|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a pretty obvious straw man argument there.
Could you point out exactly where I attacked a position you do not hold?
I will point out that I am pretty sure I am unable to play 3.5 now, due to lack of players.
Yeah, I'll still have my books, but the 300-500+ dollars a year I spend on Pathfinder won't be making their way to Paizo anymore, I will find some other outlet for that spending.
Yeah, I still have my 3.5 books, but my money doesn't make its way to WotC anymore, as I have found Paizo as an outlet for that spending.
Bah! This is why I think Beginner Box should morph into Pathfinder Lite so that you have a easier to grasp sister product that is compatible with the main more complicated and modular product. I've taken my hand at stringing modules I got from the last Golem sale together to make Beginner Box "APs" and that's worked out fairly well. I can see fat modules like The Dragons Demand functioning with both PF-Lite and Pathfinder as I've already GMed that module with the Beginner Box (Turned the dragon black and connected it to Black Fang's Dungeon) and that worked out well enough. There are even pdfs flying around with the rest of the base classes in Beginner Box form, including feats, spells and creatures. I don't think it would split the fan base that much if we got two lines of RPGs that function with the same adventures. It can even be taken further but using the consolidated skill list and abstracting a few more rules.Bah. It'll never happen. People still play 1e and 2e, even thoug ugh were aready at 5e D&D. The same will be true if Paizo goes PF 2.0; there will still be PF 1.0 games.I didn't buy 4th edition D&D because I didn't want a new edition. I didn't buy 5e because I didn't want a new edition. Why would I buy PF 2.0?Because you can't play PF if everyone else is playing PF 2.0.RoleMaster/MERP.
Whats that?
CINNIBAR!
Rolemaster (one of the most complex systems out there); more classes than PF, with specific point costs for skills & weapons/weapon groups (different for each class) bizarre spell progression; MERP [Middle Earth Role Playing while they had the Tolkein license] simpler version, fewer classes, less complex character creation (took almost forever, not forever).
I would pay money for a 2nd edition Pathfinder that made various improvements but remained compatible, and not more complex. For instance, I have yet to see that a pool of rage in rounds has ever made barbarians better, and it certainly makes them more complex.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't buy 4th edition D&D because I didn't want a new edition. I didn't buy 5e because I didn't want a new edition. Why would I buy PF 2.0?Because you can't play PF if everyone else is playing PF 2.0.That's a pretty obvious straw man argument there.
Of COURSE I can and will play PF 1.0 if there is a PF 2.0 . . . the same way when I play a World of Darkness game I still play Old World of Darkness.
Then why did you bother with Pathfinder in the first place, rather than just keep playing 3.5?
Why did you bother with 3.5 in the first place, rather than just keep playing 3.0?
Why did you bother with 3.0 in the first place, rather than just keep playing 2nd Edition + Player's Options?
Why did you bother with 2nd Edition + Player's Options in the first place, rather than just keep playing 2nd Edition Core?
Why did you bother with 2nd Edition Core in the first place, rather than just keep playing 1st Edition + Unearthed Arcana?
Why did you bother with 1st Edition + Unearthed Arcana in the first place, rather than just keep playing 1st Edition Core?
Why did you bother with 1st Edition Core in the first place, rather than just keep playing Original D&D + the supplements?
Why did you bother with Original D&D + the supplements in the first place, rather than just keep playing Original D&D?
Why did you bother with Original D&D in the first place, rather than just keep playing Chainmail?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get the idea you can't play the old system just because new ones come out. It happens every day. Regardless of any sarcastic response anyone may have, it's true.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My firm belief with what I've seen with Paizo's engagement with this community is that should they do a 2nd edition, they won't just evacuate their existing stories and material. What form that transition might look like, no one can guarantee that. So, I would agree those preemptive blanket declarations are premature and a bit grandstanding. Maybe they're simply saying they like things as they are. That's fine. But, if Paizo can be true to their design philosophy while giving out an all around better mechanical experience that better aligns with how that philosophy has changed and better supports their plans going forward, I can only see it as a healthy evolution of the system.
|
|
Then why did you bother with Pathfinder in the first place, rather than just keep playing 3.5?
