Pathfinder 2E How is Pathfinder doing?

[Retreater]

Those are all anecdotal pieces of information, and almost all of them personal anecdotes about your LGS, your PFS chapter, your campaigns. The other is just guesswork on your part

Right. And my anecdote is that I can't run or play Pathfinder 2e for the various reasons I've given. It's failing for me, my groups, and (as far as I can tell) my local community (based on the no-shows to PFS, the books sitting on store shelves, etc.). While this isn't at all indicative of a broad failure across the hobby industry, at least for the segment of the population that includes my groups and community (which are largely 5e-centric), these experiences may be more common than those already predisposed to be fans of PF2.
So in my posts I've said numerous times "this is why it doesn't work for my group" and "this is why it fails for my group." I'm certainly aware that the people for whom I've GMed PF2 include only 17 unique players. I'm aware that I'm only a single GM (albeit one with a lot of investment and experience in the hobby), but if I'm consistently getting the same results, logic says that there must be something wrong.
I don't think it's wrong to speak about our experiences with the system - people can learn from those posts. Also, I don't think it's wrong for you to say "hey, we're having a great time with PF2," and I'm not going to argue with you about your opinion of the system.
But you, specifically, keep coming at me with insulting takes on my experiences. And I can tell you that I have tried numerous times with various groups to run a great PF2 game. I can tell you also that I've been running games for 30 years, multiple campaigns simultaneously, professionally published in the 3.x/PF1 and 5e eras. I've put in hundreds of hours running demonstrations and test encounters on PF2 on Foundry. I've purchased a good deal of PF2 products (including 3PP content). I've tried to run three different Adventure Paths - none of which got past the second book.
I know what my experiences are, thank you. They are valid. My experiences are likely shared by others too - not the entire world, granted. So I can say that "these are the things that concern me about PF2" and "these are the things that would've improved the experience for me."

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think the second part has a fairly high proportion of tough encounters. But that's because it's a hexcrawl where you're likely to only have one or maybe two encounters per day, so you can let loose a bit more. You don't have a 10+ room dungeon to deal with, just this one fight.

Even there I don't think all of those can be +3's. If you told me nothing was under a +1 I'd believe you though (and your point about encounters that are composed of multiple potent opponents rather than one godawful one are on point; the final encounter in that AP was--brusk. It would have been much worse if I hadn't opened the encounter with a crit, and the opponent then managed to roll a 1 when I tossed a spell at him).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I can only go on what I know.
None of the 15 or so people in my area who play PF1 a lot, have moved to PF2. Most have tried it but more importantly none have spent any money on it.

That's not the only part of the PF2e market, though; I'm playing again after having decided following my experiences with D&D3 that I didn't want anything to do with PF1e. So you have to account for not only the people who transferred, but the people who came in from outside.

(And needless to say, none of our personal experiences can be anything but anecdotal).

 

[payn]

Right. And my anecdote is that I can't run or play Pathfinder 2e for the various reasons I've given. It's failing for me, my groups, and (as far as I can tell) my local community (based on the no-shows to PFS, the books sitting on store shelves, etc.). While this isn't at all indicative of a broad failure across the hobby industry, at least for the segment of the population that includes my groups and community (which are largely 5e-centric), these experiences may be more common than those already predisposed to be fans of PF2.
So in my posts I've said numerous times "this is why it doesn't work for my group" and "this is why it fails for my group." I'm certainly aware that the people for whom I've GMed PF2 include only 17 unique players. I'm aware that I'm only a single GM (albeit one with a lot of investment and experience in the hobby), but if I'm consistently getting the same results, logic says that there must be something wrong.
I don't think it's wrong to speak about our experiences with the system - people can learn from those posts. Also, I don't think it's wrong for you to say "hey, we're having a great time with PF2," and I'm not going to argue with you about your opinion of the system.
But you, specifically, keep coming at me with insulting takes on my experiences. And I can tell you that I have tried numerous times with various groups to run a great PF2 game. I can tell you also that I've been running games for 30 years, multiple campaigns simultaneously, professionally published in the 3.x/PF1 and 5e eras. I've put in hundreds of hours running demonstrations and test encounters on PF2 on Foundry. I've purchased a good deal of PF2 products (including 3PP content). I've tried to run three different Adventure Paths - none of which got past the second book.
I know what my experiences are, thank you. They are valid. My experiences are likely shared by others too - not the entire world, granted. So I can say that "these are the things that concern me about PF2" and "these are the things that would've improved the experience for me."

I think we are in an entirely different dynamic here in 2022, than in say 2012. 4E and PF1 were neck and neck. You could pretty much find a game for either easily in most metropolitan areas, and especially online. I think 5E broke that foundation a bit and got the upper hand again for D&D. PF2 seems to have shattered it by breaking up the PF community. I am sure some folks wandered over from 5E, but PF2 like 4E, is a pretty tactical minded game. It provides an experience that I think is aimed at the avid TTRPG player. It lacks broad appeal (note that doesn't make it a bad game) so available pool of players is going to be smaller in specific markets, but likely easy to find online.

One thing I will say about PF2 is that the growing pains seem to come sooner than later. Folks hit those problem areas with the rule set quickly, and you either figure it out, or you go somewhere else. I am eager to see how PF2 matures because its the opposite of the typical D&D experience in that the system hides its pain points deeper and later into the game. Folks settle in and only get aggravated later as they become accustomed to the game. What will PF2 aficionados talk about years from now?

