Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Is It Time for PF2 "Essentials"?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8231007" data-attributes="member: 7026617"><p>I think the last part of this most likely makes a misread of the situation; PF2e wasn't about 5e.</p><p></p><p>I don't mean 5e didn't have any weight in how planning worked on PF2e, but its actual core cause was simpler: PF1e had reached its natural life cycle end. Every edition of a game system does that, and an examination of the product lines for PF2e shows they'd pretty much fished in damn near ever pond related to the line they could.</p><p></p><p>At that point a product either dies by trailing off into irrelevance or by being actively discontinued, or a company does a new edition. And when doing new editions, the designers always have two fundamental choices: change things only minimally, and hope your market will actually buy into, essentially, repurchasing the same damn game, or take the mechanics in some degree of new places.</p><p></p><p>Paizo chose the latter. The question ends up being whether that was the most useful thing to do, and whether the specifics were the best choice they could have had.</p><p></p><p>The latter can be no more than a subjective call on the part of almost anyone, certainly anyone but Paizo whether some want to claim to the contrary or not.</p><p></p><p>The former, however, can at least approached logically. </p><p></p><p>If they had stayed too close to PF1e, there would be a different, but equally consistent complaint; its always the case when that happens. It certainly wouldn't have done anything about the problematic areas of 3e that PF1e was heir to, and people who were drifting away to 5e (because at least it has <em>different</em> problem areas) would likely have continued to do so anyway. </p><p></p><p>The only people they most likely would have kept that they've lost now (and those are most likely simply sticking with PF1e, as D&D 5e isn't likely to be serving them any better) were those who liked all the detailed character creation but were also tolerant of (or actively preferred) the character creation mini-game where characters were could be wound up into engines of destruction during creation and advancement while others weren't so baked (and there are a couple people on the Paizo forums who've outright indicated this and its consequences are what they miss about PF2e). But there's no reasons to assume that group is larger than the one that stuck around because PF2e went in a different direction.</p><p></p><p>What one can say with a pretty fair certainty is <em>nothing they would have done would have made them really be competing on the same level with D&D 5e. </em>As I've noted multiple times, Paizo's ability to do that during the 4e period was a historical accident; they took advantage of it, but it was not repeatable. All they were going to be able to do was produce sales sufficient to justify their own expectations, and any suggestion PF2e hasn't done that is based on metrics that are, at best, flawed; they only people who really know are Paizo themselves, and likely no one else at all has access to the necessary data.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8231007, member: 7026617"] I think the last part of this most likely makes a misread of the situation; PF2e wasn't about 5e. I don't mean 5e didn't have any weight in how planning worked on PF2e, but its actual core cause was simpler: PF1e had reached its natural life cycle end. Every edition of a game system does that, and an examination of the product lines for PF2e shows they'd pretty much fished in damn near ever pond related to the line they could. At that point a product either dies by trailing off into irrelevance or by being actively discontinued, or a company does a new edition. And when doing new editions, the designers always have two fundamental choices: change things only minimally, and hope your market will actually buy into, essentially, repurchasing the same damn game, or take the mechanics in some degree of new places. Paizo chose the latter. The question ends up being whether that was the most useful thing to do, and whether the specifics were the best choice they could have had. The latter can be no more than a subjective call on the part of almost anyone, certainly anyone but Paizo whether some want to claim to the contrary or not. The former, however, can at least approached logically. If they had stayed too close to PF1e, there would be a different, but equally consistent complaint; its always the case when that happens. It certainly wouldn't have done anything about the problematic areas of 3e that PF1e was heir to, and people who were drifting away to 5e (because at least it has [I]different[/I] problem areas) would likely have continued to do so anyway. The only people they most likely would have kept that they've lost now (and those are most likely simply sticking with PF1e, as D&D 5e isn't likely to be serving them any better) were those who liked all the detailed character creation but were also tolerant of (or actively preferred) the character creation mini-game where characters were could be wound up into engines of destruction during creation and advancement while others weren't so baked (and there are a couple people on the Paizo forums who've outright indicated this and its consequences are what they miss about PF2e). But there's no reasons to assume that group is larger than the one that stuck around because PF2e went in a different direction. What one can say with a pretty fair certainty is [I]nothing they would have done would have made them really be competing on the same level with D&D 5e. [/I]As I've noted multiple times, Paizo's ability to do that during the 4e period was a historical accident; they took advantage of it, but it was not repeatable. All they were going to be able to do was produce sales sufficient to justify their own expectations, and any suggestion PF2e hasn't done that is based on metrics that are, at best, flawed; they only people who really know are Paizo themselves, and likely no one else at all has access to the necessary data. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Is It Time for PF2 "Essentials"?
Top