log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

GreyLord

Hero
Is there anything to be agreed upon here concerning PF2? Assuming I'm acting in good faith and would like to see Paizo succeed, when I comment that it seems to me that things could be improved (at least to me and those like me), what are things the community could do to help?
I'm volunteering to run a virtual game for new players to show off the system and dispel my own negative first impression. I'm trying to engage the community into some positive discussion.
I don't say throw out the whole system, but maybe there's a better (more newbie friendly) way of presenting it? Maybe there's hope for more quality 3PP material?
So how do you do it? I think if those who like the system do nothing, it's not going to get the needed traction without word of mouth.
Systems that are a big departure from the previous editions (4e, WFRPG 3E) need fan buy-in, or we see what happens. I don't think Paizo has the resources to weather an equivalent of 4e.
I don't know how the sales of PF2e are actually doing. We have all sorts of opinions in this thread.

Some of them really do not seem as trustworthy as others (for example, the guy suggesting that Paizo is non-profit because the rules are also available online with their approval...stuff like that just makes me say...really? you want me to take that seriously??).

Others are worth considering. Appearances seem to indicate that sales of PF2e may be down from what PF1e had been from what I have read with actual evidence in the various threads on these subjects...BUT (and that's a big BUT) Paizo itself has had some things that they've stated over the past few years on the subject (and where some of my items regarding their focus from AP to game rules have come from...though I don't really want to go through the trouble of finding the actual quotes and then posting the links here).

From what I can tell from Paizo is that they are not doing so badly. I recall a few years ago (I think it may have been right near where they were deciding to end 1e) that they had said that they were doing pretty well with sales. That the D&D 5e popularity had raised the sales of ALL RPGs including theirs, and while it may seem that they were doing worse in comparison to D&D sales, in truth, their own sales were up and they were doing better and selling more than before.

I have no idea if this applies to 2e, but it could be a similar thing has happened. If Paizo had 2 million sales (a number I came up entirely at random, it has no basis in reality, it is only being used as an example) vs. 3 million in D&D sales...they were doing pretty good. Then, when D&D has 15 million sales...that's good for Paizo. Now, some of those D&D sales are interested in other systems and buy Pathfinder as well. This means that Paizo now has 5 million sales. This is over 2X what they sold before. However, compared to D&D, percentage wise it is only 1/3 where as before they had 2/3 of the percent. To an outward eye it may seem their sales have decreased, but in truth, even if the share of the market has gone down to the enormous jump in market size, they are doing better than they did before. This is just an example to illustrate the idea of what I understand Paizo said how they were being affected a few years ago...the numbers are nonsense that I put here, but hopefully the idea is understood.

Once again, no idea if this has extended to 2e (I think this was said in reference to 1e a few years back), but if it has continued in that same trend, the overall percentages may be deceiving in regards to how well they are actually doing with their sales numbers.

It could be worse, or may be better, I don't know, but just something that I've heard (actually, it was more like read about...but I think you get the idea).
 

log in or register to remove this ad


In those terms, then, my point is that building a product lifecycle, i.e. a revenue model, on this, is customer-hostile. There is some number of pages of rules at which point people don't want more rules. The reason is that rules are durable goods, while adventures are consumable goods. People will play with the same rules over and over, sometimes for decades, but they will typically play an adventure once.

Consumers want durable goods to last as long as possible; producers would prefer they break down as quickly as the consumer will tolerate.

Depends on what sort of core system you have. In an exception based system, I'm not convinced a thing that supplies the customer with new mechanical widgets is abusive, as long as you're doing the playtesting to make sure that the mechanical widgets work right. You could make an argument that exception based design is intrinsically abusive I suppose, but presumably customers that agree with that migrate to effect based designs, and those are hardly the dominant run in the market, even if I prefer them.

I also think there's at least some excluded middle between purely-rules based items and adventures. Monster books, for example, land in this middle to me as do sourcebooks and setting material.
 

wakedown

Explorer
I don't know how the sales of PF2e are actually doing. We have all sorts of opinions in this thread.

I feel like folks don't seem to grasp that the sales don't matter.

Again this is about the people not Paizo LLC. Paizo isn't part of a public company with shareholders like Hasbro/Wizards with consequences not hitting sales targets.

They were a small operation that burst in a window of opportunity which enabled their founders (Lisa Stevens and Vic Wertz) to announce they are formally stepping out of operations and transferring operating the company to Jeff Alvarez in this past year. There's all sorts of vehicles for founders/majority shareholders to have setup an early retirement - they could have paid out dividends during the glory days to themselves and set themselves up for a slightly early retirement. Clearly for them to step away now, their goals have been achieved and revenue from sales figures aren't materially to their personal plans going forward. It's murky who actually owns and is on Paizo's cap table but I imagine early co-founder Johnny Wilson may have some ownership or have transferred that. They'd have to have given some to early contributors like Mona, Bulmahn and Jacobs for those guys to pour so much sweat into Pathfinder.

The company can likely run in perpetuity with a skeleton crew of just those four contributors and they can launch PF3E through PF5E over the next 20 years. Or it could be possible Alvarez has been shopping the company so Stevens & Wertz can finally cash out completely and buy a boat or diversify their holdings and the pandemic was a big hiccup in navigating those waters. There's really not a whole lot of precedent for a Paizo "exit" - they'd possibly have to carve up their ecommerce operations and domain separate from their Pathfinder/Starfinder IP and the question is who would acquire that now, versus let PF2E run it's course another 18-36 months before tendering an offer.

Ultimately if you want a Pathfinder edition that is a passion product with something tied to a real attempt at impressive sales figures, there would need to be a majority shareholders driving that, otherwise there is nothing wrong with the company having a smaller staff of heavily invested folks with junior contributors/community players contributing art or adventures as long as they are feeding enough demand within their ecosystem. Those are really the two paths for 2025 - the core team is producing content for the current PF2E or a new PF3E or new ownership has emerged with ideas on how to use their IP, which would come with a new edition to merit the ROI of the expense.
 

