Hi all,
For starters, my goal for this thread is a discussion regarding people's experiences with the player population for 5e. I don't want this to devolve into people/experience/system bashing.
So far I have had really good luck as far as the players I have interacted with for 5e. I'm in two campaigns currently, one where I DM and one where I am a player.
The players in both groups contribute to the story, and several have very well-developed character personalities.
As I'm getting more into VTTs, I had thought about running a short Pathfinder campaign, but I'm a bit apprehensive about the kind of players I would get for PF.
What is everyone else's experience? Do you still play both 5e and PF? Similar players between the two or dramatically different?
Thanks.
|
So far, despite liking the system well enough, my experience with 5E players (or DMs, more specifically) was bad. Though it was only one game.
The game was basically a pure dungeon crawl. The kind where none of the skills you have matter at all except spotting ambushes because combats are just gonna happen and knowing what's going on is pointless since you can't do anything about it. Pure combat and nothing else that matters happening.
Of course, that was mostly the DM's fault, and his Pathfinder games were like that, too...but he jumped into 5E pretty enthusiastically when it came out, leaving Pathfinder behind almost completely.
IME, most people who preferentially GM Pathfinder are more inclined to care about skills, social stuff, and story.
But this is all pretty much one guy, so I wouldn't assume this is necessarily common at all...though I do get the impression a lot of the pre-written 5E adventures (which the guy in question used) do encourage this attitude to some degree. Something Pathfinder adventures don't do IME.
But even there, that says more about this one guy and the published adventures than about 5E in general.
The game was basically a pure dungeon crawl. The kind where none of the skills you have matter at all except spotting ambushes because combats are just gonna happen and knowing what's going on is pointless since you can't do anything about it. Pure combat and nothing else that matters happening.
Yuck - I've played in that kind of game before as well, absolutely hated it. The DM of that campaign would actually get frustrated when a player used their PC's skills to lessen or avoid combat encounters. Doubly bad for me at the time because I was playing a skillmonkey.
Due to backgrounds and inspiration, I think 5e generally encourages roleplaying and well-developed personalities. Perhaps more so than Pathfinder does with its campaign traits.
|
|
Yuck - I've played in that kind of game before as well, absolutely hated it. The DM of that campaign would actually get frustrated when a player used their PC's skills to lessen or avoid combat encounters. Doubly bad for me at the time because I was playing a skillmonkey.
I was playing a Bard. A Valor Bard, mind you, but still. And he didn't get annoyed, you just flat-out couldn't succeed at talking people down or anything like that.
Or more accurately, you could, but only by saying exactly the right combination of words out-of-character...and I mean exactly right, not just tonally correct. But my character's +11 Persuasion? And me roleplaying a friendly, likable guy? Both completely meaningless unless I said the exact right words the GM was looking for.
It combined a lot of the worst aspects of 'you have to roleplay social skills' and 'RAW and only RAW' without the advantages of either...
I may still be a little bitter about that game.
I'm not actually bitter about 5E, mind you, but that's sadly the only game of it that I've been in...and thus when asked about my experiences, it's sorta all I have to go with.
Due to backgrounds and inspiration, I think 5e generally encourages roleplaying and well-developed personalities. Perhaps more so than Pathfinder does with its campaign traits.
System-wise, I totally agree. The published adventures? I'm not so sure. Though admittedly, a fair bit of that issue is likely from them re-publishing old AD&D stuff and the like.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I played Pathfinder for a few years, then for various reasons switched completely to 5E about a year or so ago. I've recently started my third 5E game as a GM, and am in a few more as a player (mostly PbP).
If someone has a particular way they're set on playing (always murderhobo, always talking first, playing out the same tired stereotypes since 1980, whatever) then they're going to keep doing it regardless of whether the game is 5E or Pathfinder. I've seen every sort in both Pathfinder and 5E.
One exception would be the people who, in Pathfinder, fail to realize that it's a system where it's the player's responsibility to assemble all the little bonuses into an appropriate total (much like assembling bricks to form a wall), and then look down their nose at the people who do understand that Pathfinder's set up that way. I've often encountered Pathfinder players who seem to think that (for example) BAB plus your starting STR is all the game is assuming you have, and anything else is gravy; then when they see someone who understands that no, Pathfinder is built around an assumption that you also start accumulating enhancements, stat-boosting items, and other little bonuses here and there; they start accusing the latter player of "abuse", "rollplaying", "playing a spreadsheet instead of a character," etc.
