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
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="GreyLord" data-source="post: 8233226" data-attributes="member: 4348"><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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). </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GreyLord, post: 8233226, member: 4348"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Is It Time for PF2 "Essentials"?
Top