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

[dave2008]

Yes, but notice his suggestion is "a revised, streamlined PF2". If that's the suggestion, it requires support that "streamlining" would actually help, when the detail and involvement is already a big part of setting PF2e apart from D&D 5e; expanding your market by trying to fish in the pond already dominated by a bigger player is almost always a fool's game. Its like the people who suggest the Hero System would do better if it was simplified, when the truth is, games serving a similar purpose but simpler already have that part of the market (Savage Worlds for example), so why would someone assume this is somehow going to help?

Essentially, you have to ask yourself what underserved part of the market that is supposed to pick up.

Whether or not their suggested change makes sense, the idea of a possible change is still worth investigating. That is the real question. Now, it didn't work for 4e, so I personally don't think it would work for PF2. However, a streamlined and possibly simplified version of PF2 certainly appeals to me. That could be a game I would be more likely to play than what PF2 is now.

 

[fearsomepirate]

4e Essentials was a disaster of a product, and 4e itself was a disaster.

Realistically, what PF2 can do to be significantly more successful is probably "nothing." If the market for "a game that doesn't play much like D&D, but thematically takes most of its elements from D&D" was big, 4e would have been a lot more successful, and PF1 wouldn't have existed. 13th Age probably would have done a lot better.

Pathfinder's appeal is some combination of, in approximate ranking of importance

1. continuing to support the most popular edition of D&D <=== PF2e lost this
2. High-quality adventure paths <=== Not great now, but can be fixed
3. Sunk cost (i.e. "I already have all these books, I want to use them!") <=== PF2e lost this
4. Far better 3rd-party support than WotC <=== PF2e lost this
5. Organized play <=== PFS is fine!

The point here is there are some major aspects of PF1's appeal that PF2 lost and can't get back. Yes, they could publish better adventures. But, in my opinion, there's a pretty limited ceiling on how big a game can grow when it's "The D&D SRD with different math," regardless of how good the published modules are.

This is why I, in my infinite stupidity, think PF2e needs a new face. I think the intrinsic limits to a different numerical spin on D&D's menagerie of monsters and tome of spells makes it worth the risk to try and find something new. Come up with something that isn't "like the Forgotten Realms but..." or "like Greyhawk but..." or "like Eberron but..."

Come up with something where a drow wizard casting cloudkill at a group of gnolls is not a thing. There are talented people at Paizo. They have connections to some of the best people in the industry. They are some of the only people who could pull this off. They're doing what I predicted they would do in 2016, because it seems to be the least risky option. And it's easy for me to say they should roll the dice on this, but it's not my company I'm talking about. If their revenue is okay, then maybe they should just keep doing this.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Whether or not their suggested change makes sense, the idea of a possible change is still worth investigating. That is the real question. Now, it didn't work for 4e, so I personally don't think it would work for PF2. However, a streamlined and possibly simplified version of PF2 certainly appeals to me. That could be a game I would be more likely to play than what PF2 is now.

Except I don't think as phrase it was; that was my objection, that it asked the question in the context of "streamlining" (made obvious by the comparison to Essentials), and that's the part I think was based on the false premise, that streamlining the game would, in fact, make it more successful. That's tantamount to begging the question for the reasons I've presented before.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Come up with something where a drow wizard casting cloudkill at a group of gnolls is not a thing. There are talented people at Paizo. They have connections to some of the best people in the industry. They are some of the only people who could pull this off. They're doing what I predicted they would do in 2016, because it seems to be the least risky option. And it's easy for me to say they should roll the dice on this, but it's not my company I'm talking about. If their revenue is okay, then maybe they should just keep doing this.

I think they didn't do that because, again, for the most part, other games have that covered. Going completely outside the D&D-sphere set of expectations was going to require them to try and come up with not only a game system, but setting conceits that somehow outsold all the other non-D&D fantasy games out there. I suspect strongly their market share would be even smaller had they done that, unless they just happened to get lightning in a bottle--and that's not something a big player like Paizo is likely to count on.

 

[dave2008]

That was really my point; there's not really signs that Retreater and the people he's talking about would be happy with any PF2e version that also made many of its current fans happy. So how does his suggestion make any sense for Paizo?

That is a good question. What is interesting about the 4e / Essentials split is that the only real difference was in the classes. The rest of the game was the same. So there really was no difference in the game, it played the same. In fact we had 4e/Essentials characters are the same table. No one knew the difference. The issue with Essentials was that it was too late. I truly believe if Essentials had been first they could have release what was the PHB classes later and it never have been perceived as a change really.

It seems the OP is suggesting something more comprehensive, and I could be on board with that for PF2. Would that make it more or less likely to succeed? IDK, but it likely gets into the issue you describe above, could both groups play at the same table.

 

[dave2008]

4e Essentials was a disaster of a product, and 4e itself was a disaster.

But they were great games.

 

[Retreater]

1. continuing to support the most popular edition of D&D <=== PF2e lost this
2. High-quality adventure paths <=== Not great now, but can be fixed
3. Sunk cost (i.e. "I already have all these books, I want to use them!") <=== PF2e lost this
4. Far better 3rd-party support than WotC <=== PF2e lost this
5. Organized play <=== PFS is fine!

Ok. So these are some things we can discuss, if an "Essentials" route isn't going to help PF2 (just one of my ideas).

I think they can't compete with DMs Guild, but I believe they can improve #4. Their SRD is very open, so there are many avenues that 3PP can take to support PF2.

However, it's questionable if there's enough interest there to get 3PP on board to make products when they could be releasing for 5e or their own house system.

How would they do this? Maybe by direct relationships with certain publishers. Paizo could give them marketing on their site, promotional blogs, maybe blurbs in their products, open up past APs for PF2 conversion by 3PPs, open up limited amounts of Golarian IP for specific 3PP by "special arrangement." Co-sponsor a "2nd party" (?) Kickstarter or publisher venture (like assisting Kobold Press in revising Tome of Beasts for PF2).

I don't know if this would help or would even be possible, but I feel like there are almost some bridges between Paizo and 3PPs that could be rebuilt.

 

[fearsomepirate]

But they were great games.

They were! It's really too bad WotC didn't release a 4e SRD, somebody might have picked it up.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I think they didn't do that because, again, for the most part, other games have that covered.

The "things that aren't D&D" space is infinite.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Ok. So these are some things we can discuss, if an "Essentials" route isn't going to help PF2 (just one of my ideas).

I think they can't compete with DMs Guild, but I believe they can improve #4. Their SRD is very open, so there are many avenues that 3PP can take to support PF2.

The reason I put "PF2e lost this" is because WotC took it away from them, and there's no way for Paizo to get it back. Paizo was able to support 3PP better than WotC did back in the day because the GSL was crap. Paizo's continuance with the OGL was a major differentiator, and it's not any more, because 5e is an OGL/SRD product. In other words, it is impossible for PF2 to differentiate itself from 5e on this front the way PF1 was differentiated from 4e.

They could do better, of course, but the key thing for establishing your product identity is differentiators. The OGL establishes a baseline expectation. And, frankly, that baseline is so high that it's virtually impossible to exceed short of just releasing all your content under OGL, at which point you bankrupt yourself.