I feel like folks don't seem to grasp that the sales don't matter.

Again this is about the people not Paizo LLC. Paizo isn't part of a public company with shareholders like Hasbro/Wizards with consequences not hitting sales targets.

You can't say this without knowing how much Paizo is spending to service liabilities. If it's a little, a significant drop in sales won't mean negative cash flow. It's a lot, a big sales drop will have their creditors calling.
 


transmission89

Adventurer
I mean the money they get from all the rules they sell in their 39.99 to 59.99 USD rulebooks.

es, the rules (well, most of them) are put online for people to read and reference, but it's the book sales that are driving what Paizo has focused on and the money it brings in.

IF you are implying that the rulebooks are not their major money maker these days and a major focus of Paizo...well...that is NOT a way to impress me that you have legitimate reasoning in your discussion.

OR...If you are implying that Paizo is a non-profit organization...well...that's a pretty skewed bias you have there.

No I’m not implying they are non profit. And thanks for the straw manning of me in a further post (real cute). I have not claimed they are non profit or a charity. Nor am I here to try and impress you.

What I am saying is that your argument for their publishing rule books to satisfy their “cocaine like addiction to money” doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny or even the most casual of glances at what they do

If I desired to make a profit, and I decided that my business is reliant on making rules to generate that profit and sustain my company, I’d be pretty stupid to give them away for free wouldn’t I?

This is further supported by the fact that their PDF of the CRB is a loss leader with a relatively cheap buy in.

Now yes, obviously, they make money from rule books they sell. The fact that they also give away these rules pretty much day and date with publication of the rule books indicate that this is not their main driver for profit.

Their main focus is on subscriptions to their adventures (in which the rules support the things they want to do) and lore books.
 

Aldarc

Legend
Even Runehammer (ol Hankerin Ferinale) agrees on that - we need a stripped down PF2.
Who cares what he thinks about PF2? I do mean that with respect to the guy. But Hankerin Ferinale would likely not play it even if it existed, as he has abandoned 5e D&D entirely, basically dumped his own ICRPG system, and is currently having a love affair with OSE.
 

transmission89

Adventurer
Is there anything to be agreed upon here concerning PF2? Assuming I'm acting in good faith and would like to see Paizo succeed, when I comment that it seems to me that things could be improved (at least to me and those like me), what are things the community could do to help?
I'm volunteering to run a virtual game for new players to show off the system and dispel my own negative first impression. I'm trying to engage the community into some positive discussion.
I don't say throw out the whole system, but maybe there's a better (more newbie friendly) way of presenting it? Maybe there's hope for more quality 3PP material?
So how do you do it? I think if those who like the system do nothing, it's not going to get the needed traction without word of mouth.
Systems that are a big departure from the previous editions (4e, WFRPG 3E) need fan buy-in, or we see what happens. I don't think Paizo has the resources to weather an equivalent of 4e.
Again, the language you’re using suggests a conclusion that it is in trouble (which is the point of contention).

“Would like to see Paizo succeed”

who says they aren’t succeeding and what are the success criteria?

“It’s not going to get the needed traction...”

Again, how are you measuring the traction (beyond the already disputed conclusions you have drawn using Roll20)?

This does little to suggest you are acting in good faith. Assuming you are however, To help, the community is already doing what it needs to. Playing games, talking about it etc. There are apps that people are making to make character building a breeze, Paizo is putting out digital bite size modules to easily sample for players, their fantasy grounds set up is amazing in the vtt space.
What doesn’t help is alarmist and sensationalist posts that claim it is in trouble or is a complete failure with little evidence to support it (beyond pointing dramatically at the market aberration that is 5e).
 

Retreater

Legend
Who cares what he thinks about PF2? I do mean that with respect to the guy. But Hankerin Ferinale would likely not play it even if it existed, as he has abandoned 5e D&D entirely, basically dumped his own ICRPG system, and is currently having a love affair with OSE.
I'm having a trist with OSE as well, and while also seeing 5e and PF2 on the side. I'm also looking at PF Savage Worlds. I guess I'm in an RPG open relationship.
I have a feeling that he gets into a system for a bit, switches when something else catches his attention.
 

GreyLord

Hero
No I’m not implying they are non profit. And thanks for the straw manning of me in a further post (real cute). I have not claimed they are non profit or a charity. Nor am I here to try and impress you.

What I am saying is that your argument for their publishing rule books to satisfy their “cocaine like addiction to money” doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny or even the most casual of glances at what they do

If I desired to make a profit, and I decided that my business is reliant on making rules to generate that profit and sustain my company, I’d be pretty stupid to give them away for free wouldn’t I?

This is further supported by the fact that their PDF of the CRB is a loss leader with a relatively cheap buy in.

Now yes, obviously, they make money from rule books they sell. The fact that they also give away these rules pretty much day and date with publication of the rule books indicate that this is not their main driver for profit.

Their main focus is on subscriptions to their adventures (in which the rules support the things they want to do) and lore books.
You are strawmannning the argument.

That's why it's not even worth responding. YOU are basically trying to paint them as a non-profit...which is rather ridiculous.

It's like saying WotC doesn't make money off their rulebooks because they give away the rules for free in the Basic PDF and the SRD.

The same argument holds true for WotC as Paizo. You really think WotC is doing the same thing because they don't care if they make money off of selling the rules...

It's a ridiculous argument.

WotC's focus right now are the rules and rulebooks. They give away the SRD and the Basic rule pdfs for free because it is good for PR and it generates more sales in the long run. Don't mistake that as making them not focusing more on rulebooks and things with rules in them...because....just like Paizo...I can guarantee that the way they act and their printing schedules show that selling those rulebooks are a pretty big focus for the company.
 

transmission89

Adventurer
You are strawmannning the argument.

