log in or register to remove this ad

 

PF2E Release Day Second Edition Amazon Sales Rank


log in or register to remove this ad

vpuigdoller

Adventurer
Maybe? Different situation from 2008.
Well depends. If they do new Adventure Paths and adventure modules they can certainly do a players handbook as well even though it might not be the main selling point. Slowly they can shift the people to buy their manual instead of pathfinder etc. Is going to be a nice experiment to see. Now if it will work or not only time will tell.
 

Well depends. If they do new Adventure Paths and adventure modules they can certainly do a players handbook as well even though it might not be the main selling point. Slowly they can shift the people to buy their manual instead of pathfinder etc. Is going to be a nice experiment to see. Now if it will work or not only time will tell.

it will be interesting to watch, especially with the different economics of scale going on. We know the player base that was buying product for PF1 decreased over time (Paizo wouldn't have done a new edition otherwise) to the point where it couldn't sustain Paizo. However, Legendary or I think I saw Rogue Genius was working on something to which have much smaller staff, maybe able to make a successful run at it.
 

ronaldsf

Explorer
it will be interesting to watch, especially with the different economics of scale going on. We know the player base that was buying product for PF1 decreased over time (Paizo wouldn't have done a new edition otherwise) to the point where it couldn't sustain Paizo. However, Legendary or I think I saw Rogue Genius was working on something to which have much smaller staff, maybe able to make a successful run at it.
I honestly don't know if a consensus can be reached on how to "fix" 1e, while keeping what people who are sticking to 1e like about 1e. And it would need to do this "fixing" while staying compatible with the content 1e players already possess.
 





BryonD

Hero
So first off not a prediction, just that that would be the next data point. And that data point is that the APG is at the moment the top non D&D gaming product on Amazon (and not the weird one off CRPG books that pop up). That would be what I would expect for PF sales from now on they aren't going to eclipse a popular D&D, but will sell better than any other system.
Only you can tell anyone what you meant. Here is what you said: "I do feel like the APG release is going to be the next real telling point for 2e. That was really the turning point for PF1 and it could really be the same for PF2. Not that it will catch 5e that isn't happening, but where it establishes itself."

There is a difference between a "data point" and a "real telling point". It isn't ambiguous that the difference in phrasing is meaningful.

Every reference to 5E just comes across as an admission of defeat. As has been stated numerous times in this thread, nobody anywhere is expecting PF2E to match 5E. But there is plenty of evidence that it is NOT taking off as the next huge game. The fact that it is SELLING #2 is pretty meaningless. PF was #2 until SF came out and then stayed in #3 slot until PF2E was announced. And PF was dying. So simply pointing at being a far distant #2 does nothing to show that PF2E has caught on in the way that a game with that brand on it could have.

But, that aside, this "telling point" has come. The sales of the core book are down from when the quote was first posted and there is no general evidence that the player base is growing.
 

BryonD

Hero
I believe Legendary Games is planning to make PF 1.5 or basically a "fixed" version of Pathfinder / 3.5e
I'm very interested to see how this goes.
But I do think there is a lot of difference here. When PF came along as a 3X clone there was intense love of 3X still around and a lot of dissatisfaction with 4E, without a great alternative.

There are a ton of great alternatives now and that is without even accounting for 5E. And the market demand for PF1E in 2020 is nothing compared to the demand for 3X in 2009.

PF needed to be replaced. And a tune-up isn't going to change that given all the changes that have occurred in the industry in the past decade.

That said: look at it from Legendary's point of view. They are a small label and they were doing "fine" selling PF 3PP (amongst other stuff).
I don't think 3PP for either PF or PF2E is flying off virtual shelves these days. But if you look through Kickstarters which offered both, PF consistently moves more units that PF2E. (FWIW, I think the reality is that some reasonable number of people are PLAYING PF with their book they have had for years. So the pool of buyers is there, but I also think PF players, taken as a group, are more inclined to buy 3PP stuff than PF2E players. So it is tough to truly read anything meaningful into that data with regard to overall fanbase.) So I think a PF tune up is likely to be a potential big seller in the context of Legendary Games.

It may sound like a double standard on my part that I am giving the PF tune up a pass here.
But that is because it is a double standard on my part.
PF2E had the potential from a marketing point of view to be way more than it has achieved. Neither PF nor any tune-up has that same potential at this point in the market.
 


CapnZapp

Legend
The meaning of "heartbreaker" was originally "seeing this designer reinvent the wheel breaks my heart (as a fellow designer)". Often the issue was how clearly the writers have read no other games than the edition of D&D they're trying to improve upon, completely failing to see how the problem has already been elegantly solved by other games several times over. Even by a later edition of D&D itself in some cases...

Now it's sometimes used to mean something else: a game intending to be the next big thing by fixing perceived flaws with the market leader, but ending up forgotten and nearly unused.

The reasons for this might vary from the mundane (few companies have marketing clout even a fraction of WotC/Hasbro) to the truly heartbreaking: failing to realize what people actually wants.

All too many games have started out to "fix" the current edition of D&D only to end up adding everything and the kitchen sink, which has the effect of making that game no longer be percieved by the gaming public as a recognizable alternative, which then in turn makes it go ignored by the very customers it was intended to woo.

This can be the little things - adding "lion men" to your game when that's not part of D&D. Or integrating a brand new campaign world so tightly in rules text customers can't use it for their regular generic D&D game. (Obviously I can't come up with anything else than subjective examples. Add yours instead of getting riled up by mine!)

