Just curious if there is any anecdotal data answering that question. We tried 2e and...well, let's just say it wasn't popular. We had been juggling PF1e and D&D 5e when PF2e came out. We played several sessions of PF2e with multiple GMs and decided it was too far removed from the 3.5e-derived PF1e, so we moved back to the comforts of the latter.
Pathfinder 1E Did most PF1e Players migrate to 2e or stick with 1e?
- Thread starter vivsavage
- Start date
I can only speak anecdotally. Both groups I know in person that played PF1, they have both moved to PF2. When they want a break from PF2, they play other systems.
For me, I will never run or play 3.x or PF1 again. After almost 15 years of that system, I just can't take it anymore. (To be fair, I burned out on PF2 after about 5 years.)
For me, I will never run or play 3.x or PF1 again. After almost 15 years of that system, I just can't take it anymore. (To be fair, I burned out on PF2 after about 5 years.)
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
As a single anecdote, I was initially excited to have my group try PF2 after it was first announced (but before it was released). However, the prospect went over like a lead balloon with the rest of the group. They simply weren't interested in investing significant (or at least, it felt like significant) time, effort, and money to get what was being billed as the same "Pathfinder" experience.
The implicit promise in the marketing that "this is like the Pathfinder you know, but better" didn't sway them, not because they didn't believe it, but because they didn't think that it would be better enough to justify buying and learning everything all over again.
The implicit promise in the marketing that "this is like the Pathfinder you know, but better" didn't sway them, not because they didn't believe it, but because they didn't think that it would be better enough to justify buying and learning everything all over again.
Whisper-Kitten
Adventurer
I play both and enjoy the difference. I think that it helps me from getting burnt out. I only GM P2 games though. P1 is too crunchy for my style.
For me, crunchy games have ceased to be interesting.
Sure. You can buff, take feats, have gear. Whatever. Ultimately, you're going to be facing monsters that deal level appropriate damage and not truly challenge anything because you have a 99% win rate.
And even if it was nail-biting engaging and you face death, you're still spending your night waiting 30-45 minutes between turns for like 3-4 hours. My time is more precious than that.
Sure. You can buff, take feats, have gear. Whatever. Ultimately, you're going to be facing monsters that deal level appropriate damage and not truly challenge anything because you have a 99% win rate.
And even if it was nail-biting engaging and you face death, you're still spending your night waiting 30-45 minutes between turns for like 3-4 hours. My time is more precious than that.
Whisper-Kitten
Adventurer
That‘s a long wait.
As best I can tell, all games have ceased to be interesting to you. I question that they ever were, given your post history! At some point you need to accept that you don't like games, and it's not everything else, it's you.
The 1 group I know which played PF1 did go on to 5E not PF2.
I like reading PF1 (and would play it, although it does feel a bit old), and I was really dissapointed by PF2, but again I was not really a PF1 player to begin with.
But this waiting time also really has to do with what people you play with (as in how good they are in making decisions fast) and partially with how RPGs are designed.
Boardgames (which you are not so into), have in the last 20 years really changed into trying to have short turns/ short waiting times (or even simultaneous turns). (Not all of them but in general).
Often just letting you do 1 meaningfull action a turn which should be resolved as fast as possible. And making sure you can plan if possible before your turn.
PF2 is kind of the exactl opposite of this idea with 3 actions every turn, having enemy and player turns mixed between and having some actions depend on the success of your previous action so less preplanning. (Also relative complicated resolution on single actions).
Take gloomhaven, a dungeon crawler boardgame as an example. In Gloomhaven you can normally play in 2 hours or less 1 scenario (in a group playing it regularily). A scenario is normally a long combat with something like 15 turns each or so, so 15 rounds. (Which is something like 3 normal combat lengths compared to rpgs and there its unthinkable to do 3 combats in 2 hours)
The action selection is done by everyone at the same time (so no waiting for others all are thinking at the same time) and then turn go after initiative of the action selected and you normally have 1 move and 1 action a turn.
I think rpgs, compared to boardgames, have just soo much space to improve. I like PF1 (but more for reading not playing), although it does not feel modern, but I think at its time it was perfectly fine. But time goes on games evolve and PF2 for me did not really do that. It makes the opposite of good boardgames, having a high complexity and a relative low depth. (Kinda creating depth with massive complexity).
I like games with deep tactics, but I also like modern smooth gamedesign and RPGs miss normally this point:
Partially because of legacy, partially because they want to have a target audience of people who want complexity (to feel good by doing system mastery) and partially because the designers and or the target audience is just not that experienced with modern gamedesign (making elegant games is hard and you can only make them when the audience understands and appreciates it).
So I totally get why one does not like crunchy games anymore even if the games did not change, the time did.
I like reading PF1 (and would play it, although it does feel a bit old), and I was really dissapointed by PF2, but again I was not really a PF1 player to begin with.
But this waiting time also really has to do with what people you play with (as in how good they are in making decisions fast) and partially with how RPGs are designed.
Boardgames (which you are not so into), have in the last 20 years really changed into trying to have short turns/ short waiting times (or even simultaneous turns). (Not all of them but in general).
Often just letting you do 1 meaningfull action a turn which should be resolved as fast as possible. And making sure you can plan if possible before your turn.
PF2 is kind of the exactl opposite of this idea with 3 actions every turn, having enemy and player turns mixed between and having some actions depend on the success of your previous action so less preplanning. (Also relative complicated resolution on single actions).
Take gloomhaven, a dungeon crawler boardgame as an example. In Gloomhaven you can normally play in 2 hours or less 1 scenario (in a group playing it regularily). A scenario is normally a long combat with something like 15 turns each or so, so 15 rounds. (Which is something like 3 normal combat lengths compared to rpgs and there its unthinkable to do 3 combats in 2 hours)
The action selection is done by everyone at the same time (so no waiting for others all are thinking at the same time) and then turn go after initiative of the action selected and you normally have 1 move and 1 action a turn.
I think rpgs, compared to boardgames, have just soo much space to improve. I like PF1 (but more for reading not playing), although it does not feel modern, but I think at its time it was perfectly fine. But time goes on games evolve and PF2 for me did not really do that. It makes the opposite of good boardgames, having a high complexity and a relative low depth. (Kinda creating depth with massive complexity).
I like games with deep tactics, but I also like modern smooth gamedesign and RPGs miss normally this point:
Partially because of legacy, partially because they want to have a target audience of people who want complexity (to feel good by doing system mastery) and partially because the designers and or the target audience is just not that experienced with modern gamedesign (making elegant games is hard and you can only make them when the audience understands and appreciates it).
So I totally get why one does not like crunchy games anymore even if the games did not change, the time did.
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (250) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
November 16 2026 -
January 1 2027 -
January 1 2027 -
March 6 2027