Why did you bother with 3.5 in the first place, rather than just keep playing 3.0?
Why did you bother with 3.0 in the first place, rather than just keep playing 2nd Edition + Player's Options?
Why did you bother with 2nd Edition + Player's Options in the first place, rather than just keep playing 2nd Edition Core?
Why did you bother with 2nd Edition Core in the first place, rather than just keep playing 1st Edition + Unearthed Arcana?
Why did you bother with 1st Edition + Unearthed Arcana in the first place, rather than just keep playing 1st Edition Core?
Why did you bother with 1st Edition Core in the first place, rather than just keep playing Original D&D + the supplements?
Why did you bother with Original D&D + the supplements in the first place, rather than just keep playing Original D&D?
Why did you bother with Original D&D in the first place, rather than just keep playing Chainmail?
Not to mention Holmes Basic, Moldvay B/X, Mentzer BECMI, and the Rules Cyclopedia.
Whats that?Bah! This is why I think Beginner Box should morph into Pathfinder Lite so that you have a easier to grasp sister product that is compatible with the main more complicated and modular product. I've taken my hand at stringing modules I got from the last Golem sale together to make Beginner Box "APs" and that's worked out fairly well. I can see fat modules like The Dragons Demand functioning with both PF-Lite and Pathfinder as I've already GMed that module with the Beginner Box (Turned the dragon black and connected it to Black Fang's Dungeon) and that worked out well enough. There are even pdfs flying around with the rest of the base classes in Beginner Box form, including feats, spells and creatures. I don't think it would split the fan base that much if we got two lines of RPGs that function with the same adventures. It can even be taken further but using the consolidated skill list and abstracting a few more rules.Bah. It'll never happen. People still play 1e and 2e, even thoug ugh were aready at 5e D&D. The same will be true if Paizo goes PF 2.0; there will still be PF 1.0 games.I didn't buy 4th edition D&D because I didn't want a new edition. I didn't buy 5e because I didn't want a new edition. Why would I buy PF 2.0?Because you can't play PF if everyone else is playing PF 2.0.RoleMaster/MERP.
The Best RPGS ever..... Get off my lawn you whippersnapper....
My preference is for RM2 but since Paizo is the best at the moment and my players and I like quality product Paizo put out we are playing Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2.0 is NOT Protean
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Response to the title....
Time passes and things renew, flowers bloom and editions change.
To say that it will never happen is like the little kid with his fingers in his ears going "La la la la.... can't hear you..."
3.5, and the PF improvements on it, is very long in the tooth, no matter how much material is out for it or how much more comes out in the future. Vancian casting needs updated/changed/elemenated and the magic system revamped, Combat maneuvers need to be buttoned down and CMB/CMD would need to be use for specific actions instead of everything that isn't something else, Martial classes needs to have more abilities to call their own instead of being Feats and Archtypes needs to be a part of the overall design instead of tacked on. Their is so much that these great people at this company can do if they get out of the OGL box.
Another thing that may happen down the road is the possibility that Paizo will put out a second setting with it's own iconics, Gods, and such. Not gonna happen anytime soon, PF ver 2.0 will most likely happen before that, but it is a possibility.
In my view, the new setting should be tied to the new rules.
I think if you put out new rules whilst continuing to expand Golarion, you're going to have to put a lot of effort into converting how-things-used-to-work into how-they-work-now. Also, whatever is possible in Golarion has to be possible in the new ruleset - I'd rather they give themselves a free reign when and if they feel it's the right time for a "PF2".
That's a pretty obvious straw man argument there.
Could you point out exactly where I attacked a position you do not hold?
You attacked the position "I can't play Pathfinder anymore if Pathfinder 2.0 comes out".