That's why it's not even worth responding. YOU are basically trying to paint them as a non-profit...which is rather ridiculous.

It's like saying WotC doesn't make money off their rulebooks because they give away the rules for free in the Basic PDF and the SRD.

The same argument holds true for WotC as Paizo. You really think WotC is doing the same thing because they don't care if they make money off of selling the rules...

It's a ridiculous argument.

WotC's focus right now are the rules and rulebooks. They give away the SRD and the Basic rule pdfs for free because it is good for PR and it generates more sales in the long run. Don't mistake that as making them not focusing more on rulebooks and things with rules in them...because....just like Paizo...I can guarantee that the way they act and their printing schedules show that selling those rulebooks are a pretty big focus for the company.

Im not straw manning anything because I haven’t taken something said by someone, made a bizarre leap of logic and stated that as the argument to defend.

I am in no way saying they are not for profit. I have never made that claim or said anything to the same effect.

You made the statement that “because they wanted more money... their game system gets expanded with tons of new rules, classes and what else in a few short years”.

Your Assertion: Paizo want to make a lot more money. Therefore, to increase this income, new rules are going to be the main focus.

My statement: “you mean the money they get from all the rules they publish for free?”

A statement to point out the logical flaw that if they wanted to focus as rules as the main driver, it’s a pretty stupid business decision to also give all the rules away for free.

This statement does not imply that they don’t make profit from the rule books (of course they do), it merely serves to refute your assertion.

You then read my statement, completely misinterpret it and ask “if you are implying Paizo is a non profit organisation...”.

Then in a later post state : “for example the guy suggesting Paizo is non profit...”

In this quoted post you state: “you are trying to paint them as non profit... it’s like saying wotc doesn’t make money off their products...”

No I’m not and no it’s not like saying that at all. You are also right, it’s a ridiculous argument, but you’re the one making it, not me.


All in all, a statement I never made, you are making it for me and rebutting this non existent statement, you are straw manning. QED.

In another related post, you state “I have NO evidence though to back up my next statement...” then proceed to make one anyway about how you think the rules have become their main focus of money.

So as well as straw manning, you are wildly making claims with, in your own words, no evidence to support these assertions.

It’s also equally asinine to compare it to wotc’s giving away the basic rules and SRD for free as again, Paizo give everything for free (apart from their lore IP).

So let me be clear on what I am not saying:
A) That Paizo is non profit
B) That Paizo is not interested in money from their rules.
C) That Paizo makes no money from their rules.

Let me be Clear on what I am saying:
A)Your (as stated by you) baseless assertion that Paizo decided to produce more rulebooks as their main money driver during the pf1 run is flawed logic as they give all the rules away for free online (of course, it’d be nice if people could purchase those books as well).
B) In their own statements, Paizo have consistently said that APs are their main monetary focus (everything else is extra) and everything they do (including making rules) is in service to that.
 

GreyLord

Hero
Let me be Clear on what I am saying:
A)Your (as stated by you) baseless assertion that Paizo decided to produce more rulebooks as their main money driver during the pf1 run is flawed logic as they give all the rules away for free online (of course, it’d be nice if people could purchase those books as well).
B) In their own statements, Paizo have consistently said that APs are their main monetary focus (everything else is extra) and everything they do (including making rules) is in service to that.

I am glad you are not Paizo's spokesman (as far as I know of). I think your attacks have used a strawman to change the focus of the discussion. In fact, not only that, but you have successfully argued AGAINST YOURSELF and YOUR OWN COMMENTS in this thread. I've never seen someone so eager to invalidate their own posts they created earlier. It is actually rather baffling.

Anyways, as you wish to continue this line of ideas rather than what I actually was discussing (and that is why you shouldn't strawman other ideas and instead pay attention to what someone actually wrote instead of jumping to attack them without fully reading their posts)...I'll continue this line of discussion you have changed the current discussion to rather than what was being discussed...

A)I said NOTHING about the free rules and they have NOTHING to do what sales are driving Paizo's sales right now. Why even bring them up?

Paizo does NOT give ALL their stuff online for free. They have rules and information which are OGL content and PRD content. WotC gives their rules away for free online as well. In fact, one could say they give MORE of their stuff away online than even Paizo. Paizo wouldn't even exist if WotC had not done this with D20, and WotC STILL gives away their rules for free...in the same way Paizo gives away their rules for free.

More to the point, the organizations that normally are the hosts and websites for them ARE hosted under non-profit or non-profit organizations in several instances. If you want to talk about THEM and their practices, well, then we are discussing non-profits and their sales rather than what Paizo is selling and making money off of.

Your statement could apply to WotC just as easily. Your statement is applicable just as much to them. It applied to 3e and 3.5 (upon which PF1e is based, and PF2e still uses the OGL I believe, both items given away for free by WotC and Hasbro regarding rules).

Giving these rules away for free does not indicate anything about what a company is actually focusing on making money off of, unless you are implying those same implications in regards to ANY of the companies out there that are giving away their rules for free (and there are more of them out there than you might suppose).

Furthermore, Paizo have stated some rather interesting things on the subject which heavily imply their dependence on rulebook sales in recent years, which is something you are conveniently ignoring. Their sales have NOTHING to do with the PRD really, though the creation and reasons for 2e DO have things to do with rulebooks and the reasons for coming out with 2e.

Your statement had NOTHING to do with what I stated and has attempted to change the entire focus of the discussion into something that you have decided to talk about instead.

That is straw manning. I'd prefer if you stop accusing others of the same thing you are attempting.

