My attempt to split this discussion off the "Are RPGs Getting Better, or Worse?" thread.

Based on the few comments so far in the thred mentioned above,and if you read the "So what is the consensus on PF2e?" thread on the Big Purple's d20 ghetto. Current word of mouth does not seem so hot.

It's looking like Pundit will be proven right in his prediction: (starts at 2:00 minutes in.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UDEQCJEWKo

To summarize: Pazio hit lightning in a bottle with PathFinder due to a combination of several WOTC own goals: culminating with 4e going over with the D&D fanbase like a fart in a cathedral.

But those conditions no longer exist.

I believe Pundit is correct, and Pazio should recognize the 5e market shift and quietly slow their support for PF and start dual stating all their modules/adventure paths with 5e.

A gradual shift/downsize back to what made their name in the first place would have been the safe bet.

Now IMHO, if they were gonna take a chance on a PF 2nd edition. They should have been more bold: Go even more back to the roots of D&D than 5e did...

The PF 2e design goal should have been to be the B/X rules set to 5e's "advanced" rules. Take out all the crunch you can whilst still being able to dual stat the modules/adventure paths so that PF 2e would be more or less "Upwards Compatible" with the worlds most popular RPG...

They'd get to ride 5e's successful coattails, and PF2e would still have a reason to exist as its own thing.

Now whether or not enough of the current PF fanbase would follow that big paradigm shift to make it worth the time and money? That is a different question. (I tend to think probably not.)

But as it stands now, I think Pazio is proving that when left to their own devices game design is not their forte.

But the game isn't out yet.

So, have the tea leaves been read wrong?

Or is Pundit right, and we're gonna see a train-wreck in slow motion?

I predict trainwreck, but I don't think going B/X to 5e's Advanced would at all cater to Pathfinders current player base and only accelerate their problems.

If anything, I think going compatible with 5e, but then adding a bit more fiddly crunch (essentially "Advanced" to 5e's "Basic") would be the better bet to keep those members of their player base that they're able.

For example, they could do "Compound Feats" where instead of an ASI or feat you instead get two smaller feats (one of which could be +1 to an ability score) to choose from.

They could also put in an option replacing flat proficiency bonuses with skill points... say 2 per proficient skill at level 1, then +1 point per level after that (based on the idea that every four levels you get a +1 bump to roughly four skills) and say, set the limit the max skill ranks to 3+1/4 levels for class/background skills and to +1/4 levels for non-class/background skills.

Basically, turn up the dial on customization in the same way that PF really went to town on 3e's engine in terms of offering lots of customization options.

I think they're going to do just fine with it, but then I have not read whatever you have read at The Big Purple or Paizo's own boards. What makes you think the consensus is it's not going well?

Dual-statting books seems like a good idea; since PF already is D&D IP it is very easy to convert PF stuff to 5e.

Making PF2 into BX would not work as it would lose them their current fan base, especially the 'whales' who actually buy all that crunch.

Yes Paizo have always been terrible at design, PF was successful because at core it was just 3.5e with better art.

Paizo has cultivated a large user base, and an 'early adopter' type model on their subscription system. Their user base I believe is large enough that they could make PF2 a 'success' simply if they are able to maintain half of what they built with PF1.

What I think is perhaps more interesting is Starfinder. It has magic and PF races, plus a more sci-fi model. The books and modules are also more expensive than Pathfinder (street price). Will those that invested in PF and then Starfinder jump on board with PF2 so soon?

I don't think PF2 is will fizzle the company into bankruptcy, but I think it more likely that it will not grow their business.

What will happen is what allways happens if the changes in editions are too much. You loose at least half your customer base and are not making that back in new players as you now have a bad rep AND a new system as self created barriers. Add in their tendency to virtue signal and that can be yet another barrier.

The only thing that might mitigate it are the cultists amongst the fans. But usually these fanatics are more a hindrance than a help as they invariably come across as cattle.

YMMV of course. But we've seen enough it across the board. At this point it boils down to how much momentum they have left and how they treat the fans of 1e PF.

Quote from: Lynn;1072166...

I don't think PF2 is will fizzle the company into bankruptcy, but I think it more likely that it will not grow their business.

To clarify - while I think PF2 will fail, it will not cause Pazio to make an instant save vs.bankruptcy roll.

But it's failure can certainly set them down that path.

/Armchair designer mode activate.

