Pathfinder 2E Is It Time for PF2 "Essentials"?

[transmission89]

No, that's not a mistake. Sometimes you don't choose whether to go head to head or not; it's a choice that's made for you. From a historical perspective, its very clear that the segment that pursued Paizo were those who wanted only iterative updates to 3e, and not the revolutionary premise of 4e. 4e caused them to balk, and they were happy that someone like Paizo stepped in to fill the gap. But if 5e offers a (debatable premise, but I think one that many will shrug and accept because relative to 4e, it's mostly true) an iterative fix to 3e, while kinda sorta saying, "yeah, sorry about 4e; I can see that that wasn't really what you were interested in" then WotC was clearly choosing to compete head to head with Paizo for a segment that Paizo had captured from WotC some years earlier. What Paizo is interested in doing has no relevance to that situation, because their hand was forced by WotC, and they needed to address that in some fashion.

In any case, let me put my cards on the table. I don't care what system Paizo releases their adventure paths under; l can read and utilize them in my game, if I were to, whether they're 5e or Pathfinder 2e or 1e, or D&D or 3e or 4e or AD&D, or anything else. I'm just using them as a buffet, and taking concepts and ideas and maybe maps and scenario ideas from them and using them in my own preferred system anyway. So whether or not Pathfinder 2e finds a segment or not is of no concern to me personally other than that for various reasons I'd like to see Paizo stick around and continue to publish adventure paths that I can choose to go pick up if the concept appeals to me.

And this is where I go out on a limb a bit though; I personally suspect that it is very debatable that Paizo will be able to create a new segment of former 3e-style fans who want a different approach to fixing the 3e-Pathfinder 1e system than what 5e has done. It becomes the classic definition of a fantasy heartbreaker at this point. This is especially ironic if the comment somewhere way up above has any merit; that the direction Pathfinder 2e went relative to 1e is similar "in feel" to that taken by 4e (personally, I think the radical changes to the implied setting turned off more people about 4e than the mechanics, to be honest. Although both were factors. Only one is a factor with Pathfinder, of course.)

I also, and this is the google search that brought me to this thread in the first place, am intrigued by Paizo kinda adopting a soft approach to metastory again, which has obviously fallen considerably out of favor with the RPG market in general. It's a softer approach than that taken by the big metastory games of the past, like Old World of Darkness or whatever, but if you have a campaign set in Lastwall or Absalom, or was built around a concept utilizing the Worldwound, you may or may not appreciate that the 2e material says that your setting element no longer exists, or otherwise had a radical change done to it.

And finally, it's my opinion that Paizo were probably mistaken to pursue an alternative system in the first place, when their entire business model was based on catering to the segment that didn't want to migrate from 3e to 4e. I think that their strategy would have been better served by offering their Ultimate Campaign and Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Horror and Occult Adventures, etc. rules systems as Unearthed Arcana templates or options on top of the d20 SRD, and the "Pathfinder game" should have been a retroclone-like version of the SRD. I think that they had a hard decision to make about what to do there, and in retrospect, split their own segment into those who were OK advancing from 3.5 to Pathfinder and those who were more interested in sticking with 3.5. I'm not sure if that's "fixable" now, but had they done that, they could easily have pivoted to supporting the 5e SRD, and rather than competing with WotC for that segment, they could have just sold to that same segment.

Of course, there's also micro-segmentation going on here too. Is the hardback setting/module approach of 5e a model that's gradually replacing the adventure path model? That's a discussion that's a different tangent altogether.

You offer a very well articulated position, though I respectfully disagree with your conclusion regarding competition.

You’re right in that they didn’t necessarily chose competition but I’d say from a different perspective. They just wanted to use a souped up 3.x as their vehicle for their APs.