 

[qstor]

I mean, the Sagamore Ballroom was divided this year (with a third of it going to 40K lasertag). So what you're seeing is a fraction of the interest from GenCons at least 5 years ago.
The lines at the Paizo booth used to stretch out of the Vendor Hall, and now the shopping line would evaporate within an hour of the floor's opening each morning. It was disheartening to see stacks of Dark Archive sitting there on Sunday after seeing Free League and Zweihander selling out of entire product ranges. [And yes, I know smaller companies bring fewer copies and might sell out quicker, but presumably they also have less promotion, less interest, fewer fans, etc - so it should be comparable.]
I'm not bringing this up to disparage Paizo, Pathfinder 2, or its many fans. As I've started numerous times, I like the system overall. But I think that when people say "it's going as strong as ever" and then I see the event space one-third the size of the last time I went - that tells me that "in practice" there are some issues.
As fans, should we promote it more? Do they need more PFS GMs at events?

Yeah I remember when Paizo won some Ennies for PF 1e the Sagamore Ballroom was packed and everyone cheered. But that was at the height of PF 1e. I haven't been to GenCon since 2015.

 

[dirtypool]

So in my posts I've said numerous times "this is why it doesn't work for my group" and "this is why it fails for my group." I'm certainly aware that the people for whom I've GMed PF2 include only 17 unique players. I'm aware that I'm only a single GM (albeit one with a lot of investment and experience in the hobby), but if I'm consistently getting the same results, logic says that there must be something wrong.

You keep assuming that because there is something not working at your table in your games that there is something wrong WITH PATHFINDER, and that is not necessarily the most logical assumption to make.

But you, specifically, keep coming at me with insulting takes on my experiences.

No sir I have not, I have pointed out flaws in your reasoning and suggested that your experience with something is not a universal one and is not indicative of the state of PF2 overall. These are not insults. Doubling, tripling and quadroupling down on repeating your personal anecdotes changes nothing about my comments or the reality existing beyond your experiences.

I know what my experiences are, thank you. They are valid. My experiences are likely shared by others too - not the entire world, granted. So I can say that "these are the things that concern me about PF2" and "these are the things that would've improved the experience for me."

But those aren’t the things you routinely do that I comment on. You routinely post doom and gloom posts about sales that are meant to indicate concern over the health of the game over all. Those are the things I reply to.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One thing I will say about PF2 is that the growing pains seem to come sooner than later. Folks hit those problem areas with the rule set quickly, and you either figure it out, or you go somewhere else. I am eager to see how PF2 matures because its the opposite of the typical D&D experience in that the system hides its pain points deeper and later into the game. Folks settle in and only get aggravated later as they become accustomed to the game. What will PF2 aficionados talk about years from now?

I'm not sure here. In particular, there's been a strong trend for people who have issues with, say, how spellcasters work to say its much worse in the early levels than later.

 

[payn]

I'm not sure here. In particular, there's been a strong trend for people who have issues with, say, how spellcasters work to say its much worse in the early levels than later.

Right, folks tend to have issues right out the gun with PF2, but they iron out at higher levels and with more experience. Typically, its the opposite where things are fine early, but get worse at higher level and with system mastery.

 

[Jaeger]

The lines at the Paizo booth used to stretch out of the Vendor Hall, and now the shopping line would evaporate within an hour of the floor's opening each morning. .... Pathfinder 2, or its many fans. As I've started numerous times, I like the system overall. But I think that when people say "it's going as strong as ever" and then I see the event space one-third the size of the last time I went - that tells me that "in practice" there are some issues.

In my opinion, the only thing going on here is that Pazio is finding their natural level in relation to 5e D&D in a post 4e world.

Pathfinder took the number one RPG spot from 4e, but once 5e came out Paizo began to hemorrhage market share back to WotC like a bleeding swimmer in a shark frenzy.

By Pazio's own admission they never fixed the underlying math issues with 3.5. The Pathfinder rules were essentially an employees house rules laid on top of the OGL. Among other things I think, the roaring success of 5e has shown that 3.x D&D had reached the end of its edition life cycle...

So Pazio had to do something to generate excitement for its brand and try and reclaim some of the paying customers lost to 5e. (IMHO Pazio was just trying to stop the bleeding, and even they had no notions about ever being the number one fantasy RPG anymore.)

I don't think PF2 was quite the success on launch that Paizo was hoping for. But it is clear that PF2 is now attracting 5e players willing to look for something more, and it is finding its feet on VTT platforms not roll20.

So PF2 is finding its natural level. Will it ever be as big as the PF1 heyday? No way. But that would be an unrealistic expectation anyways.

But I do believe that PF2 has retained and gained enough loyal customers to maintain its status as the perennial number 2 RPG for the time being.

 

[ReshiIRE]

One thing I will say about PF2 is that the growing pains seem to come sooner than later. Folks hit those problem areas with the rule set quickly, and you either figure it out, or you go somewhere else. I am eager to see how PF2 matures because its the opposite of the typical D&D experience in that the system hides its pain points deeper and later into the game. Folks settle in and only get aggravated later as they become accustomed to the game. What will PF2 aficionados talk about years from now?

I'm not sure here. In particular, there's been a strong trend for people who have issues with, say, how spellcasters work to say its much worse in the early levels than later.

Right, folks tend to have issues right out the gun with PF2, but they iron out at higher levels and with more experience. Typically, its the opposite where things are fine early, but get worse at higher level and with system mastery.

Biggest issue seems to be less fundamental system issues and more disagreements over things like like TEML progression (Alchemist having delayed progression and not getting master in its attacks seems like a sticking point) and 'dead actions' like Reload. There are definitely a few things I have spotted that are worth of looking individually per table and deciding what to do with them.

The only other thing I can think of, from a reading but not having played perspective, is that the Incapacitation trait for spells is somewhat harsh, but that area is tricky to balance regardless, and spellcasters and martials both are extremely useful, just for different situations.