Since 5E puts everybody on the same pre-packaged math, the whole "your numbers are so big you must not know how to play a real character" thing from the Pathfinder community doesn't seem to really come up in the 5E world. Which is refreshing. In fact, I think I'd have to say that overall, in 5E I've scarcely seen a shadow of the condescension, elitism, one-true-wayism, and backward-minded reality-denial that I've come to accept as a standard element of the Pathfinder community (not the whole community, just always present).
But as far as actual playstyles (like preferring dungeon crawls or social interaction or whatever)? Both systems have both types of players/GMs, and I've not yet noticed any particular trend for one system to have a higher proportion of a given style.
Due to backgrounds and inspiration, I think 5e generally encourages roleplaying and well-developed personalities. Perhaps more so than Pathfinder does with its campaign traits.System-wise, I totally agree. The published adventures? I'm not so sure. Though admittedly, a fair bit of that issue is likely from them re-publishing old AD&D stuff and the like.
Ah, yeah, I haven't read or run any of the published adventures. I'm running a 5e campaign of homebrew and converted materials.
I love the Pathfinder system. I love that they have options for those that want the options. And that's one of the things I despise about 5th edition (no to little options for those who want options, unless you go to the dmsguild in which you have to try and convince the DM to let you use any of it at which point you may as well not even bother). It's the Pathfinder players that I don't like (based off my experiences only, which I know this doesn't apply to every one). Of course, my last experience with Pathfinder has colored my views the most, and that was the worst I have ever had the displeasure of experiencing.
Those who have chosen 5th edition as their main game, seem less focused on the numbers above all else, though it still exists. My last Pathfinder game, everyone seemed more focused on the numbers, and had absolutely 0 character interaction. NPCs were devolved into nameless piles of numbers, and the PCs were nothing but numbers on sheet of paper. I could tell the GM was annoyed, almost as much as me, at the other 3 players only wanting to do combat after combat after combat, where the monsters could only hit on a natural 20, while the other 3 PCs could only miss on a 1, rolling massive amounts of dice each hit. Even the final bad guy of the AP only lasted 2 rounds.
On the other hand, my experiences with 5th edition players has been the complete opposite.
Like I said, I love Pathfinder as a system, it is the players of Pathfinder (that I have been exposed to) that ruin the system. Who knows, maybe in 6 years' time the players of 5th edition will wind up the same. I know for me, there are some things in Pathfinder I prefer, and would love to port over to 5th edition.
But yeah, in my experiences, Pathfinder players are more focused on the numbers, combat, and being murderhobos. I know that isn't every Pathfinder player, and that there are 5th edition players like that. But my past experiences have made me very picky when it comes to people I will play Pathfinder with. And since I haven't played it since October 2014, I have yet to find a group that I would like to join for some Pathfinder.
Sorry for the rambling.
|
Pathfinder definitely tends to encourage certain play styles. And not in the "hack and slash/dungeoncrawl/murderhobo" sense, but rather in the approach to character creation and advancement. It's like playing a PVP MMO (in a sense) in that you won't succeed unless you have all of X Y and Z advantages that are assumed to be achieved by pretty much every player. These advantages are either taken for granted, or you have no inherent knowledge of them and you have a harder time succeeding. But for all of those who do achieve these advantages, the only measure of success or failure is how well you work in tandem with others to defeat the scenario.
People who have any knack for design of either system can see that it isn't about "roll playing" or whatever, but most games attract players who, whether they internalize the system or not, prefer to know the ins and outs of a system rather than the why and how of it. These are the players who tend to misunderstand the intentions behind a design choice (such as needing magic items and other bonuses to be competent for most Pathfinder scenarios and modules).
It's an interesting dichotomy, but one that could potentially be addressed more directly. I think that the Pathfinder Strategy Guide was a good first step.
As for the original question, Pathfinder players run the gamut. They can be kind of persnickety about particulars (what books/classes/rules are allowed), but I've not had too many horror stories. If I don't like a person, it is usually based on their personality more so than their attitude towards the game, whatever the system.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the Pathfinder system. I love that they have options for those that want the options. And that's one of the things I despise about 5th edition (no to little options for those who want options, unless you go to the dmsguild in which you have to try and convince the DM to let you use any of it at which point you may as well not even bother). It's the Pathfinder players that I don't like (based off my experiences only, which I know this doesn't apply to every one). Of course, my last experience with Pathfinder has colored my views the most, and that was the worst I have ever had the displeasure of experiencing.
I've found that the "option gap" between the two systems tends to be overstated due to system ignorance. If you look at Pathfinder, and I mean really look at it critically, you discover that a lot of the "options" are things that nobody actually plays because they're so bad. A book might come out with dozens of new feats and spells, but only a tiny handful actually get played. The chaff can't really be counted as "options Pathfinder has that 5E doesn't". Not if we're being honest about real games.