When 4e proved controversial, the sales success of pf catapulted them into direct competition but I don’t think anyone (including paizo) expected this or even necessarily desired this. I also don’t think they expected this for pf2.
They were forced by 5e in as much as the design space of 3e was already stretched and the larger market was perhaps finding it too cumbersome. So they wanted to improve pf their way, regardless of what 5e did.
I just find it odd many are placing it in the same sphere as 5e and not any other rpgs, labelling it a failure for not doing what no one else is doing anyway.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't think Pathfinder is a failure because it is "losing" to 5e, when 5e is arguably the most popular edition of the game in decades, and by all accounts is a runaway success. I think the implied question, if maybe poorly expressed at times is whether or not Pathfinder 2e is successful enough.

 

[transmission89]

I don't think Pathfinder is a failure because it is "losing" to 5e, when 5e is arguably the most popular edition of the game in decades, and by all accounts is a runaway success. I think the implied question, if maybe poorly expressed at times is whether or not Pathfinder 2e is successful enough.

Indeed. I wasn’t referring specifically to yourself. That last question begs another though, what is the metric of successful enough?

It can’t be 5e. Should it even be pf1? Because pf1 was also a market aberration. Everything aligned for that to be in a position to compete with 4e in market share. Is it fair to judge pf2 by that same metric?

If not, what is?

 

[Retreater]

Was it? If the thread had been titled 'let's spitball solutions to things I don't like about Pf2' that would have been much more fun and probably quite productive. Instead we got a question-begging 'is it time for essentials', which has more flamebait packed inside it than a carton of cordite.

I wasn't aware that Essentials was such a flamebait reference. I considered Essentials a pretty positive experience in 4e. But if using that reference in the title is preventing constructive discussion, we can start another thread without the baggage of that term.
However, I have the feeling the end result will be the same: fans of PF2 saying the system is fine and that the numerous gamers and potential customers who aren't engaging with the content are the ones with the problem - which is basically how every business fails.
The system, however, is not fine. The loudest supporters on here probably know it better than anyone else. I'm not saying it's a bad game, not fun, or anything. But there is a mighty problem with adoption in the RPG community, a problem with engaging players, enticing 3rd party publishers, and in its implementation on the literal largest VTT during the height of online play. The sooner that Paizo can address these issues, the more likely PF2 can survive. If they ignore it like many of the fans on here are, it's going to be doomed for failure.

 

[transmission89]

I wasn't aware that Essentials was such a flamebait reference. I considered Essentials a pretty positive experience in 4e. But if using that reference in the title is preventing constructive discussion, we can start another thread without the baggage of that term.
However, I have the feeling the end result will be the same: fans of PF2 saying the system is fine and that the numerous gamers and potential customers who aren't engaging with the content are the ones with the problem - which is basically how every business fails.
The system, however, is not fine. The loudest supporters on here probably know it better than anyone else. I'm not saying it's a bad game, not fun, or anything. But there is a mighty problem with adoption in the RPG community, a problem with engaging players, enticing 3rd party publishers, and in its implementation on the literal largest VTT during the height of online play. The sooner that Paizo can address these issues, the more likely PF2 can survive. If they ignore it like many of the fans on here are, it's going to be doomed for failure.

But is there a problem with adoption in the community? You’ve already used vtt as a measurement and that’s been called into question. So how else are you gauging it?

 

[payn]

It's ironic thinking that a PF2 essentials is necessary to save the system, when 4E essentials was pretty much the death knell for that system.

 

[Retreater]

But is there a problem with adoption in the community? You’ve already used vtt as a measurement and that’s been called into question. So how else are you gauging it?

