Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7743577" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I suppose it depends what “compatibility” and “conversion” mean to you. They were able to adapt a PF1 module to the playtest rules on the fly for the glass cannon podcast, and they’ve said it will be fairly easy to do the same with other modules, simply by replacing enemies with their PF2 counterparts. So if by “compatibility” you mean you can run the same games with the new rules, they are designing PF 2 with that in mind. If on the other hand you are using the word to mean “basically the same system with some minor tweaks,” then no, that’s not what they’re doing. Is it a bold business move? In the short term, yes, as their audience at this point is mostly people who have refused to change systems for the past 20 years. In the long term, I think it’s a smart business decision, because a 20 year old product is naturally going to have a hard time attracting new customers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 7743577, member: 6779196"] I suppose it depends what “compatibility” and “conversion” mean to you. They were able to adapt a PF1 module to the playtest rules on the fly for the glass cannon podcast, and they’ve said it will be fairly easy to do the same with other modules, simply by replacing enemies with their PF2 counterparts. So if by “compatibility” you mean you can run the same games with the new rules, they [I]are[/I] designing PF 2 with that in mind. If on the other hand you are using the word to mean “basically the same system with some minor tweaks,” then no, that’s not what they’re doing. Is it a bold business move? In the short term, yes, as their audience at this point is mostly people who have refused to change systems for the past 20 years. In the long term, I think it’s a smart business decision, because a 20 year old product is naturally going to have a hard time attracting new customers. [/QUOTE]

Verification