Quote from: S'mon;1055458I think Starfinder would be considered successful by normal RPG standards, but obviously is no D&D 5e.

I agree, but I also contend that they were hoping it to be a success on the level of D&D5e to forestall their decline of Pathfinder.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1055330Luckily there are plenty of good game designers in the OSR who don't despise you, and you can support!

Although depending on who you are, you can probably find some in the OSR who despise you, too. I'm pretty sure Zak S and the Pundit have no use for me and mine, for example.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1055495Although depending on who you are, you can probably find some in the OSR who despise you, too. I'm pretty sure Zak S and the Pundit have no use for me and mine, for example.

Well you are the Enemy of Love and Gaming!

Quote from: sureshot;1055467Pathfinder 2.0  did not have to suck. In trying to please everyone they released a rpg that I should like in terms of mechanics and it leaves me utterly cold in interest. Their new found wokeness just made me feel no regret that I do.

It is their first try at actually designing an RPG, so it's bound to be massively flawed.

Just play GURPS 4e

The only Woken/Broken I like was created and performed by Matt Hardy.

If they wrote an rpg using his schtick, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. As the whole thing would likely be hilarious.

Broken/Woken Universe as an RPG setting. That just gives me instant joy thinking about it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1055498It is their first try at actually designing an RPG, so it's bound to be massively flawed.

It is kinda funny that after 10 years they have apparently not noticed that they absolutely suck at rules design!  They seem at some point to have forgotten that with PF they were standing on the shoulders of relative giants like Jonathan Tweet, the designers of 3e D&D.  I ran PF to level 14 with allowing the Advanced Players Guide, where they first added in their own design work, and it was absolute garbage - it made 3e D&D look like a paragon of intelligent design & cross-class balance.

Quote from: S'mon;1055539It is kinda funny that after 10 years they have apparently not noticed that they absolutely suck at rules design!  They seem at some point to have forgotten that with PF they were standing on the shoulders of relative giants like Jonathan Tweet, the designers of 3e D&D.  I ran PF to level 14 with allowing the Advanced Players Guide, where they first added in their own design work, and it was absolute garbage - it made 3e D&D look like a paragon of intelligent design & cross-class balance.

They COPIED from Jonathan Tweet et al.  Legally mind you, but it was just copying.  Then they got praised for it, and let it go to their heads, not realizing the amount of work required into making a system as complex as 3.x.

I noticed a definite decline in quality and a lack of willingness to listen to the fanbase after the release of the Advanced Players guide. It was the last decent book imo. Then the playtest fiasco with the gun rules. The nerfing of  stuff done poorly while bending over backwards to please PFS.  The complete stubborness and unwillingness to find the proper middle ground in creating new archetypes and feats. https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo-bard-archetypes/geisha/ . Hopefully the group has 10 minutes to wait at all times for me to use it.

What really proved to me that their success has gone to thdir heads was the release of the Advanced Class Guide. A poorly edited  book, purposefully released at Gencon that year so they could make money.  Requiring 9-10 pages of errata so it can be used. The only reason it was that many pages was they used small print in the errata PDF. if they used their standard it was much worse. Most rpg companies would be apologetic and contrite at having released such a book. Not them. Barely a apology. The one given was sorely lacking. At least they admitted it was rushed in development for Gencon.

We as gamers usually don't like reprints of existing material. They began in the newer books to reprint old material. At first it was barely noticable. Then in books like the Adventurers guide it was 1/3-1/4 reprint. They thought the fanbase was stupid to notice  or willing to happily pay for reprint.  Hint we really really are not. When some fans brought it up politely and rudely. They show they don't like pushback from the fans either constructive or not.

I enjoy Pathfinder for themost part. I am not a fan of the developers, less so after their jumping on the SJW bandwagon.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1055536The only Woken/Broken I like was created and performed by Matt Hardy.

If they wrote an rpg using his schtick, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. As the whole thing would likely be hilarious.

Broken/Woken Universe as an RPG setting. That just gives me instant joy thinking about it.

Broke - Woke - BrokeWoke!

jg

Would they actually be better off at this point just making adventure paths and setting material for 5E?

Focus on their strengths.

Slightly off topic but maybe not.  That's now 2 books in a row -- Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron and Waterdeep Dragon Heist -- where WotC felt it was necessary to have a sidebar celebrating how sexually woke both places are.  After my defense of the elves in Mordenkainen's I'm starting to feel a little disappointed.

Quote from: KingCheops;1055570After my defense of the elves in Mordenkainen's I'm starting to feel a little disappointed.

Clearly Thou Art An Alt-Reich Shitlord.

Quote from: KingCheops;1055570Slightly off topic but maybe not.  That's now 2 books in a row -- Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron and Waterdeep Dragon Heist -- where WotC felt it was necessary to have a sidebar celebrating how sexually woke both places are.  After my defense of the elves in Mordenkainen's I'm starting to feel a little disappointed.

What did the virtue signalers do in Wayfinder's Guide?

Quote from: Apparition;1055572What did the virtue signalers do in Wayfinder's Guide?

Yeah, specifics are welcome.

With the Realms, it's arguably in keeping with what I've heard about Greenwood's original vision.