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

[GreyLord]

If I can interject a potential tangent into the discussion here, is the era of the adventure path kinda over? I know that was a huge part of the way Paizo did stuff for a long time, but it seems like maybe they reached a saturation point. I do notice that nobody else is really attempting it either; WotC is putting out "campaigns" that are similar to how Call of Cthulhu traditionally used to do it, where there's one rather thick book that details a single adventure in multiple chapters.

And I know that the reality of those campaigns isn't necessarily all that different than an adventure path, other than the publishing schedule; i.e., one chapter per month with additional setting add-ons built in to the book vs. all at once in a single big book but with less mechanics and fluff about extraneous stuff altogether—the differences are somewhat more imagined than real. But it seems like the business model for one seems to be ascendant and the business model for the other isn't.

No, I don't think it is.

I think Paizo expanded beyond just the Adventure paths because they wanted more money. That more money was like Crack Cocaine...which is why suddenly their game system gets expanded with a ton of new rules, classes, and what else in a matter of a few short years.

I think the AP idea is still highly profitable, but instead of it being the center of their business model as it used to be, with Pathfinder as a game being there purely to support the model of selling Adventures...it has turned around where it is now adventures being there purely to support the new rules and their brand.

Basically, APs brought in enough money to support them at their current subsistence level early on, but once they got a taste of that money from that sweet heroin called rule supplements and expansions...well...their model changed.

They expanded their staff and crew in accordance with that increase in income to where now, just relying on the AP money is not going to keep them afloat anymore.

Ala...2e.

 

[transmission89]

No, I don't think it is.

I think Paizo expanded beyond just the Adventure paths because they wanted more money. That more money was like Crack Cocaine...which is why suddenly their game system gets expanded with a ton of new rules, classes, and what else in a matter of a few short years.

I think the AP idea is still highly profitable, but instead of it being the center of their business model as it used to be, with Pathfinder as a game being there purely to support the model of selling Adventures...it has turned around where it is now adventures being there purely to support the new rules and their brand.

Basically, APs brought in enough money to support them at their current subsistence level early on, but once they got a taste of that money from that sweet heroin called rule supplements and expansions...well...their model changed.

They expanded their staff and crew in accordance with that increase in income to where now, just relying on the AP money is not going to keep them afloat anymore.

Ala...2e.

You mean the money they get from all the rules they publish for free?

 

[JmanTheDM]

And that's a legitimate question, but the reasons for people asking it seem usually based on a combination of wishful thinking and overextrapolating from limited metrics.

And I don't think its even that simple. Paizo has over the years significantly diversified its revenue streams. While "successful" vs. PF1 is an interesting question, from a business continuity perspective still misses the mark. PF2e being "Successful enough" in the context of paizo 2021 needs to be weighed not only in the context of pf1e, but also beside their other revenue streams.

Also, I can't help but feel that we are all missing the mark on Paizo's business model. (I have nothing to back this up, its only impression), IMO, Paizo is a subscription service first and a game company second. their entire publishing schedule is built around satisfying a monthly ordering service - and as such, they need content. Their key customer is their subscription customer. A retail sale is bonus. You best better design a product that has room/space for A LOT of content, say for eg. feats in order to continue providing content for your subscription service. this is also why, again, IMO, using traditional game company metrics like VTT usage or Amazon sales ranks is at best inaccurate, and at worst completely missing their business model. I can easily argue that an online meal delivery service is failing because it's not listed as a top grocery chain, but those metrics miss the point entirely.

[shrug]

Cheers,

J.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

I disagree.

"many are happy with" is a statement that could be said about any system.

It's this relativism that bugs me.

In contrast, I'm claiming "Paizo blew it". Looking at subsystem after subsystem, the design could have been much simpler and cleaner without anything meaningful lost.

The fact people don't realize that, or just don't care, doesn't mean such a claim becomes false.


Again, nearly every game system is met with glowing praise. That tells you nothing.

And very few reviews are actually in-depth enough to unearth (or even encounter!) the criticisms I line up against the system.


I'm arguing the game could have been far superior (as in really obviously so) to what we got.


I'm happy with these choices too!

But I'm not talking about these choices. I'm talking about (many of) the other choices taken! In fact, what you're doing is what every single poster before you have done, which is to bend over backwards in order not to have to defend the design choices made for the points I do bring up.


I am not asking for a perfect system.

I am arguing the system's design is outright poor.

You're not going to agree with this, but that's ok. You don't have an argument - you have an opinion. Fundamentally it IS a matter of taste unless you can point to Paizo staff saying "We are attempting to achieve these explicit objectives" and then demonstrate, objectively, that they have not - which would be a difficult task in and of itself.

If you want to put forth a formal deductive argument for me to analyze, I'd be happy to do so.

 

[JmanTheDM]

If you feel you can supply good arguments for, say, the design of Talismans in PF2, or perhaps the crafting subsystem (and mind you, actual fact-based arguments, not the misguided arguments based on how people think or want that subsystem to work) you would be most welcome.

[for emphasis]
"If you feel you can supply good arguments...actual fact-based arguments..."

Is astoundingly disingenuous. the implied double-standard here is... well... obvious.

