D&D 2E What PF2E means for D&D5E

[Krachek]

This statement is kinda ridiculous, and comes across as a pissing contest in disguise. Despite being on D&D systems, the companies are playing different games.

I can't help but get the feeling that some people in this forum are just playing "my daddy can beat your daddy" or want to see Paizo do poorly so that their "daddy" WotC/D&D 5e remains on its pedestal. I for one wish Paizo well. I hope that Pathfinder 2 does well beyond their own expectations. I want to see people play D&D, Pathfinder, and whatever else. More competition does the hobby well. And while it's nice seeing D&D regaining its stride, I would be saddened if Paizo and Pathfinder failed because they provide a different sort of game than D&D 5E. And while I do like D&D 5E, it's not perfect, and I think that I would become bored of D&D 5E if it's hegemony was unopposed.

PF was in a good market position. They choose to wait how much DnD would continue to sink with their new edition.
For a lot of people the sales and popularity of DnD 5ed is surprising and unexpected.
IMO PF missed an opportunity to knock out DnD.

They are now late for a new product and increase market share.
They will produce what they are good at: A complex evolution of 3.5 with a lot of options.
They have good chance to satisfy their player base and appeal those who wants a more complex game.
But I’m sure it won’t be trending as much as DnD.

 

[Aldarc]

PF was in a good market position. They choose to wait how much DnD would continue to sink with their new edition.

Correction: PF is in a good market position. It may not be the top seller, but it has established a lot of brand recognition despite not having the words "D&D" on the label. Paizo had many different reasons why they waited. I honestly don't think that 5E was as much of a factor in that decision as some people make it out to be. (Not saying it wasn't a factor, but people likely exaggerate the extent.)

For a lot of people the sales and popularity of DnD 5ed is surprising and unexpected.

Not really.

They are now late for a new product and increase market share.

There are so many other RPGs out there that would be envious of Paizo's market share.

IMO PF missed an opportunity to knock out DnD.

But I’m sure it won’t be trending as much as DnD.

Which was never really an option simply because of how big the D&D brand (and its associated nostalgia) is. So this entire idea that Pathfinder had the opportunity to knock out D&D or "rolled poor initiative" with the product is complete and utter hogwash.

 

[epithet]

...I want to see people play D&D, Pathfinder, and whatever else. More competition does the hobby well. And while it's nice seeing D&D regaining its stride, I would be saddened if Paizo and Pathfinder failed because they provide a different sort of game than D&D 5E. And while I do like D&D 5E, it's not perfect, and I think that I would become bored of D&D 5E if it's hegemony was unopposed.

What I would love to see is a significant segment of the RPG community play several games, to the point that they blend them into something that belongs to the table. That’s what we were doing back in the early 90s, we took systems we liked from each edition and mixed it up with mechanics and fluff from other games. Sometimes we would make up our own system, like a point-based initiative system my buddy and I made to replace rounds and turns in 2e.

I think that if DMs and players are familiar with D&D, Pathfinder, WOIN, Fate, etc that it will lead inevitably to a much more open minded approach to the game. I see a lot of people on this forum who really seem to prioritize coloring within the lines of the published material, so much so that they don’t even consider using the Unearthed Arcana playtest material in their home game. I mean, hey—play the game however you want, but it seems to me that people who have earned accolades and recognition for dungeon mastering have followed a “try it, break it, fix it, own it” mentality. People like Chris Perkins, Matt Mercer, Scott Rehm, and of course Gary Gygax... they aren’t afraid to draw their own lines and then color outside of them.

 

[Olrox17]

What I would love to see is a significant segment of the RPG community play several games, to the point that they blend them into something that belongs to the table. That’s what we were doing back in the early 90s, we took systems we liked from each edition and mixed it up with mechanics and fluff from other games. Sometimes we would make up our own system, like a point-based initiative system my buddy and I made to replace rounds and turns in 2e.

I think that if DMs and players are familiar with D&D, Pathfinder, WOIN, Fate, etc that it will lead inevitably to a much more open minded approach to the game. I see a lot of people on this forum who really seem to prioritize coloring within the lines of the published material, so much so that they don’t even consider using the Unearthed Arcana playtest material in their home game. I mean, hey—play the game however you want, but it seems to me that people who have earned accolades and recognition for dungeon mastering have followed a “try it, break it, fix it, own it” mentality. People like Chris Perkins, Matt Mercer, Scott Rehm, and of course Gary Gygax... they aren’t afraid to draw their own lines and then color outside of them.

