5e & PF2 - Why Choose the Same Approach?

[Parmandur]

Yeah, I haven't bought a starter set since, well, I started. I've at least seen some of the intervening ones, but this ed's has slipped by me, but for hearing so much about LMoP on line...

Well, if you ever find yourself in the situation of running some new folks through their first game (running at your FlGS, say), it is very fit to purpose.

 

[Scott Christian]

Some great insight, and I do hope PF2 does well. I know they won't come close to D&D sales, but hopefully, they'll make a decent profit.

I get the DNA argument. They both have the same mother, so it makes sense. But, it's always seemed to me, that these incredibly talented and creative writers, could try something... different.

An example: If you're working in Tolkien's world, you need a different set of rules to portray the narratives. Even from the books to the movies you'd need a different set of rules to describe effects, action, etc. Same with Conan, same GoT, Witcher, Elder Scrolls and so on. If D&D or PF capitalized on this, it would seem to make sense to me. Magic is completely different in all those worlds. So is the narrative. Just make different rulesets for each, including Forgotten Realms or Golarion.

Kind of just speaking off the cusp, but that's more what I mean. They build different worlds, so use different rulesets for those worlds.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, if you ever find yourself in the situation of running some new folks through their first game...

That's most of the 5e that I run, I use converted old-school modules or, if the organizer insists, AL adventures. I figure if they like it, they just might go out and buy the starter set.

 

[Parmandur]

That's most of the 5e that I run, I use converted old-school modules or, if the organizer insists, AL adventures. I figure if they like it, they just might go out and buy the starter set.

Fair point.

 

[gamerprinter]

Why not? Who cares? If you want the original Pathfinder, it's not going anywhere. If you want to see Paizo's new take on PF 2.0, then great! Me, I'll run the original Pathfinder for my own games, and almost prefer to play Starfinder versus anything else (and publish 3PP for it.)

 

[Ilbranteloth]

PF was like Arduin: both were alternatives to the then-current editions of D&D for fans of the past edition who thought D&D just wasn't D&D enough, anymore, so they were distinct from the ed of D&D they competed with, and more like the preceding ed. It was a winning formula for both (Arduin even got sued by TSR over it).

No one feels that way about 5e, which is clearly much more D&D than the prior ed even tried to be.

But, Paizo still has a core of loyal fans, so I guess it's worth it for them to put out a PF2. But what to do with it?

The only formula that's ever beaten D&D is to come up with something even worse than D&D, while setting off a firestorm of controversy against D&D on-line (the Role v Roll 'debate' on UseNet when Storyteller took the head-space lead in the hobby in the 90s; the edition war when PF took a sales lead in some quarters c2010).
But, D&D is currently golden - everyone either praises it or remains politely silent - and new players aren't being repelled from even trying it (only repelled by actually playing it), and in the grip of much-anticipated, much-delayed come-back, so growing like crazy.

Even if PF2 retains it's loyal base, it's sales won't seem like much compared to D&D, and that seems to matter to said base, who may then defect to the 'more popular' on-brand version.

IDK if moving closer to 5e is the right call or not, but Paizo has been managing their brand very well, so I wouldn't count them out. They certainly know things we don't.

PF doesn’t necessarily need to do better than D&D. They just have to maintain sales to be a viable business. I think they have an opportunity to continue the 3.5e path to cater to a group that does want something different than 5e. At least some of the time. They don’t really have to compete, people can play both.

I think WotC accidentally set themselves up for an opportunity to revisit D&D as a whole and combine what they saw people liked about all editions. And they did an awesome job.

In a similar vein, PF has the ability to build on the things that players like about 3.5e.

It’s kind of similar to how the Wii became so popular. 5e’s simplicity is pulling in a lot of people who would never play D&D in its more complex forms. But there’s still a market for those who like more crunch.

The thing is, the market has changed. PF is no longer the option for those who still want to play D&D but don’t like 4e. Now PF has to create a game that draws people on its own strengths, not just be a D&D clone. Looking through the various forums online, there is still clearly a group of players that want more of the granularity and crunch that PF offers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

PF doesn’t necessarily need to do better than D&D.

It did sell a bit better than D&D a few times, and it's fans made a lot out if that, those particular fans could react badly if PF2 doesn't do well enough (whatever 'enough' might be for them). I doubt they're a huge number or that they'd war against a new/different PF the way they did a new/different D&D.

They just have to maintain sales to be a viable business.

One other factor is development costs, if, like 5e, PF2 keeps it's staff and costs down, it won't need as high sales to be profitable, that could be a reason to adopt some 5e-isms, like slow pace of release, or re-cycling older mechanics.

It’s kind of similar to how the Wii became so popular. 5e’s simplicity is pulling in a lot of people who would never play D&D in its more complex forms. But there’s still a market for those who like more crunch.