The rules, in this fact based debate with you, if I understand it correctly is this:
CapnZapp may "come up with any reason why the game does not work for his particular tastes. CapnZapp need only make a claim that x is broken because of y"
their opponent must therefor bear the onus to "supply only good fact-based arguments to counter any claim made by CapnZapp"

so, you can make a claim, really any claim you want, whereas I must provide "actual, fact-based" evidence, which is presumably a referenced official statements to counter your claims. because, like how can any rebuttal be an "actual, fact-based" reply if not referenced by official sources?

am I understanding your conditions correctly? is this what you in fact intended as the sole means to sway you? is your emotional response to PF2e even swayable, even with the most fact based argument from the mouths of the designers themselves?

is not the onus on you to carry the heavier burden to prove your points through "good argument... actual fact-based arguments" instead of us, as you are the one making the extraordinary claim?

are you not setting the conditions for us to prove a negative?

and finally, because you are holding us to a standard of evidence that you yourself are not bound to, is this not by default a situation where The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and thus, by not providing actual fact-based data, you can then somehow claim a point?

I fear even in an ideal situation where "fact-based" evidence to a specific claim could even be produced, the debate would follow a script similar to the below:

• a claim is made
• the claim is disputed through the submission of fact-based evidence
• the goalpost is then shifted by claiming the original premise is therefore flawed. eg. "well then, the designer was wrong"
• stalemate! as how can you debate further the minds of a creator, when the creation IS what the created intended to create?

its OK to not like art. art is deeply personal. but to crap on the artists because they didn't create something you like... well, that just strikes me as the ultimate hubris and unless you commissioned the artist yourself directly, waaaaaaay outside your right to claim.

but that's just me [shrug]

Cheers,

J.

 

[Justpassingthrough]

about money, I think adventure brings more profit than rules but without a doubt what brings more money is lore.

Hasbrow is more interested in selling dnd as a movie, video game, clothing ect than as a board game.

In the same way that Disney sells Marvel, but keeps the comic book publisher as creator and maintainer of Lore and characters.

And yes, it must be Paizo's final idea.

 

[Retreater]

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.

 

[GreyLord]

You mean the money they get from all the rules they publish for free?

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.

 

[Desdichado]

It seems like maybe Paizo are trying to position Pathfinder as not the noobie friendly game, but the game for the "expert" players, who want more crunch, more mechanics to sink their teeth into, and loads and loads of options. It's the character build type player's dream version of the D&D-like rules systems. Noobie friendly is the space 5e is occupying already. If there's really anything to that, then they're certainly not likely to go in a direction that you'll be interested in, because they have a different strategy. I don't know that I think that that's true or not, but it hardly surprises me, since that was in many ways the vibe that they took their iteration of the 3.5 rules when they created Pathfinder in the first place. Maybe they felt confident enough in stepping further away from the 3e-like model of game design without feeling like they were going in the 4e direction. It would certainly seem to fit the pattern of how they managed their own 1e game system after all.

 

[GreyLord]

And I don't think its even that simple. Paizo has over the years significantly diversified its revenue streams. While "successful" vs. PF1 is an interesting question, from a business continuity perspective still misses the mark. PF2e being "Successful enough" in the context of paizo 2021 needs to be weighed not only in the context of pf1e, but also beside their other revenue streams.

Also, I can't help but feel that we are all missing the mark on Paizo's business model. (I have nothing to back this up, its only impression), IMO, Paizo is a subscription service first and a game company second. their entire publishing schedule is built around satisfying a monthly ordering service - and as such, they need content. Their key customer is their subscription customer. A retail sale is bonus. You best better design a product that has room/space for A LOT of content, say for eg. feats in order to continue providing content for your subscription service. this is also why, again, IMO, using traditional game company metrics like VTT usage or Amazon sales ranks is at best inaccurate, and at worst completely missing their business model. I can easily argue that an online meal delivery service is failing because it's not listed as a top grocery chain, but those metrics miss the point entirely.

[shrug]

Cheers,

J.

I'd have agreed with this originally when Paizo was first doing breaking away from D&D/WotC (more due to WotC forcing the issue than anything else). AT that time, a majority of their sales was via their printed magazines and subscriptions.

They moved a majority of those to their new plan which was to sell the APs. This was rather successful from everything I can tell. At that time, I'd say a majority of their sales was actually via subscriptions, though they also had the APs appearing in game stores (I bought the first few in my FLGS actually).

Their plan at the time, since they didn't want a dead Game system (3.5) to be what their APs were based off of, was to create a game system which supported their APs so that people who wanted to play the APs with a 3.5 ruleset or similar would have books that they could buy with the rules to play the APs.

They ran a strong subscription service.

As time went on, they started adding more rules, and other subscriptions started to be a bigger item that was being pushed (rulebooks, companion, even a card game eventually). These started to push the actual APs to the side. Though we do not have their site sales, Amazon CAN normally signify what is selling and what is not, and normally it were the RULEBOOKS that were selling. They weren't just selling, they were actually selling really well. In fact, instead of the APs showing up in gamestores (occasionally they did, but they didn't appear as often), it was not the rulebooks that were appearing. Rules were seeming to be the major push.

It would appear at that point that rules were their fore-runner of sales...not the APs anymore. That's what was being pushed and sold.

I have NO evidence though to back up my next statement...but one reason for rules to be sold more in bookstores and gamestores is that they sell better to the public in a retail setting than an AP which may or may not have all the parts there. I think retail and internet sales (from sites such as Amazon) have become extremely significant these days to Paizo's bottom line.

In that light, I think that they may be more significant in showing how Paizo sales are doing than what they used to be. I think AP sales are still bigger via subscriptions than rulebooks which means it is impossible to know how much they are bringing in, but I think the rulebooks and other items are bringing in more money these days and hence the shift from focusing purely on AP's and the AP's being supported by the game...to the Game being the focus of the companies resources and advertising and the APS taking more of a back seat.