B) They USED to have stated that. IF you had even fully READ my statements rather than instantly jumping on the attack wagon against ANYONE and EVERYONE that you perceive is against you and your ideas (hint, if you actually READ what I had written you'd realize some of it actually supported your statements earlier in the thread) you'd realize I actually said that already and noted that they had said this earlier on. In fact, my initial answer was that the APs could still be the primary support, but by their actions and some of their statements, they have shown it is not, and in fact, every qualifier and indicater indicates some other things. A lot of this actually supports some items you were arguing for earlier in the thread. Instead, you are actually ARGUING against your own ideas that you presented earlier in the thread. I was explaining what their focus is these days with Pathfinder. It is no longer strictly supported by the APs, if it were, there would be no purpose or reason for them to have 2e.

If you actually read what Paizo has said in recent years (and my statements were taken directly from some of the items they have stated over the past three years on the subject), you'd note that my ideas actually came directly from some of their statements.

In addition, you'd have read why the actual reasons (given off by Paizo themselves I believe, though I'm not sifting through their statements for the exact links) why PF sales may actually be up, even if some indicators seem to show that they have less a percentage of the market. That the truth may be (as per Paizo) that they are actually having MORE sales today than ever before, especially in regards to how the RULES and RULEBOOKS for Pathfinder are selling and those participating in it.

You are so hyped in regards to some that you jump to the conclusions that they must be against you that you cannot even recognize a statement that is not actually attacking your ideas you have presented.
 
Last edited:

The-Magic-Sword

Adventurer
I am glad you are not Paizo's spokesman (as far as I know of). I think your attacks have used a strawman to change the focus of the discussion. In fact, not only that, but you have successfully argued AGAINST YOURSELF and YOUR OWN COMMENTS in this thread. I've never seen someone so eager to invalidate their own posts they created earlier. It is actually rather baffling.

Anyways, as you wish to continue this line of ideas rather than what I actually was discussing (and that is why you shouldn't strawman other ideas and instead pay attention to what someone actually wrote instead of jumping to attack them without fully reading their posts)...I'll continue this line of discussion you have changed the current discussion to rather than what was being discussed...

A)I said NOTHING about the free rules and they have NOTHING to do what sales are driving Paizo's sales right now. Why even bring them up?

Paizo does NOT give ALL their stuff online for free. They have rules and information which are OGL content and PRD content. WotC gives their rules away for free online as well. In fact, one could say they give MORE of their stuff away online than even Paizo. Paizo wouldn't even exist if WotC had not done this with D20, and WotC STILL gives away their rules for free...in the same way Paizo gives away their rules for free.

More to the point, the organizations that normally are the hosts and websites for them ARE hosted under non-profit or non-profit organizations in several instances. If you want to talk about THEM and their practices, well, then we are discussing non-profits and their sales rather than what Paizo is selling and making money off of.

Your statement could apply to WotC just as easily. Your statement is applicable just as much to them. It applied to 3e and 3.5 (upon which PF1e is based, and PF2e still uses the OGL I believe, both items given away for free by WotC and Hasbro regarding rules).

Giving these rules away for free does not indicate anything about what a company is actually focusing on making money off of, unless you are implying those same implications in regards to ANY of the companies out there that are giving away their rules for free (and there are more of them out there than you might suppose).

Furthermore, Paizo have stated some rather interesting things on the subject which heavily imply their dependence on rulebook sales in recent years, which is something you are conveniently ignoring. Their sales have NOTHING to do with the PRD really, though the creation and reasons for 2e DO have things to do with rulebooks and the reasons for coming out with 2e.

Your statement had NOTHING to do with what I stated and has attempted to change the entire focus of the discussion into something that you have decided to talk about instead.

That is straw manning. I'd prefer if you stop accusing others of the same thing you are attempting.

B) They USED to have stated that. IF you had even fully READ my statements rather than instantly jumping on the attack wagon against ANYONE and EVERYONE that you perceive is against you and your ideas (hint, if you actually READ what I had written you'd realize some of it actually supported your statements earlier in the thread) you'd realize I actually said that already and noted that they had said this earlier on. In fact, my initial answer was that the APs could still be the primary support, but by their actions and some of their statements, they have shown it is not, and in fact, every qualifier and indicater indicates some other things. A lot of this actually supports some items you were arguing for earlier in the thread. Instead, you are actually ARGUING against your own ideas that you presented earlier in the thread. I was explaining what their focus is these days with Pathfinder. It is no longer strictly supported by the APs, if it were, there would be no purpose or reason for them to have 2e.

If you actually read what Paizo has said in recent years (and my statements were taken directly from some of the items they have stated over the past three years on the subject), you'd note that my ideas actually came directly from some of their statements.

In addition, you'd have read why the actual reasons (given off by Paizo themselves I believe, though I'm not sifting through their statements for the exact links) why PF sales may actually be up, even if some indicators seem to show that they have less a percentage of the market. That the truth may be (as per Paizo) that they are actually having MORE sales today than ever before, especially in regards to how the RULES and RULEBOOKS for Pathfinder are selling and those participating in it.

You are so hyped in regards to some that you jump to the conclusions that they must be against you that you cannot even recognize a statement that is not actually attacking your ideas you have presented.
Uhh, if you're going to come on this strong, could you at least know what you're talking about on a basic level?

the 5e SRD is anemic and has less in it than the PHB, the Pathfinder ones have every single player option, monster, and rule, variant or otherwise, regardless of official source. They're giving away way more for free over at Paizo than WOTC. Unless you mean WOTCs old OGL which they literally don't seem to be able to legally end.
 

GreyLord

Hero
Uhh, if you're going to come on this strong, could you at least know what you're talking about on a basic level?

the 5e SRD is anemic and has less in it than the PHB, the Pathfinder ones have every single player option, monster, and rule, variant or otherwise, regardless of official source. They're giving away way more for free over at Paizo than WOTC. Unless you mean WOTCs old OGL which they literally don't seem to be able to legally end.

We WERE talking about whether APs could be the primary support for Paizo anymore. (one simply need to read up thread about it and my affirmative response that, yes they could be).

