Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E's reception?

[BryonD]

Pretty much by definition if you have a united fan base you have smaller market than if you had a diverse fan base (easy proof: if you have a united fan base, find one member not in it and add a product just for them. You are now more diverse and have a larger market).

That is true. Having a diverse fan base is a major boon. But "splitting" the fanbase generally (and very much in this instance) implies that only a portion was retained as "fans". That is not diversification of existing "fans", only of the set which was once, in the past, collectively "fans".

 

[BryonD]

In theory, but there's a significant stumbling block. Not everyone accepts diversity.

I said over and over during 4E that WotC really needed to be throwing a bigger net. Thsi just made 4E fans mad.
So here we agree.

 

[darjr]

I suspect you are into "long tail" territory and 8192 on top of 4871 isn't a big bump.

Edit:And, again, we know that PF1E has dropped off some time ago. Maybe, just maybe, PF2E has created a small rebound. But even if so it doesn't seem like it would have any chance of sustainability.

I dunno. Bouncing around 5000 to 2000 in Amazon Sales Rank is pretty awesome. And I can see it maintaining that. But time will tell. Though I think that most things that make it this far at that level are sustaining.

 

[BryonD]

The division was never about the game supporting one set of fans and not another, but about the game supporting one set of fans, and another objecting violently to their inclusion.
That is, it was only ever just gatekeeping.

Yeah, if onyl there had been people who wanted more simulationist play and these arguments were being rejected by 4E fans.
If only there were people who complained about self healing fighters and their positions being rejected by 4E fans.
If onyl there were people who complained about all high level barbrians being experts in Arcane arts and high level wizards always being good at swimming but their concerns were rejected by 4e fans.
If only there were people who didn't like the cosmology but their concerns were rejected by 4E fans.
If only there were people who didn't like COGI and DOAM but their concerns were rejected by 4E fans
The list goes on and on.

But, fortunately for you, none of this rejection of non-4E standard playstyles happened, none of the people with these desires for their games were excluded. Everyone who didn't play 4E did so because they were angry about including others.

Or not......

 

[BryonD]

I dunno. Bouncing around 5000 to 2000 in Amazon Sales Rank is pretty awesome. And I can see it maintaining that. But time will tell. Though I think that most things that make it this far at that level are sustaining.

Well, I meant a rebound in PF, not PF2E.

I completely agree that PF2E is crushing EVERY game that is not 5E.
It isn't doing as well as 4E was at this stage, and IMO, the trends are looking the same. So I have my opinions on the future. But that will come and I'll be right or I'll eb wrong and nothing said here will change it.

But, for now, yep.

 

[darjr]

Well... yep.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I said over and over during 4E that WotC really needed to be throwing a bigger net. Thsi just made 4E fans mad.

Sure, 4e was already the bigger tent. That's what so enraged the gatekeepers and touched off the edition war: you could suddenly do things in D&D you never could before. That was taken - or simply misrepresented - as you could no longer do the things you could before, which wasn't true, those things just weren't privileged in the same ways they had been.

Quite simply, context is clear. 25 happy people is better than 4. But this totally misses the point.

No, the point is that popularity isn't proof. It's a fallacy for a reason, and I was pointing out examples that illustrate those reasons.

who wanted more simulationist play
complained about self healing fighters
.

It's not like D&D had ever been at all simulationist, and the big no-no's under that rubric - martial healing, full healing on long rests, after-the-roll maneuvers, and so forth - are prettymuch all present in 5e, to no edition warring at all.

all high level barbrians being experts in Arcane arts and high level wizards always being good at swimming

Not experts by any stretch - trained checks were still a thing - just, as in 5e, even at high levels, an untrained PC could still have a shot at making a check that an 'expert' could conceivable fail on a really low roll.

didn't like the cosmology

Not like that was baked into the rules, like it was in 3e with 'team alignment' spells and planar binding &c.

didn't like DOAM

Amusingly, that one started up in the playtest. DoaM had been with 4e from the beginning - it's how every traditional 1/2 Damage on a Successful Save spell was modeled - and had never drawn much ire, at all. But, once Next returned to saving throws, and DoaM could be attacked separately from DoaSS, it was suddenly anathema.

I have never been critical of loving PF2E. I was never critical of loving 4E.

You're doing both, right now - and going out of your way to do it. Maybe it's not your intent, in repeatedly appealing to (un)popularity, but it's hard to see it some other way.

 

[BryonD]

Sure, 4e was already the bigger tent.

Saying this doesn't make it true. And, quite simply, it is entirely false.

No, the point is that popularity isn't proof. It's a fallacy for a reason, and I was pointing out examples that illustrate those reasons.

You failed to demonstrate your point. If you don't care about popularity personally, then cool. In that case you should have no concern over what anyone else said. You play your game and enjoy it. It is clearly because 4E was unpopular that you feel a need to argue the point. It is just that you refuse to accept what is now know to be closed book history.

But lets take it another step:
I routinely see pro-4E folks stating that a complaint they have toward 5E is all the backtracking and undoing of progress it gave in on. (I call it going back to where the wrong turn was made and correcting, six / half dozen shrug). They point to the fact that so many 3E holdouts through the 4E Era have embraced 5E as proof of their point. And yet it is beyond dispute that 5E has exploded the size of the hobby. It is a HUGE tent. And it is constantly praised for its diversity both in terms of cultural concepts and in terms of playstyles it embraces. "Gatekeepers" should be ENRAGED. They are not. (Granted the term "gatekeeper" is BS, so it is loaded for me to say "they", but you should get the point). If you could fine ONE person whose perspective on 4E was as you describe, then you would find that person longing for the days of 4E to return as a far lesser evil. And yet you proclaim that EVERYONE who was critical of 4E is like this. The facts betray you.

It's not like D&D had ever been at all simulationist ...

Sigh, I'm not going to refight a battle you already lost. The point is not the merits of these positions. The point is that these positions existed. They made people dissatisfied with 4E for reasons that had NOTHING to do with exclusion and 4E defenders were the ones deadset on excluding views dissimilar to their own.

 

[BryonD]

It's not like D&D had ever been at all simulationist

Actually... let me go back to this.
CLEARLY, we disagree.
Question: Should 4E have changed to be inclusive toward having positions counter to your own represented or are you a gatekeeper standing opposed to other points of view?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Question: Should 4E have changed to be inclusive toward having positions counter to your own represented or are you a gatekeeper standing opposed to other points of view?

Opposing gatekeeping behavior is not, itself, gatekeeping.

Saying this doesn't make it true. And, quite simply, it is entirely false.

Saying it's false doesn't make it false. There's legitimate character types, campaign types & styles you could play in 4e that you couldn't in other editions.
The 'styles' it supposedly didn't support were entirely workable - Forthcore did it quite a lot, it was just a matter of how you chose to run. And, it was more accessible to new players, and easier to DM.

The point is not the merits of these positions.
The point is that these positions existed.

The fact that they were without merit, and applied selectively, is the point.

You failed to demonstrate your point.

I don't really have to prove that ad populum is a fallacy, that was done long ago. I'm pointing out how much it's being used in this thread.

Yeah, some products sell better than others. Doesn't always make them better. Tobacco sell better than vitamins.

And yet it is beyond dispute that 5E has exploded the size of the hobby.

Sales are the best they've been since the fad, sure. Saying that's because it's a better game or inclusive of more styles though, just because it's riding a come-back wave, is appealing to popularity.

PF2 is going to stay less popular than D&D - even if D&D comes off it's come-back wave at some point, it's garnered a huge host of new fans exposed to no other RPG.

PF2 may be a better game than D&D, even a much better game. Relative popularity won't be an indicator.