Pathfinder 2E What's the deal with 3rd party PF2E Adventure "support"??

[Retreater]

I think it was the Wizard's Amulet.

Back in the day, I played through that one multiple times - along with the follow-up "The Crucible of Freya."

 

[Morrus]

The reason third party publishers jumped on 3e etc - including PF1 which was marketed as 3.5 continued - was the D&D branding.

No, we couldn't use D&D branding.

 

[pcrotteau]

If any of those reasons were true now, they would have been true before. That means, logically (assuming we accept the premise that 3PP support is lacking) it's something else. It's something else that's changed.

My guess as a consumer and outsider is the massive success of 5e. With all of the previous edition releases, there was no elephant in the room to contend with besides the previous edition. The general dissatisfaction with 4e coupled with the extreme popularity of 3.5, allowed Piazo to create a Juggernaut.

Originally they were riding the wave of popularity of 3.5. Now they are trying to market the Campaign World with a new rule set. This is a tighter set than the 3e, 3.5, PF1 sets.

5e appeals to a broader, more nostalgic audience with its re-writes of classic adventures. Most of the 5e that i own (outside of core) has to do with classic material: Tales from the Yawning Portal, Into the Borderlands, Isle of Dread, Curse of Strahd, Ghosts of Saltmars, and Princes of the Apocalypse. The older crowd that I run with appreciate this too.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

No, we couldn't use D&D branding.

I think they meant DND's own branding is what shapes the popularity of that system, and that by extension its a safer investment to develop material for even before we know if an edition is successful.

 

[Morrus]

I think they meant DND's own branding is what shapes the popularity of that system, and that by extension its a safer investment to develop material for even before we know if an edition is successful.

If that were true, it would have happened for 4th Edition. It didn't, ergo the branding alone isn't enough in the early stages of an edition.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

If that were true, it would have happened for 4th Edition. It didn't, ergo the branding alone isn't enough in the early stages of an edition.

Honestly, you would probably know better than most of us.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

No, we couldn't use D&D branding.

I have a lot of 3pp books from the 3e era - from a variety of publishers - that say, in general, 'compatible with the 3e of the first fantasy rpg' or similar. They may not actually say D&D but they align themselves clearly to that brand and game.

PF1 associated itself to 3.5 as the continuation of that game. PF2 doesn't associate itself with D&D and only has niche exposure - if it doesn't have some serious marketing breakout that increases its appeal to a wider audience then publishers won't support it.

 

[Philip Benz]

While there may not yet be a lot of 3pp content for PF2, there is some. Go on over to DriveThruRPG.com and search for PF2. There's a bit of stuff on there, and bound to be more.

I agree that PF2 isn't likely to be a strong competitor for DD5, but look at it another way. DD5 is growing the market as a whole, bringing new gamers into the hobby, making it more mainstream. Inevitably, some of those DD5 gamers will get tired of it (for a variety of resons) and want to try new things. PF2, along with the dozens of other second or third tier FRPGs, will certainly benefit from the market growth that DD5 brings along with it.

PF2 is a really solid alternative to DD5, offering a range of character options that DD5 doesn't. Some people will prefer simplicity and rules handwaving, others will prefer greater depth and rules-based framework. There is no reason they can't coexist. And from a purely business perspective, Paizo had pumped PF1 for all it was worth. They got new revenue streams with Starfinder, and now PF2 is in the mix. Will it be a strong second option behind DD5? Or will it be confined to niche markets like so many games in the past? I know folks who still play Chivalry and Sorcery or Ars Magica, but it's unlikely there's much revenue left in those old games, cool though they may have been in their heyday.

As far as licensing is concerned, Paizo's Compatibility Licence isn't particularly difficult to meet. A prospective author has to strip out any Golarion-based lore and a few other minor hoops and it's job done. So I don't think we can ascribe a dearth of content to licensing issues.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

If that were true, it would have happened for 4th Edition. It didn't, ergo the branding alone isn't enough in the early stages of an edition.

The new 4e licence - I can't remember it's name but it was more restrictive than the OGL - put many publishers off producing for 4e. The brand had power but the licence killed interest. PF2 doesn't have that excuse.

 

[Morrus]

I have a lot of 3pp books from the 3e era - from a variety of publishers - that say, in general, 'compatible with the 3e of the first fantasy rpg' or similar. They may not actually say D&D but they align themselves clearly to that brand and game.

Me too. Hundreds of the darn things! I even published some of them!

There were clear rules on branding contained in the d20 STL, the Pathfinder compatibility license, and the 4E GSL. I used - and am intimately familiar with - all three.

These days an OGL D&D publisher uses terms like “5E compatible” because there is no branding license, unless you publish on the DMs Guild.