I was pointing out that apparently they no longer have the APs as their primary source of income anymore, but it appears that it a MAJOR focus of theirs is actually now the rulebooks and their sales (and one of the big reasons why 2e came out...APs only need a system that is still being published to be supported, they don't actually need a NEW system).

Publically, their rulebooks are the biggest sellers these days and are the main items you see that show up in stores beyond Paizo. They are also pushed strongly by Paizo themselves. They have transformed from what they used to be in the early 00s (where Pathfinder 1e was NOT made because they necessarily wanted to make it, but out of necessity so that they had an actual system in print that supported them continuing to sell APs and the AP ecosystem) to these days mirror the system that was originally created by WotC (and if we take what someone wants focus on instead of the actual need or not for an essentials line and the reasons for it...instead to the OGL and D20, which the PRD really follows in it's example).

If publishing rules under the OGL has any relavance at all...it would be the idea is that the rules can be used by other companies to create worlds and adventures which then lead to sales of your own material. We can see this evolution in 3.5 (in 3e, WotC found that instead of adventures, most companies published rules instead and you can see the adaption of this in Hasbro's company emphasis in WotC sales) where rather than adventures, books of rules and hardbacks of popular game worlds were the focus of sales instead.

My initial point was that Paizo now has EXPANDED far beyond their initial goals when they first started the APs. They now have expanded to other arenas of sales, which include subscriptions of Rulebooks, world books, and even a card/board game, which is over and beyond their intial support of a subscription system to replace the magazines with APs instead.

They have expanded beyond what they were when the first started publishing the APs and definately more than when they were publishing the magazines. As such, they have a financial model that is greater than what they used to have and it is dependant on more than the APs today. They COULD go back to simply an AP subscription model, but it would not support their current business practices. They are much bigger today than they were in the past and as such need to continue to bring in greater amounts of money than what they were when they were only focusing on the AP model. The APs are still a part of their business, but they do far more than APs now and are much bigger than that today.

This is also a big reason behind PF2e and why it was needed. The APs themselves didn't need a new system, but those who subscribe to new rulebooks do...and those in retail probably didn't mind having a new ruleset come out to boost sales of those rulebooks.

Paizo themselves have come out with comments regarding these things, as well as how well their sales are doing in relation to the current RPG popularity (of which D&D 5e is seen as a big booster of such popularity).

Which brings up to the basis of my statement. It didn't have anything to do with the rules being provided online, nor did any of my statements have anything to do with it. I have no idea why Transmission decided to bring it up. It has no bearing as far as I can see. I had no desire to actually discuss it. I only switched over because Transmission seems to think it has some important bearing to the point I brought up (hint: as far as I can see...it doesn't) and was defending myself (and ironically, some of his own statements earlier in the thread).

I don't even have a dog in the fight whether PF2e should have something like essentials published. I was posting merely for information and my idea that the AP model could still be the sole support of a company today if that is what they wished to do so.

The only thing I am actually wondering about with PF2e and have been tossing around is whether to give PF2e another shot. One of the biggest hangups I have is that from what I've seen here, there is a GREAT DEAL of gatekeeping against those who are new (at least, I have had a lot of those who seem antagonistic towards my experiences of it). However, the individual pushing it in our group is a pretty decent person. They are stating that we only gave it a try over the internet and that the experience is a lot different in person. They want me and our group to give PF2e another shot when we can meet in person once again. I haven't decided whether to do so or not yet. I'm still on the fence and trying to decide. Other than that, I support Paizo, but don't really have anything involved yet on the future of Paizo or Pathfinder. I am still at the initial stages of whether to give PF2e another shot or not...which is a far cry from even knowing what else I might want from it or Paizo in the future.
 

The-Magic-Sword

Adventurer
We WERE talking about whether APs could be the primary support for Paizo anymore. (one simply need to read up thread about it and my affirmative response that, yes they could be).

I was pointing out that apparently they no longer have the APs as their primary source of income anymore, but it appears that it a MAJOR focus of theirs is actually now the rulebooks and their sales (and one of the big reasons why 2e came out...APs only need a system that is still being published to be supported, they don't actually need a NEW system).

Publically, their rulebooks are the biggest sellers these days and are the main items you see that show up in stores beyond Paizo. They are also pushed strongly by Paizo themselves. They have transformed from what they used to be in the early 00s (where Pathfinder 1e was NOT made because they necessarily wanted to make it, but out of necessity so that they had an actual system in print that supported them continuing to sell APs and the AP ecosystem) to these days mirror the system that was originally created by WotC (and if we take what someone wants focus on instead of the actual need or not for an essentials line and the reasons for it...instead to the OGL and D20, which the PRD really follows in it's example).

If publishing rules under the OGL has any relavance at all...it would be the idea is that the rules can be used by other companies to create worlds and adventures which then lead to sales of your own material. We can see this evolution in 3.5 (in 3e, WotC found that instead of adventures, most companies published rules instead and you can see the adaption of this in Hasbro's company emphasis in WotC sales) where rather than adventures, books of rules and hardbacks of popular game worlds were the focus of sales instead.

My initial point was that Paizo now has EXPANDED far beyond their initial goals when they first started the APs. They now have expanded to other arenas of sales, which include subscriptions of Rulebooks, world books, and even a card/board game, which is over and beyond their intial support of a subscription system to replace the magazines with APs instead.

They have expanded beyond what they were when the first started publishing the APs and definately more than when they were publishing the magazines. As such, they have a financial model that is greater than what they used to have and it is dependant on more than the APs today. They COULD go back to simply an AP subscription model, but it would not support their current business practices. They are much bigger today than they were in the past and as such need to continue to bring in greater amounts of money than what they were when they were only focusing on the AP model. The APs are still a part of their business, but they do far more than APs now and are much bigger than that today.