A position that neither I nor anyone in this thread has held.
I said, "Paizo has to decide whether PF 2.0 will bring more income than continuing to support PF 1.0 by factoring in the new customers and the ones they will keep versus the ones, like myself, who they will lose"
That's all. I didn't say "If PF 2.0 comes out, my books spontaneously combust", simply that I am not going to be investing money in PF 2.0, so people like me represent the risk of the new edition.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a pretty obvious straw man argument there.
Could you point out exactly where I attacked a position you do not hold?
You attacked the position "I can't play Pathfinder anymore if Pathfinder 2.0 comes out".
A position that neither I nor anyone in this thread has held.
I said, "Paizo has to decide whether PF 2.0 will bring more income than continuing to support PF 1.0 by factoring in the new customers and the ones they will keep versus the ones, like myself, who they will lose"
That's all. I didn't say "If PF 2.0 comes out, my books spontaneously combust", simply that I am not going to be investing money in PF 2.0, so people like me represent the risk of the new edition.
It seems you may have completely missed TOZ's point. That is that if everyone else (as in available players and GMs) is playing 2.0, then you will either play solo games, or adapt.
He has had this experience with D&D3.5. Now, if you have a table of reliable players who wish to continue with PF, like many do, no worries!
/translation
The only thing that's inevitable is that eventually things like paper and dice rpg's pass into history in favor of some new amusement the same way hula hoops went into the recycle bin.
Just like how Chess-family board games are totally on their way out and haven't been around for approximately 3500 years, right?
Oh wait.
The only way I can see Tabletop RPGs dying out is if humans develop VR roleplaying games that can perfectly replicate real-world physics and then-some.
TRPGs are still king among physics engines because they use the human mind, and thus you're limited only by your imagination as far as what you can do and interact with, even when using things like minis to represent the field.
I have little doubt that eventually personal computers will be able to fully replicate real-world physics, thus allowing us to do as many things, or more, in a video game as we can say our characters are doing in a tabletop RPG, but I'd honestly be surprised if we see that before the turn of the next century, to be honest.
Lazar, paper magazines in general, whatever the topic, have been in severe decline. As have newspapers. It's hardly specific to tabletop RPG magazines.
NO! IT'S THE HARBINGER!
|
Just a thought.
If Paizo did come out with a new "Core" Rulebook- even Core 1.25, including all of the errata, along with some of the material from the ARG, ACG, UM, UE, etc.... would that necessarily be a bad thing?
Yes, Pathfinder is going strong. I handed out over 25 new Pathfinder Society numbers at GaryCon. Freakin' GARYCON.
But- as I look at Amazon, I see that the book came out on August 19, 2009.
From a business perspective, and considering how strong PF is, it may not be a bad business decision to consolidate and bring out not the 7th Revision, but a new Core 1.25 within the next three years.
All of the current "Splatbooks" would remain viable.
I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing a compilation volume of some of the older material published for the 3.5 edition of the world's oldest RPG updated with the lessons learned in the last 6 years, and combined into one larger splatbook- such as Gnomes/Halflings/Dwarves/Elves/Humans of Golarion at 128 pages, but I'm sure that request would be a separate thread.
-- S.
The core book could make do with half the number of spells currently in it IMO, that'd free up a lot of space.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The merits would depend on what you replace it with of course.
Anyway, aren't the core campaign types those who insist that the current core book is balanced well? Likely they'd never notice that spells like planar binding were missing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing a [...] Gnomes/Halflings/Dwarves/Elves/Humans of Golarion
|
|
The only way I can see Tabletop RPGs dying out is if humans develop VR roleplaying games that can perfectly replicate real-world physics and then-some.
Would be a poor substitute. It doesn't matter how many experience points you've gained by killing holographic orcs, the average person is doing good to know which end of the sword to hold. :P
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Card gaming is doing very well which is why TSR/WOTC made their own disastrous attempt at entering the market...
