Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

CapnZapp · Jun 30, 2019

aramis erak said:
The Crunch constraint is part of what makes 5E better than prior D&D... to a point. After 10th level, the 12-16 abilities (and 10-15 spells memorized) hit a saturation point for many. I thought I was relatively rare, but the success of Pugmire (which keeps the same upper metric on Proficiency Bonus, but rescales to 10 levels) says I'm not alone.

Without having any idea of what a pugmire is, you have a point: yes of course there will be gamers content with 5E.

But these "casuals" will never play a Pathfinder game. (That's not a slight. I am convinced I am staying objective fact when I say Paizo will never appeal to someone who truly believes the light level of crunch in 5E is "just right"; unless they make a completely new game, of course; one that does not resemble the PF2 playtest with its nightmarish assault of feats at all)

So let's focus our discussion on those gamers who like 5E, acknowledge its fundamental fixes, but are ready to sink their teeth into something... crunchier. Especially since in the short-term, Paizo is our only hope

Aldarc · Jun 30, 2019

CapnZapp said:
Because you are dissatisfied with the little crunch there is in 5E...?

I believe there is a market opening for a dndian game with more crunch.

I do not believe there is a market for the various and many kinds of silliness 3.x/d20/PF offers.

The difference? 5E.

It might be simple (too simple), but it comprehensively represents an upgrade of 3E without falling into the 4E pitfalls.

WotC could not have made that unless the failure of 4E sharpened their focus and allowed them to ignore the naysayers.

Your entire basis for this argument rests on your subjective and unsupported supposition.

It makes me nervous Paizo is listening to PF fans, some of which haven't even played 5E and thus can't see that you CAN design a fun game where martials and casters feel familiar yet different. (That is, what 4E couldn't offer)

How dare Paizo listen to their playerbase and fans?! That's preposterous! You don't listen to your fans who play the game. You are supposed to listen to a singular doomsayer who doesn't play PF1 and who demands that Paizo makes his custom dream product based off a competitor's system and who also never participated in the playtest or shows any actual engagement or familiarity with the contents of PF2!

I would have felt a lot less nervous if Paizo had exhibited clear tendencies to look at 5E and learn from it. Yet, most PF2 chatter I hear are about PF1 and 4E - two of the *least* appropriate games to build your future on in my opinion.

Except when you combine them together, you essentially get 5e, and that is precisely what WotC did, Oh He of Short-Term Memory. As either [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] or [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has said - I can't remember which off the top of my head - the greatest trick that WotC did for 5E was in convincing people to play 4E in a game that looks more like 3E and Pathfinder.

LordEntrails · Jun 30, 2019

Aldarc said:
How dare Paizo listen to their playerbase and fans?! That's preposterous! You don't listen to your fans who play the game. You are supposed to listen to a singular doomsayer who doesn't play PF1 and who demands that Paizo makes his custom dream product based off a competitor's system and who also never participated in the playtest or shows any actual engagement or familiarity with the contents of PF2!

Except go ask someone in marketing or advertizing, customers are notorious for not knowing what they will actually spend their own money on.

Sure yea, you have to engage your customer base and make them feel loved, but you have to give them what they want (and will spend money on), not want they ask for.

aramis erak · Jun 30, 2019

CapnZapp said:
Without having any idea of what a pugmire is, you have a point: yes of course there will be gamers content with 5E.

But these "casuals" will never play a Pathfinder game. (That's not a slight. I am convinced I am staying objective fact when I say Paizo will never appeal to someone who truly believes the light level of crunch in 5E is "just right"; unless they make a completely new game, of course; one that does not resemble the PF2 playtest with its nightmarish assault of feats at all)

So let's focus our discussion on those gamers who like 5E, acknowledge its fundamental fixes, but are ready to sink their teeth into something... crunchier. Especially since in the short-term, Paizo is our only hope

Let's attempt to cure some of your ignorance...