While I agree with your general sentiment, keep in mind that not every DM has the capacity, the time, or the will to be a game designer. Most people just want to have a bit of fun.

 

[Morrus]

What I would love to see is a significant segment of the RPG community play several games.

This hobby is weird like that. People don’t tend to insist on only watching one brand of movies or eating one brand of food, or one board game, or listen to only one band, but D&D and Pathfinder in particular have fan bases which a large portion of won’t ever even consider another game. That doesn’t seem so common to fans of other RPGs (though they exist of course).

There were many years I would only play D&D. Luckily I grew out of that and discovered heir were so many wonderful gaming experiences I was missing out on.

 

[Jester David]

What I would love to see is a significant segment of the RPG community play several games, to the point that they blend them into something that belongs to the table. That’s what we were doing back in the early 90s, we took systems we liked from each edition and mixed it up with mechanics and fluff from other games. Sometimes we would make up our own system, like a point-based initiative system my buddy and I made to replace rounds and turns in 2e.

I swap a little
I play multiple different games. I play in a Star Trek Adventures game (streamed on Twitch, back episodes on YouTube), and I took a break from DMing my 5e campaign to run FFG's Edge of the Empire game set in Star Wars.

I doubt we'd alternate between Pathfinder and D&D though, as the rules are too similar it leads to confusion between the different rulesets. Plus, if you're going to change game systems, why not also change genres and type of game rather than just playing fantasy?
I also think what keeps people from doing that is the impact on campaigns and stories. It's hard to maintain a narrative when you keep changing the rules.

 

[Remathilis]

This hobby is weird like that. People don’t tend to insist on only watching one brand of movies or eating one brand of food, or one board game, or listen to only one band, but D&D and Pathfinder in particular have fan bases which a large portion of won’t ever even consider another game. That doesn’t seem so common to fans of other RPGs (though they exist of course).

There were many years I would only play D&D. Luckily I grew out of that and discovered heir were so many wonderful gaming experiences I was missing out on.

I think the time and money investment are both factors. Players who don't have a lot of time to invest in playing multiple games (especially open-ended games that can take months or years to play a campaign with) and/or money to invest the variety of supplemental materials that improve the game. For example, if you can play only two times a month, you are much better off investing in one game that trying to play two different games (especially two that emulate the same genre and have similar core mechanics).

I mean, I lovd D&D and I love Pathfinder for different reasons, and I want to see them both succeed, but realistically my time and money is in short-enough supply that I can only support one of them.

 

[Remathilis]

I swap a little
I play multiple different games. I play in a Star Trek Adventures game (streamed on Twitch, back episodes on YouTube), and I took a break from DMing my 5e campaign to run FFG's Edge of the Empire game set in Star Wars.

I doubt we'd alternate between Pathfinder and D&D though, as the rules are too similar it leads to confusion between the different rulesets. Plus, if you're going to change game systems, why not also change genres and type of game rather than just playing fantasy?
I also think what keeps people from doing that is the impact on campaigns and stories. It's hard to maintain a narrative when you keep changing the rules.

We took a break from 5e to play Starfinder, and found that the rules jumbled heavily in our heads, often times mixing 3.5, PF, SF, and 5e rules based on who thought they could remember the "correct" rule at any given time. Ultimately, it was one of the many elements that lead us to go back to 5e sooner rather than later.

 

[Rhenny]

I think it is great for D&D and table top RPGs. Competition raises the bar and gets more people interested. I like playing both 5e and Pathfinder, but I don't necessarily like Dming Pathfinder/D&D 3.5 any more. If they can clean up the mechanics and make the classes and leveling curve more balanced that would be great.

Some of the ideas about the changes to Pathfinder that have been posted so far are great. Making the game better will help everyone.

I'd be perfectly willing to buy the Core for Pathfinder 2e. I probably would not buy other books though.

I used to be much more anti-Pathfinder (I felt as if it was a rip off of D&D and just a money grab), but now I think there is room for 2 or more D&D type systems, especially if they all maintain their own unique feel.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think the time and money investment are both factors. Players who don't have a lot of time to invest in playing multiple games (especially open-ended games that can take months or years to play a campaign with) and/or money to invest the variety of supplemental materials that improve the game. For example, if you can play only two times a month, you are much better off investing in one game that trying to play two different games (especially two that emulate the same genre and have similar core mechanics).

I mean, I lovd D&D and I love Pathfinder for different reasons, and I want to see them both succeed, but realistically my time and money is in short-enough supply that I can only support one of them.

Part of it outside the USA other games may as well not exist. It's rare to find players of other RPGs.