Pathfinder 2E Release Day Second Edition Amazon Sales Rank

[darjr]

At about 54:44 in Nerdarchy talking to Nord Games Megan Roy talk about Pathfinder 2e. They talk about not being able to make enough with their 1e conversions and how they are looking at 2e but are not at all sure it would be worth it. Also they talk about how the 3rd parties were surprised with the 2e announcement. Which I didn’t think was the case, was it? Was 2e a surprise to third parties?

 

[dave2008]

Well, isn't that completely irrelevant then? No offense at all because having a preference for pre-3E to 3E is totally cool. But do you dispute that 3X and the OGL created the "second golden age" and/or "the glut" depending on how you want to look at it? If you are saying that 3E NEVER got huge, then OK, I'll just leave it there. I really don't think you are saying that.

I think it is safe to say that for the marketplace as a whole, it became massive for some period of time.
So if you NEVER joined in, then it doesn't say anything about the pace and/or timing for people who DID join in.

I am suggesting nothing other than the fact that some people, like myself, did not immediately adopt (or adopt at all) 3rd edition D&D. Nothing more.

I really need to stop posting in this thread, it has gotten quite silly!

 

[darjr]

Me too. I need an intervention

 

[Parmandur]

I am suggesting nothing other than the fact that some people, like myself, did not immediately adopt (or adopt at all) 3rd edition D&D. Nothing more.

I really need to stop posting in this thread, it has gotten quite silly!

Speaking as the OP, it started off very silly!

 

[Aldarc]

What? It takes a bit more than that to claim confirmation bias.
If you think that 5E had a slow reception, then noted.
I stayed with PF at first myself, and then after playing 5E for a bit switched BACK to PF because I like it more.
So no idea why you would suggest I have a pro-5E bias.
But, no, I don't take your anecdote or mine as trumping the data that we have seen.

Conversation with you would be easier if you didn't take everything as a personal attack. I suggested nothing of a pro-5e bias. Try reading. You noted that there were exceptions. I said that there were a number in my group who were not excited about 5e - so we waited a year while working on PF1 campaign - but they turned into 5e super fans. The confirmation bias is that my anecdote is to be counted as your exception to the rule. It confirms your bias that I am an exception and thus can be promptly discounted from what you see as the trend.

 

[BryonD]

For the time I think 3e was a great game, but I had to evangelize it to a certain subset of 2e players. And all the same groups I mentioned earlier were there. There was a group of 2e players that 3e was a non starter for. For whatever reason. Same for 1e, 4e, PF1, etc. There is always that group, just a question of how big they are and how long they hold out.

EDIT: And I just got an email from Sandy Peterson for Cthulhu Mythos for PF2 coming out later this year. It doesn't really prove anything but was a funny coincidence.

I totally agree that this is a consistent thing.

 

[BryonD]

Conversation with you would be easier if you didn't take everything as a personal attack. I suggested nothing of a pro-5e bias. Try reading.

OK - here is what was read: "My old group waited for about a year to start 5e because we were still playing our Pathfinder 1 game. They were not too thrilled when initially looking at 5e, but a few of them are now "play nothing but 5e" people. IME, it's not as "right away" as you may imagine. But I suppose that I am an exception that you can easily discount as part of your confirmation bias. "

You jumped directly to an accusation of confirmation bias. The context was specific to 5E, so I interpreted it in that context. But your statement was an "attack" proclaiming my conformation bias. Don't attack someone and then ask them to not act like they have been attacked.
I'm completely good with you attacking me all you want.
But trying to have it both ways is silly.

You noted that there were exceptions. I said that there were a number in my group who were not excited about 5e - so we waited a year while working on PF1 campaign - but they turned into 5e super fans. The confirmation bias is that my anecdote is to be counted as your exception to the rule. It confirms your bias that I am an exception and thus can be promptly discounted from what you see as the trend.

I don't think you understand the definition of confirmation bias.
Perhaps you really didn't mean an attack and simply didn't understand your own words. If so, I accept that.
But what you are describing here is not confirmation bias, it is just simple rational categorization of data.
And recognizing outliers and minority subsets is entirely reasonable and involves no bias.

 

[Aldarc]

OK - here is what was read: "My old group waited for about a year to start 5e because we were still playing our Pathfinder 1 game. They were not too thrilled when initially looking at 5e, but a few of them are now "play nothing but 5e" people. IME, it's not as "right away" as you may imagine. But I suppose that I am an exception that you can easily discount as part of your confirmation bias. "

You jumped directly to an accusation of confirmation bias. The context was specific to 5E, so I interpreted it in that context. But your statement was an "attack" proclaiming my conformation bias

The context was about what I quoted, namely that whole "when a new game gets people excited..." The whole confirmation bias was about how my anecdote would be discounted to conform to your preconceived notions or hypothesis.

 

[BryonD]

I am suggesting nothing other than the fact that some people, like myself, did not immediately adopt (or adopt at all) 3rd edition D&D. Nothing more.

I really need to stop posting in this thread, it has gotten quite silly!

OK, but that was not at all clear. There was a clear context regarding a how quickly 5E was adopted. You replied within that context.

If we are discussing what to have for dinner and you say "eggs" and I question if you really want eggs for dinner or not and you reply "I was talking about breakfast", then my confusion is, I think, understandable.

I'm not challenging your statement in the least. But I am guilty of taking it in the overall context.

You are right that this is getting silly. As I see it, the reasonable interpretations of the information have been presented and the counter-points are moving into tangents that don't apply.

 

[BryonD]

The context was about what I quoted, namely that whole "when a new game gets people excited..." The whole confirmation bias was about how my anecdote would be discounted to conform to your preconceived notions or hypothesis.

Right, you don't understand confirmation bias.