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

[Thomas Shey]

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

That doesn't mean the market for such things is, however, and remember again we're not talking about the typical one-man-band RPG company here. If I've got a little cash and the knowledge I can write my fantasy heartbreaker, hire an artist and publish it and if it only sells a couple hundred copies, the money I've lost is still relatively trivial. Paizo is in a different space there.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Well, that's the gig, of course; any third party has to decide if its resources are better served by doing a PF2 product or a 5e product. Unlike in the days when PF1e was competing with 4e (or, for a while, basically nothing) the lines are far more clear-cut there, and its next to impossible for anyone in the D&D sphere to really compete with 5e there. You'll still get the occasional product for PF2e, just like you get some for 13th Age or Shadow of the Demon Lord, but for the most part if you make the decisions of what to support on purely financial grounds, in the D&D-sphere, that's back being D&D, and nothing much anyone can do can change that.

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.

The problem here is that the ones that are big enough for this to be noticeable are pretty well situated in the D&D5 grounds--Kobold Press for example. You might be able to do something like the licensing the Savage Worlds guys do, but they're a multi-genre game, so there's less likelihood of internal competition there.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Well, perhaps more pointedly, would they want to. The blunt truth is to get mechanical engagement, you require a certain amount of mechanical support, and if someone finds that too much, they do, but without it, you don't have that kind of engagement. And your game is either going to reward that or it isn't. If it genuinely does, the people playing simpler characters are going to sometimes come across as substandard. If it doesn't, it likely either means that the players who want the greater tactical and mechanical engagement really aren't getting anything out of it, or, worse, they have to do it just to stay even (and even people who like that sort of thing have off days).

From my observation, while 4e Essentials characters could play with the regular characters, to the degree that worked it was usually because Essentials characters were designed to function pretty consistently at low-average; if you had a mixed group, the people playing them had better be happy with that or they'd feel kind of substandard.

 

[dave2008]

From my observation, while 4e Essentials characters could play with the regular characters, to the degree that worked it was usually because Essentials characters were designed to function pretty consistently at low-average; if you had a mixed group, the people playing them had better be happy with that or they'd feel kind of substandard.

Maybe it made a difference for min-max people (I have heard that), but my players have never been that type. If anything, our essentials slayer (striker) sometimes outshone the PHB ranger in our group (also a striker).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Maybe it made a difference for min-max people (I have heard that), but my players have never been that type. If anything, our essentials slayer (striker) sometimes outshone the PHB ranger in our group (also a striker).

That's where the "consistent" part helped; since they weren't built as dependent on use of powers, there was less opportunity for misuse or underuse to harm you effectiveness. In that regard, they were well designed. You're correct that if people don't much care they, well, won't (though I suspect even some of those might start to feel a little grumpy when someone good at playing the characters who did have power toggles started to outshine them consistently (because they were really good at it), though it might well depend on how similar the type was to something they're playing).

 

[fearsomepirate]

That doesn't mean the market for such things is, however, and remember again we're not talking about the typical one-man-band RPG company here. If I've got a little cash and the knowledge I can write my fantasy heartbreaker, hire an artist and publish it and if it only sells a couple hundred copies, the money I've lost is still relatively trivial. Paizo is in a different space there.

Fantasy heartbreakers are, as far as the market is concerned, D&D clones. That's why they're heartbreakers. Whoever makes them is always passionate about this totally new, compelling take on exploring dungeons and slaying dragons. Even if Magic Missile isn't on the spell list...welp, people don't care. Nobody wants to play this game, which lacks gnolls or remorhazes, and it's not because of GURPS:

Everything about this screams, "Grandma Fooler." Now, PF2 is more than a few steps above a Grandma Fooler, but ultimately, it's still off-brand D&D, along with 13th Age and countless others, and that hurts its ability to stand out. I could be wrong, but I bet Starfinder would have done better if they'd fully embraced the space opera/sci-fi theme instead of trying to connect it back to D&D tropes and World of Golarion.

 

[dave2008]

That's where the "consistent" part helped; since they weren't built as dependent on use of powers, there was less opportunity for misuse or underuse to harm you effectiveness. In that regard, they were well designed. You're correct that if people don't much care they, well, won't (though I suspect even some of those might start to feel a little grumpy when someone good at playing the characters who did have power toggles started to outshine them consistently (because they were really good at it), though it might well depend on how similar the type was to something they're playing).

Please don't conflate not being min-maxers with not caring. That is wrong on so many levels. That being said, a player outshining the rest is not dependent on one being PHB and another being essentials. That could happen for a number of different reasons in many different editions system. Heck I know it happens in PF2 as well.

 

[meltdownpass]

I wanted to add my two cents that I would be on board with a "Pathfinder 2 Essentials." However the caveat I feel like I would have with this is that I think the scope of changes I'd like to see with PF2 Essentials would probably be outside of the realm of what they are likely to introduce.

I've been playing PF2 for over a year now, and I feel like it is too highly focused on ensuring mathematical game balance over presenting a coherent narrative experience. Good: Having a miniatures wargame where all players are relevant and there is some tactical depth. Bad: Putting the rules of miniatures wargame as first priority over coherent & logical narrative.

An approach to the game rules that stripped down the raw number of power PCs get, but focused on making each feat meaningful & significant, would be favorable in my mind. But unfortunately I think there is an implicit friction between meaningful & significant choices and the Pathfinder 2 system objective of reducing the amount of system mastery (relative to PF1) needed to create an effective character. Because the former implies some characters are significantly more efficient at given tasks than others, the PF2 design philosophy doesn't permit it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fantasy heartbreakers are, as far as the market is concerned, D&D clones. That's why they're heartbreakers. Whoever makes them is always passionate about this totally new, compelling take on exploring dungeons and slaying dragons. Even if Magic Missile isn't on the spell list...welp, people don't care. Nobody wants to play this game, which lacks gnolls or remorhazes, and it's not because of GURPS:

But often they have a new setting that they make a big deal about that avoids some of the common monsters and adds new ones--and for the most part, people still don't want to play them. Nor do they seem to be that interested in many fantasy games derived from other systems such as BRP or Storyteller, at least on the scale a company like Paizo will care about.

The long and the short of it is I'm unconvinced that the same system used for PF2e with a new, less D&D-traditional setting would have somehow done notably better, and very well might have done considerably worse.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Please don't conflate not being min-maxers with not caring. That is wrong on so many levels. That being said, a player outshining the rest is not dependent on one being PHB and another being essentials. That could happen for a number of different reasons in many different editions system. Heck I know it happens in PF2 as well.

Sure. But the difference is that 4e PHB characters simply had more toggles for a capable player to utilize, and the more tools, all other things being equal, the more opportunity you have to do that.