Then, out of what's left, you've also got to eliminate (for purposes of system comparison) all the Pathfinder material whose sole function is to allow a strategy/build that all 5E characters are allowed to do for free. For instance, 5E lacks all those combat maneuver feats that Pathfinder has, but 5E will let you do the actual maneuvers free of charge. So in this case, Pathfinder's actually the system with fewer options, since you're limited in what you can do by how many feats you can afford to pay for the privilege.
So by the time you've factored in Pathfinder's non-option bulk and the things that you can do in both systems but only Pathfinder will charge you for, the gap in options between the two systems is actually a lot smaller than it first seems.
Those who have chosen 5th edition as their main game, seem less focused on the numbers above all else, though it still exists. My last Pathfinder game, everyone seemed more focused on the numbers, and had absolutely 0 character interaction. NPCs were devolved into nameless piles of numbers, and the PCs were nothing but numbers on sheet of paper. I could tell the GM was annoyed, almost as much as me, at the other 3 players only wanting to do combat after combat after combat, where the monsters could only hit on a natural 20, while the other 3 PCs could only miss on a 1, rolling massive amounts of dice each hit. Even the final bad guy of the AP only lasted 2 rounds.
That's ironic that you imply a connection between "only care about numbers/combat" and "only miss on a 1, high-level fight ended in 2 rounds". The former is certainly a player issue (and one where I share your dislike), but the latter is a system issue (and part of why I left Pathfinder).
It is the design intent of Pathfinder that you eventually start hitting on a 2 with your primary attacks; that way you can hit on a 7 with your second attack and on a 12 with your third attack. If your primary attack needs something like a 9 to hit, then the whole framework of iterative attacks falls apart (especially for full-BAB classes, who get that fourth attack). Similarly, high-level Pathfinder combat has a natural tendency to get faster and faster (in terms of meaningful combat rounds, not real time at the table) due to the swingy nature of full-attacks/crits as well as the increasing pervasiveness of save-or-suck spells. This might be why, a year and a half later, you still haven't found a Pathfinder group where you can expect those things not to happen: they're built in. If it's not happening, then something's been modified (like the GM fudging rolls/HP, or people playing high-level Pathfinder as though it were low-level Pathfinder, etc).
All that being said, have you tried Play-by-Post? It has the advantage of open recruitment allowing you to say "I'm looking for X type of players", which might be a real boon for you. Best of luck! :)
5th Edition is great for casual players, and PF really rewards players that study the minutia of the rules, particularly feats, traits, spells, races, and classes, and how they all interact with each other.
It's probably not really about 5E vs. Pathfinder. Smaller game communities have the tendency to be nicer, for some reason. I don't know player numbers for both games, but I'd assume 5E would develop roughly the same ratio of... difficult players as PF once it reaches comparable numbers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every game I have ever played has attracted more than its share of numbers-first types.
Even systems like L5R which theoretically do not prioritize face-smashing as part of character design produce their share of "let me abuse this combination to smash face better than you" players.
It's not the system, it's the people playing it- and there is little accounting for how those will roll out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to play with more or less the same group of players I played AD&D and 3/3.5/pathfinder with. Some of them lean towards 'optimisation as a goal' because they can't help it. Choosing inefficient option X over efficient option Y just makes them unhappy in the long run - let me call them group A. Others pay no attention to which is optimal, they try sometimes but they can't keep up the interest in number maximisation- never have never will - let me call them group B.
Group B ended up in latter stages of 3e versions either falling behind in usefulness in many situations or getting group A to help design their characters. Even with a group A designed character they seemed to be reluctant to use it to maximum efficiency. Efficiency wasn't their goal.
Group A gained more familiarity with the rules which meant discarding more and more options as the 'best one or two choices' (in their mind) became the only options for them.
Now for group B it doesn't really matter what system we play - they make a character that kinda works mechanically and works roleplaying wise and they are happy. They are less happy if their character gets rendered redundant mechanically and they are forced to play the group A game or be a second stringer.
We haven't played anywhere near as much 5e as we had 3e and pre system mastery has the benefit that the group B designs aren't redundant and the group A don't feel the need to discard options as they experiment.
What I am finding is that because 5e has less "system mastery" secrets and toggles the group A players don't feel the need to explore and push those boundaries. It is freeing for them in that they can largely ignore the 'optimisation push demon' because there appears to be less available. They can just relax with their character creation - not feel grumpy that they didn't follow a more efficient path. Group B is happy because there are less mechanical rules to follow to not be rendered a second stringer.
So in summary IME it hasn't attracted a different type of player but it has allowed players to focus on different elements. In my groups which are comprised of group A and group B players both are happy with this not being a big element of the game.
