Indeed. How you roll out a new edition is almost as important as what changes you make.
This is a
very accurate observation. I think that the attitude is a big part of bringing people on-board ("we're trying to make a product that you want to buy") or in keeping them away from the new product ("we're fixing this boring, clunky, out-dated game that you've loved playing for years on end, and we're trying to attract new players to the hobby while we're at it"). Presentation is a big part of coming across as sincere as opposed to condescending.
However, it is perhaps worth noting that the result of the PF playtest was generally that proposed changes were rolled back. This does suggest that Paizo might well find themselves unable to do much by way of a second edition.
I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I've realized as I get older that I don't
need a new system--I've got one that works, I've played it enough to iron out the kinks and rough spots, and I've had enough time to tinker with it to make the exact sort of game that I want to run. I'd be satisfied with a Pathfinder 2E that incorporated the errata from previous printings,
maybe cleaned up the presentation, and included some of the best supplemental content into the core rules.
For example, a Pathfinder 2E that split into the more traditional 3-book format could put character traits all the classes from the
Advanced Player's Guide and the
Ultimate books in the core
Player's Handbook, and put the optional systems in the
Game Master's Guide (things like word magic, hero points, and so forth). Something like that would be cool.
Still, the thing that matters most is whether or not people would
buy it. If people keep buying the current version of the game, there's no real incentive to update to a new edition.
