopefully Paizo has better formatted their material to be better referenced and for ease of reading, we had a pretty hard time with the PF2.0 Playtest because the pdf was not well structured at all and it became an annoyance.
We might need to put post-it notes on sections of that book like a textbook, though I already do this with my 5e stuff and other books. If Paizo could include a red strip of bookmark, that'll be awesome.

Ash Mantle said:

I can't speak to whether the size of a book is characteristic of a well designed game

Click to expand...

It’s not, of course.

Zarithar said:

Unpopular opinion: Paizo should release a 5e version of Golarion and some of the associated APs. None of the people in the three gaming groups I am a part of are even remotely interested in PF2, and yes... several of us did play PF extensively for a couple of years. As others have said, Golarion is a great fantasy setting. Paizo was once a 3rd party publisher for D&D... why can't they return to that in some fashion?

Click to expand...

It may be a fairly popular opinion around the fanbase of 5e, but I doubt it's a popular opinion around Paizo. The last time they were too closely aligned with D&D, WotC almost killed them with the 4e project (not renewing the magazine licenses and then releasing a fairly hostile 3pp license). I don't think Lisa is going to put the company in the same position again if she can help it.

billd91 said:

It may be a fairly popular opinion around the fanbase of 5e, but I doubt it's a popular opinion around Paizo. The last time they were too closely aligned with D&D, WotC almost killed them with the 4e project (not renewing the magazine licenses and then releasing a fairly hostile 3pp license). I don't think Lisa is going to put the company in the same position again if she can help it.

Click to expand...

They could probably do both though or use kickstarter. Inner Sea World Guide requires very little conversion.

Morrus said:

This isn't a criticism; it's merely a description. They could make D&D, and everybody could make D&D, and there could be no games but D&D, but why would anybody buy them when they can buy the actual D&D?

Some people want more complex games. I know you don't get that. But it's a thing. And Paizo are serving that market.

The snotty comments about "good design practice"? Eh.

Click to expand...

It's not snotty. It's criticism. There does seem to be a tendency on this site recently for certain people to treat the two things as the same - as a source of defensiveness and conflict. It's not intended to be, but if people can't be critical of things they have an interest in, then what is the point of discourse? And, to be sure, this is a pointed criticism itself - some of the responses by a certain individual over contentious issues on this site recently have been disappointing to say the least. I was a patreon and a customer too.

And while I certainly get that some like gamers like some systems more crunchy than others, in practice I actually think it's an overstated claim for the rpg market at large. Other games that have ended up with oversized books have found it to be problematic, ultimately, in their own fanbases - eg Champions/Hero, Traveller 5 or 20th Anniversary WoD books, and a number of others.

If you have the same system presented in a concise fashion, rather than an oversized book, it's frequently because it's been more fully considered and polished to appeal to new audiences. Rules are easier to reference, become more intuitive and it's more straightforward at the game table to use. The notion that 'crunch sells' became popular with the D20/3/3.5 editions that Pathfinder managed to successfully maintain for a decade. However, I think the main reason for this is that books that gave lots of 'toys' to players - new classes, feats, etc - sold more than other supplements because it appealed to players, and players are more numerous than GMs. For GMs, however, rules crunch - or 'bloat' as others call it - actually make the game more difficult to run. So, in my view, yes - more complex systems for games is a design flaw, not a feature of good design. And massive page counts for core rules is often a signifier of that.

Time will tell in terms of whether it is right for Pathfinder. But 600 pages for the core rules? I just need to state that fact and swathes of gamers I know will immediately overlook it. Just sayin'.

billd91 said:

It may be a fairly popular opinion around the fanbase of 5e, but I doubt it's a popular opinion around Paizo. The last time they were too closely aligned with D&D, WotC almost killed them with the 4e project (not renewing the magazine licenses and then releasing a fairly hostile 3pp license). I don't think Lisa is going to put the company in the same position again if she can help it.

Click to expand...

While this is certainly true, a lot of other gaming companies were also closely aligned with D&D - though not to the extent of managing affiliated magazine responsibilities, managed to weather the storm of transitioning editions, and are doing fine in 5e. Paizo managed to market the best and were able to find their market gold.
In the current market however, and with Pathfinder 2.0 being met with only cautious optimism at best, Paizo really need to consider an alternative model, especially if Pathfinder 2.0 proves to fall out of popularity quickly and/or initially finds a really lukewarm reception. Time will tell.

600 pages is not 600 pages of rules, it's mostly pages of stuff - spells, magic items, and (to a much lesser extent) Feats.

You can have a game with greater rules complexity than 5e D&D and fit it into say 280 pages, just by cutting down on the stuff. You can have shortish B/X style spell lists, magic item lists, and (5e style) short Feat list in the core manual, and still have space for a shortish monster section too. Enough to play the game, with the full rules complexity.

Then add extra supplement books with more and more stuff.

I don't know if this would sell more, but it's certainly doable, and it would avoid the 900+-pages-to-play issue that Pathfinder currently has and that PF2 seems likely to exacerbate.

TrippyHippy said:

It's not snotty. It's criticism.

Click to expand...

It's really not, though. "600 pages is bad design practice" is virtually meaningless.

I just need to state that fact and swathes of gamers I know will immediately overlook it. Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

Oh, I think it's clear you will. But that's a different statement altogether, isn't it?

Morrus said:

It's really not, though. "600 pages is bad design practice" is virtually meaningless.

Click to expand...

No it's not. It's been explained why too.

Oh, I think it's clear you will. But that's a different statement altogether, isn't it?

Click to expand...

Yes - and it is not the statement I made.

My own preferences about Pathfinder or not is irrelevent to the conversation - I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about how Pathfinder 2nd edition will fare. I'd be happy to see Pathfinder increase it's sales, as I regard Lisa Stevens as one of the outstanding RPG executives of the last three decades, in fact. But I am critical of the design and approach of the prospective new core rules, and think they will have real challenges in maintaining their sales status of the last decade. You cannot seem to disconnect the criticism away from tribalism, however.

Again, this is disappointing because you are making an ad hominem attack rather than addressing the arguments.

TrippyHippy said:

Yes - and it is not the statement I made.

Click to expand...

I don’t understand what that means. It’s a quote.

[/quote]But I am critical of the design and approach of the prospective new core rules, and think they will have real challenges in maintaining their sales status of the last decade. [/quote]

But *that* is not what you said. You said 600 pages was bad design. You were talking about the format of the book.

If you don’t like the actual game, that’s a different conversation.

You cannot seem to disconnect the criticism away from tribalism, however.

Again, this is disappointing because you are essentially making an ad hominem attack rather than addressing the arguments.

Click to expand...

Yeah, insults aren’t going to help. Don’t do that, please.