Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="!DWolf" data-source="post: 8101090" data-attributes="member: 7026314">Note: Still a bit ranty (sorry).I think you missed my point:DND 5e is like a building that has been stripped down to the essential structure. Almost everything is gone: furniture, carpets, interior walls, etc. but the structure is still intact and when a play group moves in they can install whatever they want. That is why there is a ton of DND 5e homebrew.Pathfinder 2e took the opposite approach: extras have been added and the building is stuffed with things that people might want, but not all do. When the play group moves in they either ignore the things they don’t need, remove them (through hand-waiving or homebrewing), or complain about them endlessly online not realizing that other people interested in the product do want them.Now suppose pathfinder had ‘learned from DND 5e’s Success’ (paraphrased) and instead stripped out almost everything that was non-essential until, like DND 5e, it was a skeleton of a structure waiting to be filled. Good right? But then you have a skeletal structure competing with a skeletal structure. And that is not a fight Paizo can win. Which is why I think it was smart to go the opposite route.This analogy also explains the different material release rates and online copyright policies between the two games. 5e sold you the building skeleton - the stuff inside isn’t really their product. PF2e gave you the building and asked you nicely to pay if you think the stuff inside is valuable (but you don’t have to) and by putting more stuff inside they are betting they can make the product valuable enough that you will want to pay. It is a completely different business model.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="!DWolf, post: 8101090, member: 7026314"] Note: Still a bit ranty (sorry). I think you missed my point: DND 5e is like a building that has been stripped down to the essential structure. Almost everything is gone: furniture, carpets, interior walls, etc. but the structure is still intact and when a play group moves in they can install whatever they want. That is why there is a ton of DND 5e homebrew. Pathfinder 2e took the opposite approach: extras have been added and the building is stuffed with things that people might want, but not all do. When the play group moves in they either ignore the things they don’t need, remove them (through hand-waiving or homebrewing), or complain about them endlessly online not realizing that other people interested in the product do want them. Now suppose pathfinder had ‘learned from DND 5e’s Success’ (paraphrased) and instead stripped out almost everything that was non-essential until, like DND 5e, it was a skeleton of a structure waiting to be filled. Good right? But then you have a skeletal structure competing with a skeletal structure. And that is not a fight Paizo can win. Which is why I think it was smart to go the opposite route. This analogy also explains the different material release rates and online copyright policies between the two games. 5e sold you the building skeleton - the stuff inside isn’t really their product. PF2e gave you the building and asked you nicely to pay if you think the stuff inside is valuable (but you don’t have to) and by putting more stuff inside they are betting they can make the product valuable enough that you will want to pay. It is a completely different business model. [/QUOTE]

Verification