Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E or Pathfinder 1E?

[zztong]

Beowulf did some pretty epic swimming, IIRC.

Perhaps that is a bad example, as the first thing I want to ask is "Who's interpretation of Beowulf?"

I'd personally pick Michael Crichton's "Eaters of the Dead" but others will pick the 2007 Film in which Angelina Jolie played Grendle's Mother. I'd go so far as to say they're not even in the same genre, even though they have the same origin.

 

[CapnZapp]

The good news is that there are an unlimited number of game systems out there, and you absolutely can tailor make exactly the one that you want to run.

Most people are interested only in the big brands: the games easily available from all shops, the games all your friends are already playing, the games played at 'cons and so on.

 

[CapnZapp]

Paizo might just be big enough for Pathfinder to matter, but never if they are determined to go independent of D&D. Then they are relegating themselves to be yet another Dungeon World, Savage Worlds, 13th Age, Swords & Wizardry, Tunnels & Trolls, MERP, HARP, DJ/Mythus, Numenera... or any other out of literally thousands of small-time hopefuls that all have faded into obscurity.

Nothing wrong with any of these games, except none of them support a corporation the size of Paizo. I would think Paizo's output is easily ten times bigger than any one of these bit players. Most of them have never even published ONE module with the gloss and finish of a Pathfinder module.

The only approach that can salvage Paizo's place as the #2 of level-and-class based fantasy ttrpgs is to do what Paizo did back in the era of 3E: offer "5E but better than 5E".

The only approach that allows you to keep buying Golarion goodness in any quantity and quality is if Paizo completely guts the existing playtest and completely reverse course.

Sorry if that feels harsh, but them's the breaks.

 

[CapnZapp]

You can still have meaningful choices, even if they are equivalent in power. I would argue that a choice isn't meaningful unless they're very close in power; otherwise, you "obviously" choose the correct option. Even if everything was balanced, so you didn't have to take power into consideration, you would still have to think about which options you would prefer and how to best represent the character you want to play.

The problem is when you consider "finding the correct choice" to be a game in itself, and you prefer playing that game to playing the game of overcoming in-game obstacles from the perspective of your character. The character building game of system mastery is incompatible with natural development, but I see no reason why a system should favor the former over the latter. Do people actually go around saying that they want to make the most game-breaking character possible, so they can single-handedly destroy the opposition and trivialize any challenges they may come across? Because that doesn't sound like the kind of person I would want to play with.

I guess the simplest way to explain would be to say:

"Peeps want a game of Pathfinder's character-build-complexity, as opposed to 5E's character-build-complexity".

Inferring qualities or flaws of these people from that desire is completely unnecessary and unconstructive.

 

[Aldarc]

Paizo might just be big enough for Pathfinder to matter, but never if they are determined to go independent of D&D. Then they are relegating themselves to be yet another Dungeon World, Savage Worlds, 13th Age, Swords & Wizardry, Tunnels & Trolls, MERP, HARP, DJ/Mythus, Numenera... or any other out of literally thousands of small-time hopefuls that all have faded into obscurity.

Nothing wrong with any of these games, except none of them support a corporation the size of Paizo. I would think Paizo's output is easily ten times bigger than any one of these bit players. Most of them have never even published ONE module with the gloss and finish of a Pathfinder module.

The only approach that can salvage Paizo's place as the #2 of level-and-class based fantasy ttrpgs is to do what Paizo did back in the era of 3E: offer "5E but better than 5E".

The only approach that allows you to keep buying Golarion goodness in any quantity and quality is if Paizo completely guts the existing playtest and completely reverse course.

Sorry if that feels harsh, but them's the breaks.

Could you stop trying to armchair run TTRPG companies and claiming to know what is the best business strategy or products for their long-term well-being? You want "5E but better than 5E" but stop arguing miserably that other companies that fail to deliver what you personally want will fail in the long-term. Their failure or success does not depend upon what you want or what you claim it does. Sorry if that feels harsh, but them's the breaks.

 

[5atbu]

I really wish there was a way for characters to develop naturally over the course of play, without also ending up severely underpowered next to a character that was planned in advance.

Is anyone out there working on a game that has a lot of character options, where all options are reasonably balanced?

GURPS

 

[Retreater]

Paizo might just be big enough for Pathfinder to matter, but never if they are determined to go independent of D&D. Then they are relegating themselves to be yet another Dungeon World, Savage Worlds, 13th Age, Swords & Wizardry, Tunnels & Trolls, MERP, HARP, DJ/Mythus, Numenera... or any other out of literally thousands of small-time hopefuls that all have faded into obscurity.

Nothing wrong with any of these games, except none of them support a corporation the size of Paizo. I would think Paizo's output is easily ten times bigger than any one of these bit players. Most of them have never even published ONE module with the gloss and finish of a Pathfinder module.

The only approach that can salvage Paizo's place as the #2 of level-and-class based fantasy ttrpgs is to do what Paizo did back in the era of 3E: offer "5E but better than 5E".

The only approach that allows you to keep buying Golarion goodness in any quantity and quality is if Paizo completely guts the existing playtest and completely reverse course.

Sorry if that feels harsh, but them's the breaks.

At this point, I think the playtest is over, right? So this would require them to abandon their current 2E design to restart a new 2E design.

There are more likely outcomes (in no particular order). 1) 2E will be successful enough with their core demographic that Paizo will be able to keep going [perhaps at a reduced level compared to their heyday]; 2) 2E will not be successful and Paizo will have to reduce their business or maybe even close down; 3) 2E will not be successful and Paizo products will support another game [either PF 1E, D&D 5E, or maybe something less expected like Savage Worlds].

I don't see them printing and releasing a second edition then immediately scrapping it for another edition. Maybe in 3ish years? (I think D&D 4E to 5E is probably the quickest turnaround we could expect.)

 

[CapnZapp]

At this point, I think the playtest is over, right? So this would require them to abandon their current 2E design to restart a new 2E design.

You got it exactly right. This is precisely what I think is best.

 

[CapnZapp]

Could you stop...

I guess I could, but what's the point of having a discussion forum if not to... well, discuss?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I guess the simplest way to explain would be to say:

"Peeps want a game of Pathfinder's character-build-complexity, as opposed to 5E's character-build-complexity".

Inferring qualities or flaws of these people from that desire is completely unnecessary and unconstructive.

If that's the case, then it should be entirely possible to have a game with a great variety of character options, which doesn't also result in wild power imbalances. The only remaining question is why we haven't seen it yet.