If Magic the Gathering was disastrous, then the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game is so far beyond a failure that companies that are just in the proximity of Paizo geographically should have gone out of business.
I'd buy the hardcover book the moment it came out. That being said, I wouldn't change my group over unless it was still openly available online for my players to use. In my group we have the GM (me) +4 others and I own all the core books (no setting guides yet) and one of my players (who has his own game) also has copies of most of the hardcover books (I think he is missing some of the smaller ones like Monster codex and NPC Codex) and 2 of the remaining players now own core books (after being in my game for 1-2 years) however, when we started, I was the only person who owned books, and until I made a few player changes (let the other GM in) none of my players owned books.
my biggest problem with D&D is the fact that it's not available online for my players. We played about 2 sessions of 5th ed when it came out before going back to pathfinder. Character creation was a nightmare, filled with "can you pass the book back?".
As long as the content remains open for my players to access online, I will be giving it a run for it's money.
I'd buy the hardcover book the moment it came out. That being said, I wouldn't change my group over unless it was still openly available online for my players to use. In my group we have the GM (me) +4 others and I own all the core books (no setting guides yet) and one of my players (who has his own game) also has copies of most of the hardcover books (I think he is missing some of the smaller ones like Monster codex and NPC Codex) and 2 of the remaining players now own core books (after being in my game for 1-2 years) however, when we started, I was the only person who owned books, and until I made a few player changes (let the other GM in) none of my players owned books.
my biggest problem with D&D is the fact that it's not available online for my players. We played about 2 sessions of 5th ed when it came out before going back to pathfinder. Character creation was a nightmare, filled with "can you pass the book back?".
As long as the content remains open for my players to access online, I will be giving it a run for it's money.
Ah fond memories.
"DMG!"
"Yeah, got you right here."
"Players 2!"
"NO BEGUILERS!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually I was thinking of TSR's Spellfire. I keep thinking of WOTC after TSR and WOTC before the acquisition as separate companies.Card gaming is doing very well which is why TSR/WOTC made their own disastrous attempt at entering the market...If Magic the Gathering was disastrous, then the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game is so far beyond a failure that companies that are just in the proximity of Paizo geographically should have gone out of business.
Spellfire was a pretty bad game, made during a dying period in TSR's life.
I think you're missing something with your logic:
Gaming is thriving while individual games are rising and dying at break-neck rates.
Tabletop gaming as a whole is more popular now than it ever has been, in part because of the rise of mainstream Eurogames like Settlers of Catan, Ticket to Ride, etc.
Tabletop RPGs have had a significant resurgence, as well, in large part because of 3rd Edition's prominence reigniting peoples' interest, and the open-source aspect of the d20 System allowed companies to not just make materials for D&D, but also entirely-new games using the d20 system; there was even renewed interest in systems OTHER than the d20 system which came about as a result, for people who wanted an alternative.
But that doesn't mean their aren't games that die en masse. Since 2000, there have been many CCGs that have come into being and then died out, many within their first two years of existence: Fullmetal Alchemist TCG, SpyCraft the TCG, the VS System, Kaijudo and its older twin Duel Masters, Hex, the Dragon Ball CCG, Chaotic, Redakai, etc.
Several more exist and manage to stay alive, but are all-but unheard of.
Basically, unless a game is Magic the Gathering, YuGiOh, or Pokemon, it's either DOA, living on borrowed time, or will eternally live in obscurity (and YuGiOh is facing seriously hard times, with the even diehard fans admitting that the game's rules are unravelling with the ever-growing power-creep of new card types).
Card Games, like anything, need marketing to get noticed, and a good game mechanic to stay alive.
Magic the Gathering was explosive because it was the first TCG - WOTC honestly thought that it wouldn't become one of the milestones of gaming, and figured it'd just have a small-but-devoted fanbase.
"Starter Decks" were supposed to be "buy it once and you're done" things, with "Booster Packs" being just that: boosters for your deck. They didn't think people would have 10 different Decks, and they didn't realize how far-reaching it'd be.
