Pathfinder 2E Is it time for a new Pathfinder Setting?

[kenada]

I mean, they already release everything mechanical under the OGL. They just don't have a convenient community showcase like the DM's Guild. And I'm not sure how much that aspect of the Guild helps (compared to just being able to do D&D stuff without having to concern yourself with the legalities of the OGL).

A bigger issue when it comes to third-party stuff for Pathfinder 2 is that most of the stuff you could do for Pathfinder, you could probably do for D&D instead, and the potential D&D audience is at least an order of magnitude larger than the one for Pathfinder 2.

The advantage of a Pathfinder’s Guild is that you would (presumably) be able to write and sell 3PP content set in Golarion. While PF2 is OGL, all of the setting stuff is Product Identity and can’t be used because there’s no commercial equivalent to the community use policy.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It also would be a way to keep Pathfinder fans engaged with the franchise and not wandering off to play other systems. Even if it doesn't make a ton of money for Paizo, it would be beneficial if it just kept its fans engaged.

 

[kenada]

Another reason why a new setting doesn’t make sense is Golarion is an extremely kitchen-sink setting. If you want to change things up, set your game in a different area. For example, the PF equivalent of Ravenloft is Ustalav. If you’re looking for something more like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, there’s Numeria. Alkenstar does steampunk. If you want to get really off-beat, you can set your game on one of the other planets (as detailed in Distant Worlds). Even WW1-era Earth is part of the setting (per Rasputin Must Die!).

 

[Aldarc]

I just noticed the new 5e Ravenloft setting book was #1 in D&D and #40 in books and I thought wow, this setting is really popular (not my taste personally). Then I thought, should Paizo make a new setting(s) for Pathfinder? After 10 yrs of Golarion only, would a new setting inject some new life into Pathfinder? Is that something that would interest you? What are your thoughts?

Golarion is still pretty popular, hence one reason why we're even getting a Savage Worlds conversion. There would also likely be people who would JUMP full-throttle at the possibility of Golarion being brought over to 5e. I'm not sure if there is really an issue with the setting itself or Paizo needing new life in the form of a setting injected into Pathfinder.

You know what I would buy? An awesome 3PP Pathfinder 2e mega-adventure (similar to Curse of Strahd), divorced from Golarian (which I don't especially care about). Something that actually is built from the ground-up to support PF2, to reflect the rules in the world. Not a vanilla kitchen sink setting that was written for a system that came out 20 years ago.
Something like how Ptolus or Eberron came out in 3rd edition. Or Points of Light/Nentir Vale in 4E.

Is what you are asking really all that different from PF2 being designed by Paizo to actively support adventure and APs set in Golarion?

 

[GreyLord]

I just noticed the new 5e Ravenloft setting book was #1 in D&D and #40 in books and I thought wow, this setting is really popular (not my taste personally). Then I thought, should Paizo make a new setting(s) for Pathfinder? After 10 yrs of Golarion only, would a new setting inject some new life into Pathfinder? Is that something that would interest you? What are your thoughts?

Despite what Paizo Claims, Golarion...though a single setting...is a single setting much like Spelljammer or Planescape is a single setting when you include their entire multiverse (Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Darksun, Greyhawk) inside of them.

Golarion is composed of many different areas representing a multitude of different campaign settings. Want that Techno/Fantasy campaign setting...they have it. Want that Pirate Campaign Setting...they have it. Want that Asian Themed setting...they actually have one of those as well.

It's one world, but basically a ton of different campaign settings set inside of it.

 

[dave2008]

Despite what Paizo Claims, Golarion...though a single setting...is a single setting much like Spelljammer or Planescape is a single setting when you include their entire multiverse (Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Darksun, Greyhawk) inside of them.

Golarion is composed of many different areas representing a multitude of different campaign settings. Want that Techno/Fantasy campaign setting...they have it. Want that Pirate Campaign Setting...they have it. Want that Asian Themed setting...they actually have one of those as well.

It's one world, but basically a ton of different campaign settings set inside of it.

But that just means it is a kitchen sink setting like FR. Some people want some different.

 

[dave2008]

Golarion is still pretty popular, hence one reason why we're even getting a Savage Worlds conversion. There would also likely be people who would JUMP full-throttle at the possibility of Golarion being brought over to 5e. I'm not sure if there is really an issue with the setting itself or Paizo needing new life in the form of a setting injected into Pathfinder.

That may be, but personally I am not interested in it. a few other posters on this thread have commented that they haven't switch to PF2 because of Golarion. I just imagine there is some market for PF2 in another setting. It may not be feasible for Paizo, but I thought it was interesting to ask. Thank you for your response.

 

[dave2008]

Another reason why a new setting doesn’t make sense is Golarion is an extremely kitchen-sink setting. If you want to change things up, set your game in a different area. For example, the PF equivalent of Ravenloft is Ustalav. If you’re looking for something more like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, there’s Numeria. Alkenstar does steampunk. If you want to get really off-beat, you can set your game on one of the other planets (as detailed in Distant Worlds). Even WW1-era Earth is part of the setting (per Rasputin Must Die!).

So is FR, but some people still want something different.

 

[Retreater]

For me, I don't like it primarily because it's too big. I can't keep it all straight, and if I ever tried to run it, it wouldn't feel like "my world." I'd have to constantly reference books and wikis during the game for any questions that came up. (Note this is true for virtually all published campaign worlds, so I don't want to pick on Paizo.)
My preference is a detailed region that presents its information in the structure of an adventure, similar to the sandbox elements of Curse of Strahd.

 

[kenada]

So is FR, but some people still want something different.

Yes, but Paizo has not focused on one particular region to the extent that WotC has focused the Realms on the Sword Coast. To justify a new setting, it would have to be so different that it couldn’t work it into Golarion. Even Starfinder is technically the same setting (just set 1,000 years in the future).

I run in a homebrew setting that doesn’t map cleanly to some of PF2’s (and D&D’s) base assumptions, so I can understand how irksome a default setting can be. I had to de-Golarionize PF2 when I ran it. That’s mostly easy, but some parts can be hard (like deities). I ended up with a soft-ban on clerics and eventually champions because of the work involved. (I also had to homebrew my ancestries, but that’s the case regardless of system.)

However, a new setting won’t make those in that situation happy. Paizo would have to release another edition of Pathfinder that is not setting specific. They could acknowledge Golarion (like 5e acknowledges D&D’s settings), but it would have to be designed to let players and GMs decide how the mechanics and setting go together.