Biiig post by Jason Buhlman, thought it was worth a breakdown.
Simply iterating on the same game engine was not enough. The 3.5 engine has had its day, and as a team we decided that it was time to modernize, to create a version of Pathfinder that was more than just tinkering around the edges. The game needed to evolve to speak to the desires of the current crowd of gamers. It needed to an engine tune up that made it easier for novices to grasp, while still providing a rich depth of option. What it needed was elegance in its design.
Failed on all counts then - PF2 is more byzantine for new players while being shallower and less elegant. Modes and the transitions between them alone are far clunkier than nearly anything in the lineage of 3.0 to Pathfinder. I also don't think that the 3.5 engine has had its day, as none of the successors have enjoyed the same sort of success. Indeed, there hasn't really been a game that's both been a response to 3.0 and something with actual substance.
The first steps were taken shortly after the first edition of Pathfinder made their (sic) way to the printer. The work that was left undone, due the necessity of compatibility, would become the basis for what the new game needed to be. The math engine caused problems with high level play that led to an unsatisfactory game experience. Imbalances in fundamental class design created imbalances that left some players feeling unable to contribute. A bloat of rules options without any checks in the system created a game that was unwieldy to run.
At least some problem areas were genuinely identified, but if Buhlman is crediting that to the PF design team he needs to stop huffing whatever substance it is that gives him delusions of grandeur. The maths issues and the issues in class design have been long known to exist. Finally, rules bloat is only a problem if a GM allows it to be - they can and do disallow whatever they like. It's a bad argument, but what else should be expected given the product we were given?
But in spite of all that, the game itself was still a success, due in large part to the world it created, and the investment it fostered in players and game masters alike. We knew, from the outset, that the story of the game had to remain the same, even if the rules that made it manifest needed to change. Achieving that goal meant that we needed to do a lot more than simply clean up the game. We needed to start over.
I was unaware that the spirit of the game was "you need a feat to scratch your arse" but maybe I'm out of touch? It's also a non-sequitur to claim that in order to keep the story the same the rules must be rebuilt, as the story emerged from the rules. Unless, of course, you substitute the word "story" for "railroad", which I think makes it a much more accurate sentence.
Pathfinder Second Edition does not include one single sentence or rule carried over directly from first edition. And while that made for a lot of additional work, it also meant that we could look at each rule cleanly, unburdened by the conventions of the past.
The reverse-Newton - instead of standing on the shoulders of giants, why not just step down to the ground? Or in this case, perhaps plunge is a more accurate image.
In the end, many things work similarly to how they did in first edition (a longsword still does 1d8 damage), but we were able to innovate where the game called for innovation. Take the action system for example. In first edition, when it was your turn to act in combat, you had a complicated menu of options, between move actions, standard actions, free actions, swift actions, and on and on. In second edition, we simplified that to just three actions, removing all the types and making your turn a more dynamic part of the game. The narrative is still fundamentally the same, but how you take part in the game is much simpler to teach and easy to use.
I fail to see how making every action compete with every other action is any good for choice paralysis. Indeed, it's much worse. Having three categories of action works, because things of similar value can be grouped together. The only even moderately difficult thing is immediate actions in this context.
Next, we knew that if we were going to take a fresh look at the game, we needed a playtest that would allow us to gather meaningful data about the core of the game’s engine. In the past, our playtests had focused on the experience of the rules, relying mostly on player and game master anecdotes to gather information. While this gave us insight, it was impossible to apply any measure of statistical rigor to the data. For second edition we decided to create an environment that allowed us to gather better data about our game.
The playtest fucking sucked. I should know, I was there. Bans and locking threads critical of the new edition were common. The idea that there was any statistical rigor involved is complete bullshit. I'm not even going to address the rest of what he says about the playtest because it's either facile or a lie. I will note that the point on removing resonance is laughable, as that system was so horrible I suspect it was only added to enable the team to say "see, we listened!" while ignoring all the other fundamental issues that people brought up.
The second edition of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game has been in the works for years, but now on the eve of its release, all of that work is about to pay off. The new version of the game is simple to run
Okay, how does stealth work? How do you transition between modes? What's the DC for any basic task? Do tasks scale with your level or not? I've not seen any simple answers for any of these questions, and these are just off the top of my head.
and easier for new players to learn,
Whatever shit you're on pass it to me because that is some wacky stuff. The maze of traits, allowable actions for skills, feat choices, requirements for number-whoring, and so on make it much harder for new players to learn
but it keeps all of the features that players have come to appreciate from Pathfinder: deep character customization, a rich world narrative, and all the tools to tell the type of stories that you want to tell. Speaking for the team, we can’t wait to share those stories with you.
Oh fuck off. Deep character customisation is a total lie, given how low-impact and boring most abilities are. It can't tell all stories that PF1 core alone could tell and it never will because the idea of the PCs having significant agency is one that clashes with the AP/PFS model that is being hard catered to.
The final line is very telling - it may be bad phrasing, but it seems that the team can't wait to share with you the stories you want to tell. Not for you to share it with them. They are the ones who decide what stories you want to tell.