This is also a big reason behind PF2e and why it was needed. The APs themselves didn't need a new system, but those who subscribe to new rulebooks do...and those in retail probably didn't mind having a new ruleset come out to boost sales of those rulebooks.

Paizo themselves have come out with comments regarding these things, as well as how well their sales are doing in relation to the current RPG popularity (of which D&D 5e is seen as a big booster of such popularity).

Which brings up to the basis of my statement. It didn't have anything to do with the rules being provided online, nor did any of my statements have anything to do with it. I have no idea why Transmission decided to bring it up. It has no bearing as far as I can see. I had no desire to actually discuss it. I only switched over because Transmission seems to think it has some important bearing to the point I brought up (hint: as far as I can see...it doesn't) and was defending myself (and ironically, some of his own statements earlier in the thread).

I don't even have a dog in the fight whether PF2e should have something like essentials published. I was posting merely for information and my idea that the AP model could still be the sole support of a company today if that is what they wished to do so.

The only thing I am actually wondering about with PF2e and have been tossing around is whether to give PF2e another shot. One of the biggest hangups I have is that from what I've seen here, there is a GREAT DEAL of gatekeeping against those who are new (at least, I have had a lot of those who seem antagonistic towards my experiences of it). However, the individual pushing it in our group is a pretty decent person. They are stating that we only gave it a try over the internet and that the experience is a lot different in person. They want me and our group to give PF2e another shot when we can meet in person once again. I haven't decided whether to do so or not yet. I'm still on the fence and trying to decide. Other than that, I support Paizo, but don't really have anything involved yet on the future of Paizo or Pathfinder. I am still at the initial stages of whether to give PF2e another shot or not...which is a far cry from even knowing what else I might want from it or Paizo in the future.
That's a lot of words where "Sorry, my mistake" would have sufficed.
 

GreyLord

Hero
That's a lot of words where "Sorry, my mistake" would have sufficed.
???

AND THIS folks, is how you drive people away from PF2e and being players...if I'm reading what you wrote correctly.

Good job gatekeeping.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote here?

What mistake are you talking about?

My deciding whether to play or give PF2e another shot. Really? that's a mistake to consider it again?

Okay then...

PS: Adding, still not sure what was referred to as a mistake there. Really, not sure. I didn't see any mistakes on my part. I WILL say though, that there are many online comments that actually do detract from me wanting to try PF2e again. Some of them really ARE discouraging. It may be one of the BIGGEST things that are hurting why me and others I know (and this IS anecdotal) want to try PF2e or give it another shot. It has NOTHING to do with whether there is essentials or anything else, but the attitudes that others show towards gamers that are not part of their "crowd" that pushes me and others away.

That said, the above post does NOT indicate that I made a decision. I am still on the fence on whether to give PF2e another shot or not. It may well be when gameshops have groups meet again, when people can meet together safely in groups and PF2e is played in person that it is a different experience than what I have experienced online. I am still deliberating. My response above was due to being mystified at what the poster meant, and completely guessing at what they were saying...which may or may not be correct. I was greatly discouraged...but I respect my PF loving friend enough that I'm not going to write off their suggestion simply because someone on the internet is discouraging.

It is hard to convey on the internet, but those last two words above are more in a sarcastic way than agreeing with the idea of me to stop considering whether to give PF2e another shot or not. As I said, and just to be clear, I'm still on the fence about it...aka...undecided whether I will or will not give it another shot or not.
 
Last edited:

The-Magic-Sword

Adventurer
???

AND THIS folks, is how you drive people away from PF2e and being players...if I'm reading what you wrote correctly.

Good job gatekeeping.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote here?

What mistake are you talking about?

My deciding whether to play or give PF2e another shot. Really? that's a mistake to consider it again?

Okay then...

PS: Adding, still not sure what was referred to as a mistake there. Really, not sure. I didn't see any mistakes on my part. I WILL say though, that there are many online comments that actually do detract from me wanting to try PF2e again. Some of them really ARE discouraging. It may be one of the BIGGEST things that are hurting why me and others I know (and this IS anecdotal) want to try PF2e or give it another shot. It has NOTHING to do with whether there is essentials or anything else, but the attitudes that others show towards gamers that are not part of their "crowd" that pushes me and others away.

That said, the above post does NOT indicate that I made a decision. I am still on the fence on whether to give PF2e another shot or not. It may well be when gameshops have groups meet again, when people can meet together safely in groups and PF2e is played in person that it is a different experience than what I have experienced online. I am still deliberating. My response above was due to being mystified at what the poster meant, and completely guessing at what they were saying...which may or may not be correct. I was greatly discouraged...but I respect my PF loving friend enough that I'm not going to write off their suggestion simply because someone on the internet is discouraging.

It is hard to convey on the internet, but those last two words above are more in a sarcastic way than agreeing with the idea of me to stop considering whether to give PF2e another shot or not. As I said, and just to be clear, I'm still on the fence about it...aka...undecided whether I will or will not give it another shot or not.
you're lashing out aggressively at the people you're talking with, and keep ranting with these massive walls of text that don't have anything to do with whats being said to you, the mistake was when you mentioned WOTC gave more away than paizo in the SRD, I corrected you and you ranted to me about something I didn't say anything about, so I pointed out what a better response likely would have been.

If your intent is to hold whether or not you try the game hostage, so that people kow-tow to you, I'm not interested in playing those games with you?
 

GreyLord

Hero
you're lashing out aggressively at the people you're talking with, and keep ranting with these massive walls of text that don't have anything to do with whats being said to you, the mistake was when you mentioned WOTC gave more away than paizo in the SRD, I corrected you and you ranted to me about something I didn't say anything about, so I pointed out what a better response likely would have been.

If your intent is to hold whether or not you try the game hostage, so that people kow-tow to you, I'm not interested in playing those games with you?
WotC has given away what used to be trademarked material. NOT ALL of it, but a ton of it. Paizo couldn't even use half the creatures (Fire Giants, Hill Giants, Red/Gold/Green/Black/White Dragons...etc) without what WotC allows and has given away.