The difference between 5e & PF isn't simplicity, D&D has never been simple, it's varied a little here and there in the nature of its complexity. PF has more content than any single edition of D&D, for instance. While, 5e has drawn together traditional elements of multiple past editions to make it familiar or at least acceptable to fans of the TSR era and 3.5, both, making it easily as complex, mechanically, as any single other edition.

The main difference is in 5e's glacial pace of release vs PF's huge library, it'd take decades for 5e to offer the same sheer volume of options.

Whether PH2 can sustain the same rapid output, or has a different strategy this time around is a question I suspect Paizo already has an answer for...

 

[Ilbranteloth]

It did sell a bit better than D&D a few times, and it's fans made a lot out if that, those particular fans could react badly if PF2 doesn't do well enough (whatever 'enough' might be for them). I doubt they're a huge number or that they'd war against a new/different PF the way they did a new/different D&D.

One other factor is development costs, if, like 5e, PF2 keeps it's staff and costs down, it won't need as high sales to be profitable, that could be a reason to adopt some 5e-isms, like slow pace of release, or re-cycling older mechanics.
The difference between 5e & PF isn't simplicity, D&D has never been simple, it's varied a little here and there in the nature of its complexity. PF has more content than any single edition of D&D, for instance. While, 5e has drawn together traditional elements of multiple past editions to make it familiar or at least acceptable to fans of the TSR era and 3.5, both, making it easily as complex, mechanically, as any single other edition.

The main difference is in 5e's glacial pace of release vs PF's huge library, it'd take decades for 5e to offer the same sheer volume of options.

Whether PH2 can sustain the same rapid output, or has a different strategy this time around is a question I suspect Paizo already has an answer for...

All good points. Although I’d say that there are different types of complexity, and the PF release schedule vs the 5e release schedule, especially in relation to rules rather than adventures, highlights those differences between the two.

Whatever the appropriate term is, I think PF caters to a different gamer than 5e, with a lot of overlap. The overlap is where I think PF2 has an opportunity to keep or lose players to 5e.

My hope is that PF2 will do a lot of what 5e seems to be doing - bring new gamers to the hobby, rather than just shifting existing gamers to the current system.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My hope is that PF2 will do a lot of what 5e seems to be doing - bring new gamers to the hobby, rather than just shifting existing gamers to the current system.

As the only TTRPG with significant mainstream name recognition, bringing new gamers to the hobby has almost always been D&D's sole responsibility (for a bit, in the 90s, as the initial CCG fad cut into D&Ds traditional demographic, Vampire LARPs were arguably bringing in more new RPGers, however indirectly). And outside the fad years it's never been great at either attracting or retaining them, mainly because it faces the same dilemma any nerd-hobby does when trying to mainstream: the basic product is inaccessible if not outright repugnant to mainstream tastes, but any changes that might make it more palatable can outrage the existing nerdy fans, creating toxic buzz that repels the mainstream before they can even be repelled by the actual content. 2e and 3.x, in their own quite different ways, both had a lot of appeal to existing D&Ders, but were still very hard for completely new players to get into - though some always managed, of course. 4e was horrifying to the existing fanbase, precisely because it was made clearer, more consistent, more genre-evoking, and easier for a genuinely-new/mainstream player to get into, but only so many of them ran the gauntlet of the edition war to even try it (IMX, as someone who's run a lot of introductory games for new/returning players over the decades, 4e did have remarkable retention with new players - and was remarkably irritating to existing & returning ones).

When D&D was at it's most popular, it was as a fad, the mainstream was buying basic sets and PHs and the like in volume, but not actually making the transition into the hobby, and the fad ran its course. 5e is not hobbled by an edition war making the idea of even trying D&D unattractive, and it is riding the wave of both its own long-delayed come-back, and a resurgence in boardgaming that draws people into the kinds of game & hobby stores where they can be exposed to it, so more people are buying & trying D&D than have in a long time (not as many as in the 80s, but it's still a rousing success).

Very little about 5e, itself, (mostly the comparative sanity of having only one PH on the shelf, and the relatively slow pace of release) and nothing about PF, though, makes it that accessible to new players. The greatest weapon it has in that sense is all those long-time fans running games and initiating new players into the mystery cult.

PF was conceived as and remains an alternative to D&D for people who wanted the unique aspects of 3.5 that other D&Ds didn't provide. 5e's still not providing quite all of them, and certainly isn't competing on sheer volume of options & offerings. That really makes me think PF2 has to focus on it's existing player base, and on keeping them from finally going back to D&D, exclusively. I can't imagine how it'd begin to attract brand-new players nor recently-new players mystified/disappointed by D&D but still willing to explore the rest of the hobby.

Of course, I couldn't imagine at the time, how WotC or Paizo would have be able to do a number of things they have, in fact, actually done.

 

[delericho]

HotDQ is pretty iffy, but it is not the first adventure: The List Mines of Phandelver came out before the core books, and it is fantastic.

Probably a nitpick, but wasn't "Keep on the Shadowfell" also 4e's second adventure - the first being "Kobold Hall" in the DMG? (Which, granted, was also dire.)