If I were Paizo, Pathfinder 2.0 would be a streamlined and tweaked relaunch of the existing system. Everything is as backwards compatible as possible. Don't kill the golden goose to chase the bird in the bush, to smash two sayings together.

There was a market for 3.0, that evolved into a market for Pathfinder. Making the game like 5th ed, or even more "basic" rules, puts them directly in competition with WOTC and the OSR titles. That's a competition they will very likely lose.

The problem with PF2 is that it doesn't have an audience beyond people who are Paizo fans.

Pathfinder was essentially a direct continuation of 3rd edition.  I had no interest in their adventures, but I bought their books with new classes and monster books.

Now they won't be making any new 3e material, so they lose that audience. They won't win over people who like 5e.

The only thing that TBP thread about PF2 does is reinforce that I'm glad I don't game with any of the shitheel users of that forum.  While there's certainly negative feedback regarding PF2, I wouldn't categorize that thread as a consensus that PF2 sucks.

Interesting note - the (currently) last post in that thread claims Jessica Price left Paizo of her own accord, rather than getting kicked to the curb as reality played out.  Curious if that's just confusion on the part of the poster, or if someone's trying to rewrite the narrative.

Quote from: JeremyR;1072173Now they won't be making any new 3e material, so they lose that audience. They won't win over people who like 5e.

Yeah - at some point (I'm going to guess starting with the August 2019 adventure path cycle), they're going to stop publishing any content for PF1 - they've claimed that they'll keep the miniature PF1 rulebooks in print for as long as there's demand, but nothing beyond that.

I'd love to get a look at their Q3 and Q4 books this year, and see just how bad things get.

Quote from: kythri;1072174The only thing that TBP thread about PF2 does is reinforce that I'm glad I don't game with any of the shitheel users of that forum.  While there's certainly negative feedback regarding PF2, I wouldn't categorize that thread as a consensus that PF2 sucks.

...

There's no positive press in that thread. For a community that absolutely gushes over favored titles that have barely hit the streets, the lack of positive commentary is a big tell.

And being the big purple it has naturally moved to commentary on the problematic elements in Pazio's house setting... It is awesome to behold.

PF2e may have decent initial sales and then fall into obscurity unless the final product is just drastically different.

If I was them, I would have released an "Unchained Core Rulebook" with simpler rules and classes that resulted in characters with the "correct math" to work with existing content. It wouldn't have been super pretty, but with enough innovative design Paizo could have launched a stealth new edition.

I think Paizo would have also been better served focusing on PF1e than ever doing 2e. 5e made the most ground during their development of 2e and I feel like a lot of people try 5e and then branch out to RPGs that better suit their personal taste. Paizo could have gotten those interested in a rules heavy game, but they just failed to keep delivering good content (Shifter) and I am really not confident in their ability to make an interesting game.

Oh and PR-wise, I feel like they hate their fans and really don't want feedback from a bunch of Old (probably White) Men (their fan-base)

Quote from: Jaeger;1072179There's no positive press in that thread. For a community that absolutely gushes over favored titles that have barely hit the streets, the lack of positive commentary is a big tell.

Since when has anything Paizo ever been that community's favored title?  I mean, Paizo embraced the whole "get woke" schtick pretty early, enough to delay the inevitable with the purple fucktards, but it's not as if they were ever gushing over a d20 derivative that wasn't based around a venisonocracy.

Quote from: Jaeger;1072179And being the big purple it has naturally moved to commentary on the problematic elements in Pazio's house setting... It is awesome to behold.

They've been openly critical about problematic elements of Paizo for some time now.

The problem with the Paizo devs was that they became to complacent with their position in the rpg industry just as Wotc. With an attitude of not wanting to change or really improve anything and not liking to receive any pushback from the fanbase.

There were many issues with the 3.5. rpg engine ported over to Pathfinder. With little to no attempts to try and fix them. When they did it would take forever or usually not done very well. They could have made more optional rulebooks to try and fix the issues that way those who are happy with the rules are content and those that want more could buy their books.

Mostly they assumed the competition would not do anything to try and make a better rpg which is never the smart attitude to have. Now Paizo is facing the same competition for PF 1 with a company called purple duck games with their Porphyra Roleplaying Game  essentially they want to make a clone of PF 1E. If Paizo can do it why not someone else. Though Porphyra would need a better name imo.