No company has given or allowed as much of their iconic and identifiable ideas and information out as WotC has.

Case in point...the Pathfinder Game would not exist without the stuff WotC has given away. More games on the market, past and future exist due to what WotC has given away for free than those that exist from what Paizo has allowed and given away on the market for their games. The ideas are the same, but the impact and amount that is given in regards to property value are vastly different. In effect, what WotC gave away in theory cost them ALOT more than what Paizo has given away. This does not mean that WotC didn't have a focus on selling rulebooks for D&D. In fact, to say that offering rules free online means they are not after of focusing on rulebooks really is not true. It makes no sense. It has no basis in what actually happened or happens. There's no reason to even bring it up. Trying to indicate (as was what was done) that this means that they aren't selling or focusing or rulebooks is a strawman. It has no relation to the focus nor the amount of sales being made!

In addition, they also include 5e in their game rules and SRD now (and I think this is what people are thinking, they don't even think about the OGL and the earlier rules and books focus of 3.5 that WotC had) which, though not as great an impact as the earlier rules postings, are additional items that also include a great amount of rules and information. WotC's information they give out for free is organized in a way that is easy to download (rather than needing internet access) as well, and offers an easier way for some to find monsters and other creatures which are also open source with open stats and abilities. This is not to say that the 5e SRD and Game rules offered are better, but both the PRD and 5e versions have their advantages and disadvantages.

But both are a moot point in regards to what their sales are based upon today. Their sales are not connected to the PRD or the SRD or the OGL. Their system may be based upon it or the basis of it, but they are not the reasons for why or what they make money off of. It has no real relation to how their sales are being focused or how many sales are being made in regards to their company support.

Most of the sites that host this information are not done for profit and are not controlled directly by either, and the offical site that hosts Pathfinder rules online is now the Archives of Nethys...which I believe is actually a non-profit.

This is something Paizo has talked about at length. so people acting as if they are suddenly surprised at this is kind of...well...wierd. Especially since those contesting this are the ones who are saying PF2e is selling well and there is no need for changes...as my comments actually suggest the idea that Paizo may not actually be in financial difficulties. (edit: Now I could be convinced otherwise, but there needs to be some logical and reasonable information posted regarding that. It would be nice to think that they are still solely focused on AP as their primary money maker...but things in recent years seem to say they are doing other than that, including Paizo themselves...but I AM open to other things).

I mean, we can continue talking about other sites and what they are selling, or we could discuss what Paizo has said about their more recent sales (though, admittedly, mine is two or three years out of date, my information came from right before they went on with the 2e plans and were more on their discussions of how well PF1e was actually selling), though ironically, it seems some of PF2e fans would rather argue against that and instead try to say...what exactly???

In regards to your original statement, it didn't point out anything except to claim I made a mistake. The only item I was actually posted that I was actually interested in was thinking about giving PF2e another shot. You said I made a mistake, and that comment on giving it another shot was the actual item I was questioning about whether to do or not to do. If you did not intend to comment on that (and perhaps you didn't read the entire post I made? Just like it seems others who have commented on it derogatorily have not...which means you probably won't read this entire post either...) perhaps you should be MORE specific in what you are saying.

And YES...it IS something that is discouraging. You want NEW players to PF2e...then show support and help them out instead of being on the gang up on them portion. You want to help, then perhaps be more constructive in your comments than destructive. Sometimes short is not helpful...and being more specific and directive is.

You do not agree with my assessment of Paizo's comments, then find more RECENT comments that support a different directive as well as ACTUAL EVIDENCE (none of this hypothetical stuff that has nothing to back it up that people have tossed around in this thread a LOT) of it. I am open to other opinions, but normally they need to have something to back them up.

I never planned for this entire line of discussion, AS I SAID, the basis of what I was pointing out is that (because people OBVIOUSLY DO NOT READ the post here)...

Yes, I think that APs could support the company at this point, but not at the same economic standards they have now. They have increased in size and sales, and with that the focus of what they sale has also changed.

I also included information that has been talked about before (maybe not here) about how Pathfinder sales have actually increased (according to Paizo) during the time of 5e's rise in sales and how that may be relevant to their current sales. It also explains that PF2e may be doing better than what percentages may indicate from sites like Amazon.


I then supported it with information that you disagreed with in part (and you disagree directly with the idea apparently specifically that PF2e is doing well or may be doing better than what Amazon indicates because they also have the PF2e rules free online). If so, then post WHY it is relevant and HOW it is relavant rather than just saying...nany, nany, boo, boo, I don't like you...type stuff.




PS: The BIGGEST irony of this entire thread thus far. I have united everyone in this thread in one degree. It seems a majority are agreeing that Paizo is not making money off of PF2e, which probably indicates that PF2e IS actually in financial trouble in that regards and selling less than PF1e or other systems. That's the craziest thing for them to come together to agree upon considering how strongly they were disagreeing on that very item just a few short posts prior to this. Funny for them to all agree on that, but that's what it appears currently. My posts ironically united both sides in that agreement from all appearances. At least with the most current arguments against Paizo's comments on how well their sales are doing that were given above from those who disagreed with my post (now, there may be some that disagree with those ideas given, or how trustworthy Paizo as a company is in it's PR on sales is...which could be relevant I suppose, but no one really brought that up directly).

Not that I agree with that assessment (I'm more of an I do not know sort of arena and unsure of how well it is or is not doing, I can see the points made by the evidence provided but also see how it could be from what I've heard from Paizo) but hey...we all think what we think.
 
Last edited:

transmission89

Adventurer
WotC has given away what used to be trademarked material. NOT ALL of it, but a ton of it. Paizo couldn't even use half the creatures (Fire Giants, Hill Giants, Red/Gold/Green/Black/White Dragons...etc) without what WotC allows and has given away.