I love the Pathfinder system. I love that they have options for those that want the options. And that's one of the things I despise about 5th edition (no to little options for those who want options, unless you go to the dmsguild in which you have to try and convince the DM to let you use any of it at which point you may as well not even bother). It's the Pathfinder players that I don't like (based off my experiences only, which I know this doesn't apply to every one). Of course, my last experience with Pathfinder has colored my views the most, and that was the worst I have ever had the displeasure of experiencing.I've found that the "option gap" between the two systems tends to be overstated due to system ignorance. If you look at Pathfinder, and I mean really look at it critically, you discover that a lot of the "options" are things that nobody actually plays because they're so bad. A book might come out with dozens of new feats and spells, but only a tiny handful actually get played. The chaff can't really be counted as "options Pathfinder has that 5E doesn't". Not if we're being honest about real games.
Then, out of what's left, you've also got to eliminate (for purposes of system comparison) all the Pathfinder material whose sole function is to allow a strategy/build that all 5E characters are allowed to do for free. For instance, 5E lacks all those combat maneuver feats that Pathfinder has, but 5E will let you do the actual maneuvers free of charge. So in this case, Pathfinder's actually the system with fewer options, since you're limited in what you can do by how many feats you can afford to pay for the privilege.
So by the time you've factored in Pathfinder's non-option bulk and the things that you can do in both systems but only Pathfinder will charge you for, the gap in options between the two systems is actually a lot smaller than it first seems.
Those who have chosen 5th edition as their main game, seem less focused on the numbers...
I know that many of the "options" people skip over because they are "traps", and others are baked into the system itself (like the combat maneuver feats, spring attack, etc). I probably should have been a bit more specific in the options I was referring to, which are classes and races. Those two, to me, are the more important player options when it comes to characters, as they are two of the more prominent aspects of a character. I know most of the feats are "trap options", same with a number of class features (rage powers, rogue talents, various spells with damage dealing spells being the bigger traps, etc).
As for play-by-post, I haven't done one of those since early 3rd edition. I think about the time they revised it in 2004, maybe a bit earlier. They are a bit on the too slow side for me, and they seem to fold quite often. A bit more than VTT groups. And since my work schedule is never the same any given day of the week (I may work morning s$*~, "mid shift", evening shift, have off, might work 4 hours, might work 10 hours), not having that consistant of a post rate would probably keep me from enjoying it.
In comment to Werecorpse, I would have to say I would probably fall into his group B. I feel "dirty" if I give any focus on the numbers and optimization. I guess it stems from previous DMing experience, and being on the other side of the table when it comes to the bad guys getting splattered in 1-2 rounds, which makes me feel like I just wasted my time in figuring out what to put into a combat scenario. So I hate doing something like that to other DMs. Also, to me, it makes for a hollow character. I know not everyone feels that way, but this is just how I am.
I had thought of trying out pbp again, but I wouldn't know how to begin.
My current group is an interesting mix. Most played 1st and 2nd Edition, some played 3.5/PF, none played 4th, and now we're doing 5th.
System mastery varies from player to player, but 5th Edition is great equalizer. There are almost no bad choices. The arcane trickster has changed up some of her spells.
We also had a wannabe old school Fighter/Magic-User/Thief multiclass (Eldritch Knight/Evoker/Arcane Trickster), but he eventually rebuilt it as a Criminal background Eldritch Knight two-weapon fighter and was much happier. A Fighter 2/Rogue 2/Wizard two-weapon fighter has WAY too many bonus action options. The straight-up Fighter eldritch knight has just enough magic to be fun, but still fight like a fighter.
Personally, I think the paladin and ranger do the "eldritch knight" thing better, since they have lots of nice bonus action spells. Even War clerics have some nice bonus action spells.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I probably should have been a bit more specific in the options I was referring to, which are classes and races. Those two, to me, are the more important player options when it comes to characters, as they are two of the more prominent aspects of a character.
My 5E PHB has more races and classes than my Pathfinder CRB. But I guess once you add supplemental books, yeah, that changes pretty fast.
I feel "dirty" if I give any focus on the numbers and optimization. ... Also, to me, it makes for a hollow character.
My psychology background is screaming at me to talk about the unhealthiness of feelings like these, but maybe I should just let it go.
I had thought of trying out pbp again, but I wouldn't know how to begin.
I happen to know somebody's planning to open recruitment for the Curse of Strahd adventure soon. I'll post a link when I see it. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I had thought of trying out pbp again, but I wouldn't know how to begin.I happen to know somebody's planning to open recruitment for the Curse of Strahd adventure soon. I'll post a link when I see it. :)
As promised. :)