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.

 

[kenada]

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.

That’s more or less what Paizo does already with their APs. They’re set in different areas, accompanied by supplemental information and options related to the area. If you are running an AP, then you can pretend the other parts of Golarion don’t exist. It’s very uncommon for APs to take you outside of their region.

It gets messier if you aren’t because there is a lot of information out there. If one is the type of person to get overwhelmed by that and maintaining setting fiddelity, then you’re going to have problems with Golarion. You can pick an AP region and ignore the AP and the rest of the setting, but it may still be overwhelming.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Sure, but I think that you can more than do that in Golarion. The setting book of Golarion released for PF2 breaks up the world into regions. I would probably use the "Saga Lands" (see fan map), particularly the southern portions, which were the focus of the early adventures. That's probably the most sandbox heavy region. There is more than enough information on this region out there.

 

[payn]

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

What different are you looking for?

 

[dave2008]

What different are you looking for?

I'm not looking for anything, I just posed the question. I run homebrew settings exclusively

 

[Retreater]

It gets messier if you aren’t because there is a lot of information out there. If one is the type of person to get overwhelmed by that and maintaining setting fiddelity, then you’re going to have problems with Golarion. You can pick an AP region and ignore the AP and the rest of the setting, but it may still be overwhelming.

I am easily overwhelmed, apparently. I am only slightly familiar with Paizo as someone who jettisoned PF1 a few years ago and never really got into their novels, lore, etc.
Just the background history of the second volume of the Age of Ashes AP, and I was completely lost. I couldn't even tell the party why they were doing the mission and couldn't understand enough of what was going on to reasonably explain the villain groups, the locations they were based in, or anything else.
Age of Ashes could've been an anomaly with teleportation gates linking various places with an especially ancient plot, but I tell you, I lost all interest in the story after the party rescued the goblins midway in the first volume. That was the only part that seemed to have any connection to the characters, their town, or anything based in the "here and now."

 

[kenada]

I am easily overwhelmed, apparently. I am only slightly familiar with Paizo as someone who jettisoned PF1 a few years ago and never really got into their novels, lore, etc.
Just the background history of the second volume of the Age of Ashes AP, and I was completely lost. I couldn't even tell the party why they were doing the mission and couldn't understand enough of what was going on to reasonably explain the villain groups, the locations they were based in, or anything else.
Age of Ashes could've been an anomaly with teleportation gates linking various places with an especially ancient plot, but I tell you, I lost all interest in the story after the party rescued the goblins midway in the first volume. That was the only part that seemed to have any connection to the characters, their town, or anything based in the "here and now."

It’s hard for me to say whether that’s a failing of the AP or not, though it sounds like it. My first AP was Council of Thieves, which I ran (only the first volume) with little knowledge of the setting. I thought it gave me what I needed. My first (and only) completed AP was Kingmaker, which I ran next. However, that was also when I started getting into the setting. I’m sure that colors my impression of the accessibility of APs I ran after that (Rise of the Runelords, Shattered Star).

The only story I ran for 5e was Hoard of the Dragon Queen. I haven’t run Curse of Strahd. Can you help me understand of CoS is different? There’s a ton of existing Ravenloft stuff, so I’d think that could also be overwhelming. Is it because D&D typically separates setting material by edition, and there wasn’t (yet) anything else published for 5e?

 

[Retreater]

The only story I ran for 5e was Hoard of the Dragon Queen. I haven’t run Curse of Strahd. Can you help me understand of CoS is different? There’s a ton of existing Ravenloft stuff, so I’d think that could also be overwhelming. Is it because D&D typically separates setting material by edition, and there wasn’t (yet) anything else published for 5e?

Certainly.
The entire story of Curse of Strahd unfolds in a region that can be crossed on foot in about two days. HotDQ has weeks of caravan work going from place-to-place without much detail, but the DM needs to supply that information if you're going to bring it to life.
The history of Barovia (in curse of Strahd) begins and ends with the motivations of a dynamic villain. There aren't lots of shadowy motivations. The history is like maybe a couple generations, and most all of it (as presented in the adventure) actually shapes the lives of the citizens and the characters.
There are three towns and a few smaller encampments, allowing for each to feel flavorful and unique. Because there isn't a lot of distance, there are connections between the towns and other adventure sites, which makes the entire setting come to life in an immersive experience that hooks the players. This is usually lost in adventures with a grander scale. In a city like Waterdeep, my players didn't care at all. I could've burned the city with a red dragon. But helping a guy in a small encampment in Curse of Strahd look for his missing sister - and they were willing to go into the depths of hell (aka Castle Ravenloft) with that guy.

 

[darjr]

Ya know.... I’d love a big setting book about other planets in the verse. I know they’ve done some of this? But I’d love a weird planet campaign that isn’t “sci-fi”

 

[masshysteria]

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.

This is a bit of a double edge sword. Sure, you can find anything in Golarion, but then you also have everything in Golarion. So now you have to start deciding what's in and what's out. This isn't so bad if you play the APs as they kind of do that for you.

Golarion is cool, but I think there's room for something different; an Eberron to Golarion's Forgotten Realms. Maybe that's what StarFinder is supposed to be, but it still has Golarion ties and the rules didn't really do it for me.

I was really hoping we'd see some 3PP jump on the launch of PF2 to launch alternate settings. But it really hasn't happened.

 

[Green Onceler]

I do not think a new setting from Paizo would be particularly helpful. It would not encourage me to make the move to the new edition. They need to get their mojo back with their AP design most importantly. If new campaigns of similar quality to, for example, Curse of the Crimson Throne were coming out for PF2, I'd find it much harder to ignore. All the second edition APs have left me entirely indifferent to date.