Pathfinder 2E What's the deal with 3rd party PF2E Adventure "support"??

[Retreater]

We’ve had licenses ended twice by larger companies (d20 and GSL for 3.x and 4E, so WotC both times) so we chose to develop our own system as a backup. We still do plenty of OGL stuff for 5E and PF2, but we’ve made sure that if those two go away, we’re still in business.

And from what I've heard, your system is pretty good. Congrats!

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

Kobold Press have stated in the past they want to wait a year or so to see how PF2E is doing. In the meantime, they have switched to creating material for 5e.

 

[DaveMage]

Kobold Press have stated in the past they want to wait a year or so to see how PF2E is doing. In the meantime, they have switched to creating material for 5e.

That may end up being an interesting (albeit, perhaps unintentional) commentary on PF2's success (or lack thereof).

My shelves are full of PF1 material from Frog God Games, but they are not doing PF2. (Of course, I'm not doing PF2 either, so I can relate.)

 

[generic]

That may end up being an interesting (albeit, perhaps unintentional) commentary on PF2's success (or lack thereof).

My shelves are full of PF1 material from Frog God Games, but they are not doing PF2. (Of course, I'm not doing PF2 either, so I can relate.)

It has always been my hypothesis that PF2 will be unable to capture all of PF1's audience, and will not be able to pick up a substantial number of new players. Sadly, it seems that 3pp publishers recognize this as well. If PF2 does fail in a significant way, Paizo may have to change its business model.

 

[Parmandur]

It has always been my hypothesis that PF2 will be unable to capture all of PF1's audience, and will not be able to pick up a substantial number of new players. Sadly, it seems that 3pp publishers recognize this as well. If PF2 does fail in a significant way, Paizo may have to change its business model.

From a business point of view, making a 5E product, a PF2 or a house system costs the same investment, but the potential returns for a product targeting a pool of millions of players is better than tens of thousands. Most of the 3PP house systems, like Castles & Crusades, are a good environment for adventures that are easy to adapt to 5E, which is not true of PF2. The smart ROI is 5E, regardless of personal preference.

 

[generic]

From a business point of view, making a 5E product, a PF2 or a house system costs the same investment, but the potential returns for a product targeting a pool of millions of players is better than tens of thousands. Most of the 3PP house systems, like Castles & Crusades, are a good environment for adventures that are easy to adapt to 5E, which is not true of PF2. The smart ROI is 5E, regardless of personal preference.

Exactly.

In my opinion, another major blunder which Paizo made was calling PF2, well, PF2. D&D has shown this to be a mistake in the context of creating new editions. Honestly, it was somewhat delusional for Paizo to believe that the loss of PF1 players would be offset by new players, considering the relative lack of prominence that PF has.

 

[Parmandur]

Exactly.

In my opinion, another major blunder which Paizo made was calling PF2, well, PF2. D&D has shown this to be a mistake in the context of creating new editions. Honestly, it was somewhat delusional for Paizo to believe that the loss of PF1 players would be offset by new players, considering the relative lack of prominence that PF has.

The most stark bit of info I've seen so far is the Q3 Roll20 numbers: PF1 outnumbered PF2 10 to 1, though I'm sure that will improve somewhat with time.

 

[generic]

The most stark bit of info I've seen so far is the Q3 Roll20 numbers: PF1 outnumbered PF2 10 to 1, though I'm sure that will improve somewhat with time.

I'm not surprised. Literally (and I use this term in its intended context) everyone I know who plays PF1 regularly has passed up the opportunity to play PF2. The loss of their original customer base has been stark.

 

[CapnZapp]

It has always been my hypothesis that PF2 will be unable to capture all of PF1's audience, and will not be able to pick up a substantial number of new players. Sadly, it seems that 3pp publishers recognize this as well.

(my emphasis)

Why the sadly?

 

[generic]

(my emphasis)

Why the sadly?

I misspake, my grammars was incorregible. [Humor]

What I meant was this:

It has always been my hypothesis that PF2 will be unable to capture all of PF1's audience, and will not be able to pick up a substantial number of new players. Sadly, this is seems to be true. It seems 3pp publishers recognize this as well.