My point here is to learn why Paizo managed to avoid having Pathfinder 1 be a heartbreaker. That game genuinely clawed itself the spot as the obvious alternative to D&D for a whole decade.

And the lesson is: ruthlessly eliminate everything that makes your product look like its own game, rather than "D&D just better" (or simpler or whatever you're gunning for). Then focus on a niche WotC has for some reason left unfilled. Don't take the 500 pound gorilla head on.

Are you doing a whole new game or are you doing a D&D replacement game, is the question.
 
Last edited:

Aldarc

Legend
Or integrating a brand new campaign world so tightly in rules text customers can't use it for their regular generic D&D game.
If you talk to other people on this forum, you may be surprised to learn that a fair number of people actually like having campaign worlds tied to a rules system.
 

dave2008

Legend
If you talk to other people on this forum, you may be surprised to learn that a fair number of people actually like having campaign worlds tied to a rules system.
Maybe, but I'm oldschool. My game habits started without published settings and I have never used one since. I always play in a setting of my own (often with influences from published settings). I find it distracting / annoying when there are constant references in a rule set to a setting I don't use. It is not insurmountable, but it is a grievance of mine with PF2e.

I don't know the PF numbers, but over 50% of D&D players play in a homebrew setting (that % is 5+/- yrs old, so it could have changed), so there could be more than a few you find backed in settings annoying.
 

Aldarc

Legend
Maybe, but I'm oldschool. My game habits started without published settings and I have never used one since. I always play in a setting of my own (often with influences from published settings). I find it distracting / annoying when there are constant references in a rule set to a setting I don't use. It is not insurmountable, but it is a grievance of mine with PF2e.
Is it any more annoying than racial weapon proficiencies? Or differences between devils and demons? Or archons and angels? Or even the existence of tieflings, hill dwarves, or rock gnomes? I find these things annoying in D&D, but you don't. So maybe it's because there is some aspects of "setting" material in the rules that you can overlook that nevertheless frustrate me. Rules often come with implied settings, and the rules often say something about the universe.

I don't know the PF numbers, but over 50% of D&D players play in a homebrew setting (that % is 5+/- yrs old, so it could have changed), so there could be more than a few you find backed in settings annoying.
My purpose here is not to discount that there are those who dislike backed-in-settings, but, rather, to affirm that there are people who do like them and that they do serve a purpose for many games, particularly those that do not have the privilege of being D&D.
 

Campbell

Legend
On the integrated setting bit:

I choose RPGs to play like I choose board games to play. I look at my shelf and say anyone want to play Vampire, Exalted, or Apocalypse World. I don't usually start with a specific idea and then go looking for a matching game.

Integrated or default setting helps make a game playable off the shelf.
 

dave2008

Legend
Is it any more annoying than racial weapon proficiencies? Or differences between devils and demons? Or archons and angels? Or even the existence of tieflings, hill dwarves, or rock gnomes? I find these things annoying in D&D, but you don't. So maybe it's because there is some aspects of "setting" material in the rules that you can overlook that nevertheless frustrate me. Rules often come with implied settings, and the rules often say something about the universe.
I only DM, so I don't get into the player side of things much, so nothing there really bothers me. The last two campaigns I ran I told my group the could pick any intelligent creture in the monster manual.

Regarding monsters and default lore: Sure, some of that is mildly annoying to, but that is expected in any game I'm going to play. Nothing is going to match my preferences 100%, we have to except some degree of annoyance. My point would be to limit as much as possible. Games with the setting more heavily baked in are more annoying. It is not likely I wouldn't be willing to play in them, but probably not GM in them.

My purpose here is not to discount that there are those who dislike backed-in-settings, but, rather, to affirm that there are people who do like them and that they do serve a purpose for many games, particularly those that do not have the privilege of being D&D.
Sure, I wasn't trying to suggest there aren't such people.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
If you talk to other people on this forum, you may be surprised to learn that a fair number of people actually like having campaign worlds tied to a rules system.
Absolutely.

But few of them want the same campaign world.

Unless you make it so Forgotten Realms-y there's something for everybody in it. Take Golarion for instance.

But the greater point is that Level Up doesn't need one, since the project is intended to be used with 5th Edition.

Adding too-specific campaign details only increases the "otherness" of the end product. Exactly what I'm arguing LU does not need: the impression this is no longer just a unconditional upgrade to 5E; now you need to accept lion men to use it (to reuse my earlier silly example).

If it is a great success, I'm sure Morrus can whip up a campaign world at a later date.
 

Aldarc

Legend
I don't think that LU needs an associated campaign setting, but I'm also not terribly interested in LU as a project. (Nothing against Morrus and EN Publishing.) I'm not sure how LU really enters the discussion as we were talking about Fantasy Heartbreakers.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
I don't think that LU needs an associated campaign setting, but I'm also not terribly interested in LU as a project. (Nothing against Morrus and EN Publishing.) I'm not sure how LU really enters the discussion as we were talking about Fantasy Heartbreakers.
Possibly a question directed at me:

If LU ends up having features because Morrus and the team wants to rather than because 5E needs them. Features that end up turning away the greater customer base because the end product no longer is recognizably 5E.

It's easy to see how that would be heartbreaker-y.

This should not be 6E in disguise. It should be 5E, but upgraded.

Already the playtest document solves issues that maybe didn't need solving. Features that maybe would be better off be kept in the drawer for use elsewhere.
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top