Pathfinder 2E Taking20 -"I'm Quitting Pathfinder 2e Because of This Issue"

Zardnaar

Legend
You make a conclusion without evidence and then when presented with evidence to the contrary just dismiss it as "data"? Where else should we derive our information?

What I'm saying is online 1.5 years after release 1E is more popular online.

Not last time I paid attention was a few months ago. Newer information can easily contradict that statement.

IMHO that's not a great look. If PF2 was doing great one would expect that not to be happening.

It might be doing ok, good etc. Not claiming it's failing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Zardnaar

Legend
Based on what? What metric? You're just moving goalposts now.



I mean, PF2 is gaining more people than PF1 is losing a month, which tells me that they are getting new players in general not just getting old converts.



Yeah, but given that these numbers are given in a proportion of games being played, COVID shouldn't really boost any of these numbers. Even still it's rather steadily climbing as PF1 drops.

One would expect a game in print is selling more and a game out of print to gradually lose players.

See previous comment though if PF2 was doing great you would expect it to already gave displaced PF1.
 

Zsong

Explorer
How does one change into a t-Rex in most indoor situations. I can’t imagine a t-Rex inside most house or wandering down the halls of most buildings. I’m sure it would work in the buckingham palace.
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
PF2 doesn't seem super popular. I wasn't expecting it to dethrone 5E but even with Pathfinder players it seems online more ate sticking with 1E.
Take it for what it’s worth, but someone did a survey and shared the results with reddit. Something like half the respondents had come from 5e. I have a feeling that some groups will shift from PF1, but it’ll be like 4e where a lot of people just don’t want to change something that works. You can make incremental changes, and maybe Corefinder will succeed there, but you can’t make sweeping changes (regardless of how needed, and note that’s not an endorsement of any particular solution that Paizo chose for PF2).

The biggest test of PF2’s staying power is whether it can retain those converts. It’ll grow slowly, organically over time if it can. Otherwise, it’s in trouble. I think it’s too early to tell yet, so I’m not ready to write it off. We do homebrew stuff anyway, and I don’t allow Lost Omens content, so if Paizo never published anything else, we’d be fine. I can’t say that for the people doing official adventures or trying to run open tables. If Paizo starts doing more licensing arrangements or contracts someone to convert APs (even old ones) to 5e, then I think it’s fair to conclude that not all is well with PF2.
 

What I'm saying is online 1.5 years after release 1E is more popular online.

Not last time I paid attention was a few months ago. Newer information can easily contradict that statement.

IMHO that's not a great look. If PF2 was doing great one would expect that not to be happening.

It might be doing ok, good etc. Not claiming it's failing.

I mean, you came in on a post that said PF2 was in real trouble. This feels like you're just Motte & Bailey-ing now.

One would expect a game in print is selling more and a game out of print to gradually lose players.

See previous comment though if PF2 was doing great you would expect it to already gave displaced PF1.

Yeah, you keep asserting this but I don't see why this expectation should be out there. PF1 was created in resistance to an edition change and has 10 years of content: it's thoroughly entrenched in a way most other games aren't. That PF2 keeps climbing and it remains number 2 on the sales chart seems to be an indicator that it's steadily climbing.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
I mean, you came in on a post that said PF2 was in real trouble. This feels like you're just Motte & Bailey-ing now.



Yeah, you keep asserting this but I don't see why this expectation should be out there. PF1 was created in resistance to an edition change and has 10 years of content: it's thoroughly entrenched in a way most other games aren't. That PF2 keeps climbing and it remains number 2 on the sales chart seems to be an indicator that it's steadily climbing.

It's just IMHO nothing more nothing less. Bought it, tried it didn't do a lot it was kinda fun but wasn't worth devoting any more effort into it.

It's complexity doesn't outweigh everything else and a houseruled 3.5 or PF1 can achieve the same thing.
 

It's just IMHO nothing more nothing less. Bought it, tried it didn't do a lot it was kinda fun but wasn't worth devoting any more effort into it.

It's complexity doesn't outweigh everything else and a houseruled 3.5 or PF1 can achieve the same thing.

... Okay? I don't know how that relates to anything I said.
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
Personally, I think this is a fairly well-reasoned and not obnoxious response (because man, some people are reacting stupidly to this whole thing).

Finally got a chance to watch this video. It’s a good response, but I had a sense of deja vu. We’ve been having this conversation here for months, and many of us have been making the exact same arguments. If that’s anything to go by, I don’t think those who share Cody’s perspective will be persueded by them.

Has anyone responded yet in defense of Cody that he just had to run Age of Ashes as written because (reasons)? That’s what usually comes next in this discourse. It’s an effectively unassailable (self-inflicted) position — because anything one could do to address the problem is out of bounds. It also infantilizes the GM, who is just helpless to do anything to make the game actually fun for everyone.

After that comes something something PF2 something 5e, though Cody kind of already went there at the end.
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
I’ll also add that using roll20 numbers to evaluate PF2 is problematic because roll20’s support for PF2 is not only terrible but expensive and incomplete. You can do it, and we did, but the experience is much better elsewhere. For example, one might look at my roll20 campaign and conclude we abandoned PF2, but we actually moved over to Foundry (which has much better PF2 support).
 

I’ll also add that using roll20 numbers to evaluate PF2 is problematic because roll20’s support for PF2 is not only terrible but expensive and incomplete. You can do it, and we did, but the experience is much better elsewhere. For example, one might look at my roll20 campaign and conclude we abandoned PF2, but we actually moved over to Foundry (which has much better PF2 support).

Yeah, I'm a Foundry player, too. Honestly I'd say it's the best VTT out there for just about anything, but especially if you want to do fun stuff with battle/dungeon maps.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top