I can tell you that VTT is factual. On Roll20, which is the industry leading, most visible, most popular VTT on the market. I don't care if "9 out of 10 PF2 players recommend Foundry VTT" - the fact that you can't get mainstream Paizo content on Roll20 is going to edge hurt the market on Roll20. Groups who are used to Roll20, see the ads, are already on there playing 5e, like the "free" element, enjoy the low barrier to entry for DMs having to learn how to host a game/keep a PC running all day on Foundry/etc are not going to willingly go to Foundry or Fantasy Grounds.
Until Paizo gets better representation on Roll20, that's going to be a strike against it. Now, I'm aware that's not all Paizo's fault, but they need to do whatever it takes to get their stuff on Roll20. If it's producing it themselves. If it's urging fans to write emails or social media campaigns, whatever it takes.
So what other lack of community adoption have I noticed? The PF1 Paizo messageboards are still very active, maybe even moreso than PF2. The number of major 3PPs producing content for PF2 is pretty much nil, whereas there is still PF1 content getting released - some of the best sellers from the 3PPs I've heard talk about it. The upcoming video game, built on the PF1 engine, is not going to showcase the new rules system.
I am not comparing PF2 to 5e. I am comparing PF2 to PF1. They need to up their game: entice fans to try the new system, encourage 3PP to get on board, increase the visibility.
They are starting to do this. Abomination Vaults is a great start. The Beginner Box should've been a Day One release before the Core Rulebook came out. So I want to see more of that.

 

[Retreater]

It's ironic thinking that a PF2 essentials is necessary to save the system, when 4E essentials was pretty much the death knell for that system.

I see it differently. I think that the 4e essentials breathed some life in the system, which would've collapsed even sooner without the injection of interest and an easier point of entry for fans. I came back in with Essentials and its organized play really took off after its release. Now it was not able to save it, and maybe it was too little too late. However, I think that Paizo can release a streamlined entry point into their system, geared towards easy character creation and GMing, with basic adventures that aren't convoluted Adventure Paths that aren't appealing to average gamers. And if it kills the Core Rulebook line that will tell them that there was a lot of unnecessary stuff in there.
Even Runehammer (ol Hankerin Ferinale) agrees on that - we need a stripped down PF2.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I'd rather we didn't ruin a game that feels like it fixes most of 5e's problems, we literally left 5e in favor of it for a reason and it seems to be chugging along well. There's plenty of rules lite DND clones, but there's only 1 PF2e.

 

[Teemu]

I can tell you that VTT is factual. On Roll20, which is the industry leading, most visible, most popular VTT on the market. I don't care if "9 out of 10 PF2 players recommend Foundry VTT" - the fact that you can't get mainstream Paizo content on Roll20 is going to edge hurt the market on Roll20. Groups who are used to Roll20, see the ads, are already on there playing 5e, like the "free" element, enjoy the low barrier to entry for DMs having to learn how to host a game/keep a PC running all day on Foundry/etc are not going to willingly go to Foundry or Fantasy Grounds.
Until Paizo gets better representation on Roll20, that's going to be a strike against it. Now, I'm aware that's not all Paizo's fault, but they need to do whatever it takes to get their stuff on Roll20. If it's producing it themselves. If it's urging fans to write emails or social media campaigns, whatever it takes.
So what other lack of community adoption have I noticed? The PF1 Paizo messageboards are still very active, maybe even moreso than PF2. The number of major 3PPs producing content for PF2 is pretty much nil, whereas there is still PF1 content getting released - some of the best sellers from the 3PPs I've heard talk about it. The upcoming video game, built on the PF1 engine, is not going to showcase the new rules system.
I am not comparing PF2 to 5e. I am comparing PF2 to PF1. They need to up their game: entice fans to try the new system, encourage 3PP to get on board, increase the visibility.
They are starting to do this. Abomination Vaults is a great start. The Beginner Box should've been a Day One release before the Core Rulebook came out. So I want to see more of that.

It’s a bit misleading to say that you can’t get mainstream PF2 content on Roll20. Roll20 offers all the core books outside the Lost Omens line, plus 2 full APs (and not the bad first one), two standalone adventures, and the Beginner Box. PF2 has a Roll20 supported character sheet that’s in active development—and the forums have exactly two stickied character sheet threads, for 5e and PF2. The support does exist and PF2 is receiving regular updates on Roll20. Whether that’ll show in player numbers remains to be seen. But PF2 is without a doubt the second most supported game on Roll20, right after 5e.