No company has given or allowed as much of their iconic and identifiable ideas and information out as WotC has.

Case in point...the Pathfinder Game would not exist without the stuff WotC has given away. More games on the market, past and future exist due to what WotC has given away for free than those that exist from what Paizo has allowed and given away on the market for their games. The ideas are the same, but the impact and amount that is given in regards to property value are vastly different. In effect, what WotC gave away in theory cost them ALOT more than what Paizo has given away. This does not mean that WotC didn't have a focus on selling rulebooks for D&D. In fact, to say that offering rules free online means they are not after of focusing on rulebooks really is not true. It makes no sense. It has no basis in what actually happened or happens. There's no reason to even bring it up. Trying to indicate (as was what was done) that this means that they aren't selling or focusing or rulebooks is a strawman. It has no relation to the focus nor the amount of sales being made!

In addition, they also include 5e in their game rules and SRD now (and I think this is what people are thinking, they don't even think about the OGL and the earlier rules and books focus of 3.5 that WotC had) which, though not as great an impact as the earlier rules postings, are additional items that also include a great amount of rules and information. WotC's information they give out for free is organized in a way that is easy to download (rather than needing internet access) as well, and offers an easier way for some to find monsters and other creatures which are also open source with open stats and abilities. This is not to say that the 5e SRD and Game rules offered are better, but both the PRD and 5e versions have their advantages and disadvantages.

But both are a moot point in regards to what their sales are based upon today. Their sales are not connected to the PRD or the SRD or the OGL. Their system may be based upon it or the basis of it, but they are not the reasons for why or what they make money off of. It has no real relation to how their sales are being focused or how many sales are being made in regards to their company support.

Most of the sites that host this information are not done for profit and are not controlled directly by either, and the offical site that hosts Pathfinder rules online is now the Archives of Nethys...which I believe is actually a non-profit.

This is something Paizo has talked about at length. so people acting as if they are suddenly surprised at this is kind of...well...wierd. Especially since those contesting this are the ones who are saying PF2e is selling well and there is no need for changes...as my comments actually suggest the idea that Paizo may not actually be in financial difficulties.

I mean, we can continue talking about other sites and what they are selling, or we could discuss what Paizo has said about their more recent sales (though, admittedly, mine is two or three years out of date, my information came from right before they went on with the 2e plans and were more on their discussions of how well PF1e was actually selling), though ironically, it seems some of PF2e fans would rather argue against that and instead try to say...what exactly???

In regards to your original statement, it didn't point out anything except to claim I made a mistake. The only item I was actually posted that I was actually interested in was thinking about giving PF2e another shot. You said I made a mistake, and that comment on giving it another shot was the actual item I was questioning about whether to do or not to do. If you did not intend to comment on that (and perhaps you didn't read the entire post I made? Just like it seems others who have commented on it derogatorily have not...which means you probably won't read this entire post either...) perhaps you should be MORE specific in what you are saying.

And YES...it IS something that is discouraging. You want NEW players to PF2e...then show support and help them out instead of being on the gang up on them portion. You want to help, then perhaps be more constructive in your comments than destructive. Sometimes short is not helpful...and being more specific and directive is.

You do not agree with my assessment of Paizo's comments, then find more RECENT comments that support a different directive as well as ACTUAL EVIDENCE (none of this hypothetical stuff that has nothing to back it up that people have tossed around in this thread a LOT) of it. I am open to other opinions, but normally they need to have something to back them up.

I never planned for this entire line of discussion, AS I SAID, the basis of what I was pointing out is that (because people OBVIOUSLY DO NOT READ the post here)...

Yes, I think that APs could support the company at this point, but not at the same economic standards they have now. They have increased in size and sales, and with that the focus of what they sale has also changed.

I also included information that has been talked about before (maybe not here) about how Pathfinder sales have actually increased (according to Paizo) during the time of 5e's rise in sales and how that may be relevant to their current sales. It also explains that PF2e may be doing better than what percentages may indicate from sites like Amazon.


I then supported it with information that you disagreed with in part (and you disagree directly with the idea apparently specifically that PF2e is doing well or may be doing better than what Amazon indicates because they also have the PF2e rules free online). If so, then post WHY it is relevant and HOW it is relavant rather than just saying...nany, nany, boo, boo, I don't like you...type stuff.




PS: The BIGGEST irony of this entire thread thus far. I have united everyone in this thread in one degree. It seems a majority are agreeing that Paizo is not making money off of PF2e, which probably indicates that PF2e IS actually in financial trouble in that regards and selling less than PF1e or other systems. That's the craziest thing for them to come together to agree upon considering how strongly they were disagreeing on that very item just a few short posts prior to this. Funny for them to all agree on that, but that's what it appears currently. My posts ironically united both sides in that agreement from all appearances. At least with the most current arguments against Paizo's comments on how well their sales are doing that were given above from those who disagreed with my post (now, there may be some that disagree with those ideas given, or how trustworthy Paizo as a company is in it's PR on sales is...which could be relevant I suppose, but no one really brought that up directly).

Not that I agree with that assessment (I'm more of an I do not know sort of arena and unsure of how well it is or is not doing, I can see the points made by the evidence provided but also see how it could be from what I've heard from Paizo) but hey...we all think what we think.

Wow! I wake up to a lot posts! All of which are replies that show you have looked at what’s being said but not being read.

I have to admit, it is definitely courageous to not only not accept the correction, but to double down on it in a succession of long rants where you try turning it round on others, then start accusing those who disagree with you as gate keeping with self victimisation.

It’s like a beautiful montage of every forum post horror story in one. We only need to invoke Godwin’s law and we’d have a bingo.

To save your keyboard from further pounding, self embarrassment and feeling victimised, I’ll avoid replying to your future posts. Peace :)
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top