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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Paizo To Make Kingmaker Bestiary... For D&D 5E!
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="Jester David" data-source="post: 7779141" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>There's two big reasons for that. </p><p></p><p>The first is they want to retain most of their audience. They're hoping a large percentage of their fans will switch from Pathfinder 1 to Pathfinder 2. And the best way to do that is by keeping Pathfinder 2 very similar to Pathfinder 1.</p><p>Which seems fairly reasonable. The audience for a potential 5.5 edition is largely theoretical. You're not marketing to your actual consumers, and hoping to sway people away from another game. Now, there probably IS a large audience of established gamers who want something that's more like 5e but has more character complexity and rules options, but the percentage and numbers are unknown, as is the number who are actually running games versus dissatisfied players who won't switch because the rest of their table is happy. You'd still be making a product and gambling that anyone would buy it. </p><p></p><p>The second option is the big one: the staff at Paizo know eff all about 5e. </p><p>They made some comparisons between PF1, PF2, and 5e in the playtest of PF2. And they read like someone who had glanced at the 5e rulebook two years prior and/or based all their knowledge of 5e on forum discussions on Paizo.comIt wasn't particularly accurate. Which makes sense. The staff at Paizo knows Pathfinder, but doesn't really know 5e. Time spent learning and understanding 5e would be detrimental to their actual job, which requires knowing Pathfinder and designing for that game. </p><p>They're not the best people to make a Revised 5e, because the understanding of the game isn't there. They probably wouldn't know what to fix and what not to fix, what is required for balance, what are mistakes to be fixed. To say nothing of all those subtle rules. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Honestly, Paizo is in a tough place right now. 5e is ridiculously predominant in the market. AND the new players coming into the hobby via streaming are heavily disinterested in the crunch-heavy play-style they've built their game around, which makes acquiring new players tricky. Which also makes it harder to employ the same methods to bring in new players.</p><p>But Paizo's own audience has massive collections of crunch that they have likely barely used. By sticking with 3.X rather than moving to 4e or 5e, most have show a preference for a funky, broken ruleset. Upgrading to something that plays similar feels like a lateral move, especially when many of the improvements (i.e. the action economy) can be slapped onto Pathfinder 1. And the cost is high: players have to give up the massive library of existing crunch; Pathfinder players stick with PF because of the options and customization, but it will be a year or two before PF2 can have an "acceptable" amount of options. </p><p>I imagine Paizo is hoping to play a "long game". Sell enough material to keep the company afloat while their audience burns through the content they already own. And then, slowly over the next 2-3 years, let people swap to PF2 when it feels like there's enough material there.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 7779141, member: 37579"] There's two big reasons for that. The first is they want to retain most of their audience. They're hoping a large percentage of their fans will switch from Pathfinder 1 to Pathfinder 2. And the best way to do that is by keeping Pathfinder 2 very similar to Pathfinder 1. Which seems fairly reasonable. The audience for a potential 5.5 edition is largely theoretical. You're not marketing to your actual consumers, and hoping to sway people away from another game. Now, there probably IS a large audience of established gamers who want something that's more like 5e but has more character complexity and rules options, but the percentage and numbers are unknown, as is the number who are actually running games versus dissatisfied players who won't switch because the rest of their table is happy. You'd still be making a product and gambling that anyone would buy it. The second option is the big one: the staff at Paizo know eff all about 5e. They made some comparisons between PF1, PF2, and 5e in the playtest of PF2. And they read like someone who had glanced at the 5e rulebook two years prior and/or based all their knowledge of 5e on forum discussions on Paizo.comIt wasn't particularly accurate. Which makes sense. The staff at Paizo knows Pathfinder, but doesn't really know 5e. Time spent learning and understanding 5e would be detrimental to their actual job, which requires knowing Pathfinder and designing for that game. They're not the best people to make a Revised 5e, because the understanding of the game isn't there. They probably wouldn't know what to fix and what not to fix, what is required for balance, what are mistakes to be fixed. To say nothing of all those subtle rules. Honestly, Paizo is in a tough place right now. 5e is ridiculously predominant in the market. AND the new players coming into the hobby via streaming are heavily disinterested in the crunch-heavy play-style they've built their game around, which makes acquiring new players tricky. Which also makes it harder to employ the same methods to bring in new players. But Paizo's own audience has massive collections of crunch that they have likely barely used. By sticking with 3.X rather than moving to 4e or 5e, most have show a preference for a funky, broken ruleset. Upgrading to something that plays similar feels like a lateral move, especially when many of the improvements (i.e. the action economy) can be slapped onto Pathfinder 1. And the cost is high: players have to give up the massive library of existing crunch; Pathfinder players stick with PF because of the options and customization, but it will be a year or two before PF2 can have an "acceptable" amount of options. I imagine Paizo is hoping to play a "long game". Sell enough material to keep the company afloat while their audience burns through the content they already own. And then, slowly over the next 2-3 years, let people swap to PF2 when it feels like there's enough material there. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Paizo To Make Kingmaker Bestiary... For D&D 5E!
Top