PF2 and the adventure day

[Michael Silverbane]

Ah, one of the reasons I like the GLOG - D&D without vancian.

What is a GLOG?

 

[Tony Vargas]

What is a GLOG?

A goblin's blog?

 

[MockingBird]

I never really pay too much attention to "encounters per day". I go with what feels right to the story at hand. Sometimes its balanced, sometimes it's not. If a prewritten adventure has it's set pieces and it will take some time for the party to go from one to the other I'll throw in some random encounters but only if it feels right to the story. I get why the rule of thumb is there but life isn't balanced haha.

 

[Parmandur]

I never really pay too much attention to "encounters per day". I go with what feels right to the story at hand. Sometimes its balanced, sometimes it's not. If a prewritten adventure has it's set pieces and it will take some time for the party to go from one to the other I'll throw in some random encounters but only if it feels right to the story. I get why the rule of thumb is there but life isn't balanced haha.

For sure, the game is flexible like that.

 

[CapnZapp]

I've come to believe it's unfair to try to evaluate PF2 as needing to compete with 5E. I don't view 13th Age or SotDL as needing to compete with 5E, why should PF2 need to be viewed that way?

Thank you for asking this question. It is a very natural thing to wonder about.

The answer lies in Paizo's size and ambition.

Even before the Pathfinder era Paizo emerged as the clearly largest publisher of alternative D&D material.

If Paizo is content with losing that position, essentially disappearing back into obscurity, then no indeed there is no reason we should hold PF2 to a higher standard than those other games (13th Age and so on).

But if Paizo harbors any hope to retain their position in the awareness of gamers (and all its staff, and it's great rate of throughput), then it is *essential* PF2 comes across as a game that is pleasing to people with 5E sensibilities.

 

[FrogReaver]

Thank you for asking this question. It is a very natural thing to wonder about.

The answer lies in Paizo's size and ambition.

Even before the Pathfinder era Paizo emerged as the clearly largest publisher of alternative D&D material.

If Paizo is content with losing that position, essentially disappearing back into obscurity, then no indeed there is no reason we should hold PF2 to a higher standard than those other games (13th Age and so on).

But if Paizo harbors any hope to retain their position in the awareness of gamers (and all its staff, and it's great rate of throughput), then it is *essential* PF2 comes across as a game that is pleasing to people with 5E sensibilities.

Yep. IMO. Their best move would be a game similar to 5e - but different that fixed the most financially important 5e players biggest complaints about 5e.

To date the biggest complaint I see about 5e is people wanting more crunch. Pathfinder 2 could have filled that void and those customers which may not overtake 5e but would be very profitable.

Though the risk with that strategy is that 5e just starts producing more crunch (or 6e releases with the promise of more crunch).

So IMO. What appears to be their best strategy carries far to much risk. I think they are best served making something significantly different from 5e that a number of 5e fans will enjoy.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yep. IMO. Their best move would be a game similar to 5e - but different that fixed the most financially important 5e players biggest complaints about 5e.

The whole point of 5e is to be so innocuous as to invite no big complaints!

To date the biggest complaint I see about 5e is people wanting more crunch.

To be fair, that's YOUR complaint. (Though, to be honest, I'm right there with you, as a player - as a DM, exact opposite, really.)

Pathfinder 2 could have filled that void and those customers which may not overtake 5e but would be very profitable.

Could it, though? It wouldn't be /more 5e crunch/.

The intent of DMsGuild was to provide a slush pile of unsolicited crunch (among other things) for 5e.
But it doesn't satisfy: it's unofficial, inconsistent, and less professional. You have to sift through it.

If Paizo had developed professional, consistent, build-facilitating, crunchy supplements /for/ 5e, under a catchy title, it might have filled the crunch void. Less masochistic DMs could just say "PH & Paizo," to open up a world of crunch for their players.

 

[FrogReaver]

The whole point of 5e is to be so innocuous as to invite no big complaints!
To be fair, that's YOUR complaint. (Though, to be honest, I'm right there with you, as a player - as a DM, exact opposite, really.)
Could it, though? It wouldn't be /more 5e crunch/.

The intent of DMsGuild was to provide a slush pile of unsolicited crunch (among other things) for 5e.
But it doesn't satisfy: it's unofficial, inconsistent, and less professional. You have to sift through it.

If Paizo had developed professional, consistent, build-facilitating, crunchy supplements /for/ 5e, under a catchy title, it might have filled the crunch void. Less masochistic DMs could just say "PH & Paizo," to open up a world of crunch for their players.

Huh? I think you missed something.

 

[generic]

The difficulty with PF2 is that Pathfinder is now an established product, the competitor to D&D, albeit with a smaller fanbase, and, unless it can peel of 5e players, PF2 is just going to lose some PF1 players without gaining a significant number of new fans. I undertsand that PF2 is Paizo's attempt to break away from D&D, becoming their own game, free from the legacy of 3e, but, as a company, they have to understand that, in order to break into the marketplace, they're going to have to ramp up advertising, publicity, and comparisons to 5e.

Furthermore, on the point of PF1 players, many of us are used to the PFORD (Pathfinder open-reference document), which (as far as I can tell) won't be available for PF2. This is understandable (I always thought the d20 system tyranny was a bit unfair for competitors, one might say that Wizards holds a monopoly on d20 games), but PF2 has to be lucrative enough that its fans, and (hopefully) new players, will be willing to purchase its books instead of 5e books.

One major selling point in Paizo's favor is book size and quantity of product. 5e books have always been slim, and PF books give you more content for a similar price.

 

[Parmandur]

The difficulty with PF2 is that Pathfinder is now an established product, the competitor to D&D, albeit with a smaller fanbase, and, unless it can peel of 5e players, PF2 is just going to lose some PF1 players without gaining a significant number of new fans. I undertsand that PF2 is Paizo's attempt to break away from D&D, becoming their own game, free from the legacy of 3e, but, as a company, they have to understand that, in order to break into the marketplace, they're going to have to ramp up advertising, publicity, and comparisons to 5e.

Furthermore, on the point of PF1 players, many of us are used to the PFORD (Pathfinder open-reference document), which (as far as I can tell) won't be available for PF2. This is understandable (I always thought the d20 system tyranny was a bit unfair for competitors, one might say that Wizards holds a monopoly on d20 games), but PF2 has to be lucrative enough that its fans, and (hopefully) new players, will be willing to purchase its books instead of 5e books.

One major selling point in Paizo's favor is book size and quantity of product. 5e books have always been slim, and PF books give you more content for a similar price.

I do believe that PF2 will have all the rules available for free, as with PF1. Still OGL.

I don't know if large, dense books will be a major selling point on the market as such.