Pugmire is a 5E OGL variant using a simplified versionof 5E, which has had 4 successful kickstarters, It rescales proficiency bonus to fit 10 levels, rather than 20, makes all class features feats (and thus avoids multi-classing by making it totally unneeded), and uses Dogs (and in Monarchies of Mau, Cats) as the species. It's got a very vancian post-tech post-recover-after-holocaust setting concept.

The rest of your post is utter bollocks...

I know a number of folks who grudgingly play PF despite hating its crunch level... Specifically because the published adventure paths are setting wise awesome, and leave the mechanics to the GM. My wife happens to be one such. She's played more PF than me, because the group she plays with runs PF; She feels 5E is too heavy at times, so she's clearly no fan of crunch.

In my experience, about a third of the people I know playing PF would rather play a simpler engine in Paizo's settings, but have GM's who like PF.

thegoodsoldier0 · Jun 30, 2019

Basically. I didnt enjoy the over simplification

Hussar · Jul 1, 2019

CapnZapp said:
/snip

Without knowing for sure, I feel the vast majority of prospective gamers of this generation has already been recruited.
/snip

Not sure why you say that when the number of gamers and the market have been growing year on year for five or so years now and show no signs of decline.

For example, the 5e PHB is STILL in the top 100 on Amazon. If new gamers had peaked, you'd think they'd slow down sales of core books.

CapnZapp · Jul 1, 2019

Aldarc said:
Your entire basis for this argument rests on your subjective and unsupported supposition.

You *really* need to consider what a discussion forum is for.

Hint: it's not to only discuss scientifically proven facts.

If you're frustrated why I keep ignoring these replies, now you know why.

How dare Paizo listen to their playerbase and fans?! That's preposterous!

You really need to stop taking it personal.

I didn't come over to your house and strangled your kitten. I am merely questioning the business strategy of a business corporation.

Relax.

CapnZapp · Jul 1, 2019

Aldarc said:
Except when you combine them together, you essentially get 5e, and that is precisely what WotC did, Oh He of Short-Term Memory. As either [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] or [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has said - I can't remember which off the top of my head - the greatest trick that WotC did for 5E was in convincing people to play 4E in a game that looks more like 3E and Pathfinder.

It was probably Tony Vargas.

On the other hand, he sees 4th edition in everything everywhere, so I've learned to simply ignore that.

Let me reassure you I'm playing 5E because it resembles d20 without the annoying crud, and also because none of fundamental flaws of 4E aren't there.

All I wish is for deeper crunch on the player side.

CapnZapp · Jul 1, 2019

Hussar said:
Not sure why you say that when the number of gamers and the market have been growing year on year for five or so years now and show no signs of decline.

For example, the 5e PHB is STILL in the top 100 on Amazon. If new gamers had peaked, you'd think they'd slow down sales of core books.

The peak can still have been reached.

Unless you want to argue that as long as a single new gamer joins up, it hasn't. OTOH that's absurd.

Now then; let me flag that's all I have to say on that particular tidbit. Please do tell your thoughts on the rest of my post.

I mean, you focused in on such a small detail it's almost weird. I'm not going to reply further on that - it's simply not very relevant to my larger points.

Aldarc · Jul 1, 2019

CapnZapp said:
You *really* need to consider what a discussion forum is for.

If you're frustrated why I keep ignoring these replies, now you know why.

It's not like I am the only person who calls you out on your BS in this thread and others. It amazes me that you haven't slowed down even when others have noted your penchant for BSing about the game market, PF2, and such. Any time people direct you to actually examine PF2 for yourself, you don't. Any time people people do your work for you about what the game does, you ignore it so you can continue doom-speaking dung-posting. So you keep making unsubstantiated claims in the game and your worries. If you are so concerned about Paizo's strategy and what they are doing as you claim, then why do you not even put in a modicum of effort to actually look up what Paizo is doing in PF2?