They KNEW cards like Black Lotus and the Moxen were broken, and simply figured their rarity was a balancing factor - they honestly believed that, say, 1-2 people in the Philadelphia area would have one, and thus there would be this mystique about the game, where players would play against others and see cards they literally never new existed.
And then people swarmed on the game after an article in one of the major gaming mags at the time talked about this fantastic, cool game that had premiered at GenCon, and the rest is history - since then, MTG has been THE biggest card game in the world, overtaken only by Pokemon or YuGiOh for about a year or two at a time each, but perennially staying at the top regardless.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still think they need to offer something new. Or more than a simple rehash with better production values. PF is facing more competition now. A newer version will be compared to the current version and other RPGs. With gamers asking "why should I switch or buy the new edition. If the problems with high level okay are not addressed for example. Those who hate how PF handles higher levels. Are not going to reinvest IMO.
While I understand why they did one core book. I prefer a separate phb and dmg. My first of core book fell apart. My second is still intact because I cover hardcover RPGs with a sticky plastic adhesive clear material. Even that is not full proof.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have an idea, and maybe a stupid one, concerning a new edition for paizo. So, we all know Paizo mostly thrives off their adventures, which grants them some flexibility with the other releases.
What if, instead of releasing a 2.0 core rulebook, they instead release a "update document" for free on this website. Basically, it would contain updates to everything that "needs" to be updated (because honestly, not everything needs to be changed), and they would be accessible to EVERYONE. And, of course, backwards compatibility. It would be a lot of guides on what to change from the core. So, they put these new rules out there and still please everyone because nobody has to buy a new book just to use whatever adventures come afterward.
But, this is lofty, optimistic dreamer talk. I don't expect it to be viable.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The basic question there is "Can they fix whatever needs to be fixed while remaining backwards compatible?"
I think the answer is no.
And therein lies the problem. A large portion of the fanbase wants the system to be fixed, but an equally large portion of the fanbase wants it to simply be the fourth iteration of the inherently flawed 3.x system, with minor enough changes that they can run any existing adventure as-is.
Paizo cannot please both groups.
To state my opinion flatly, I don't understand why people feel pressured or the desire to completely ditch a previous version of any RPG just because a new version is forthcoming.
Sure, the number of people will dwindle when comparing 4e to 5e, for example. Same could/would be said for PF2.0. However, all that matters is the group you have put together. All you ever have to do is appeal to a DM plus 3-5 players. You don't have to be one in a pool of thousands that still play 4e. All that matters is what you and your group is doing.
I, for one, will be playing all D&D editions and Pathfinder editions because that's what I want to play. So many fanboys always have to have the newest, shiny and most up-to-date rules sets and at the same time tossing aside everything before it to the point it really has driven me away from including those people in my groups.
Should Paizo bring about PF2.0 I will be ready to invest. I will still continue my PF campaigns as they are while starting up brand new PF2.0 campaigns.
Not everyone of us will move on and only play the latest and greatest. Afterall, while it would be the latest, a new edition of any rules set may not necessarily be the greatest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More, I think much of that second group can't conceive of anything but another iteration, thus the assumption that it will be just a money-grabbing move or the talk about the design space being filled.
I don't know that's being fair.
Whatever comes next, if it's another iteration, doesn't rock the boat. If it's not backwards-compatible, it's another system. The moment Paizo prints another system to ME it becomes "JUST another system". If I wanted something that isn't 3.x/PF, there is such a wide variety out there that you can rest assured I'd find something. But I don't.
SKR for instance Kickstarted a new system. I really like his design ethic but I didn't back that game because I already have a game system I want to play, and don't have enough hours to play.
It really is a complicated decision for Paizo. At least in my case, the instant the print a system that isn't compatible with 3.x/PF is the instant I have no more incentive to read/try/buy it than any of the other existing systems that I have NOT read/tried/bought.