How much effect did D&D 4E have on the development of PF 2E anyway?

[Staffan Johansson]

MongrelHorde wrote:

If that was true people would have left PF en masse to 5E.

A lot of us did.

Well, in my case that's not quite true. I did abandon Pathfinder and went looking for an alternative, and even started making my own hybrid. I didn't get very far though because the 5e playtest started and I fell in love with it.

[Bardic Dave]

MongrelHorde wrote:

If that was true people would have left PF en masse to 5E.

I mean, they kind of did, didn't they? Isn't that what the available evidence on sales/relative popularity suggests? 5e didn't just dethrone Pathfinder from the #1 spot, it knocked it right out of the top 5.

Anecdotally, Pathfinder's been dead in my area for like 3+ years, and 5E keeps on growing. Pretty much every group I know made the switch shortly after 5E came out—including my own.

[Cydeth]

Having built a character, I've decided that PF2 doesn't really feel like 4e to me, or at least not like 4e out of the box. Writing down the special attacks was a little odd... but honestly, I did about the same thing in PF1 when I took Power Attack or the like.

That said, I really like the new weapon qualities, now that I've poked them a little more. My elven glaive-master fighter is going to be a load of fun, and I adore how Exacting Strike synergizes with the forceful quality. Checking the playtest book, Exacting Strike was Furious Focus, so if you miss, you don't take the multiple-attack-penalty for the strike.

Now, it's possible my opinion will change as my character levels up, but that's why I'll play the game. Mostly, I'm just happy that PF2 is allowing me to build this character out of the box quite easily.

[dirtypool]

MongrelHorde wrote:

Logically I don't think this is true for a few reasons. If the main driving force for older (and/or more experienced) players was complexity of a given system people would not have rebuked 4E and moved to Pathfinder.

You present it as a binary "PF1 came out and the players chose it over 4E", and it is more complicated than that. Just as it is more complicated than "players like less complexity the older they get."

His argument neglects all the people who move out of D20 systems into other more complex gaming experiences, and your argument neglects all the people who ignored 4E altogether because they a.) didn't like change or b.) didn't like the way Wizards announced the edition change. It also ignores the people who initially supported 4E but plateaued in their enjoyment and retreated to PF1 because it was familiar. It also ignores the people who jumped in because they heard the hubbub about Paizo as the plucky upstart using the OGL to raise 3.5 mechanics from the dead and then promptly left to play neither PF1 nor 4E.

Quote:

If that was true people would have left PF en masse to 5E.

Many did.

[Crayon]

MongrelHorde wrote:

Logically I don't think this is true for a few reasons. If the main driving force for older (and/or more experienced) players was complexity of a given system people would not have rebuked 4E and moved to Pathfinder.

If that was true people would have left PF en masse to 5E.

Finally, if that were true across time (more simpler systems being more attractive) there would be large groups of people who would play with no system and would just play out a story.

One mustn't underestimate the importance of inertia.

People tend to keep doing what they're doing unless some new force is introduced into their system.

Anyway, I don't think complexity is necessarily THE driving factor, but I do think it's an important one and more likely to dissuade 5e players from trying PF2 than it is to act as a draw.

I'm also not sure 4e was much less complex than 3.5 it just had its complexity in different places than previous editions (and places I'd much rather remain simple and highly abstracted). As for the rest, lots of gamers do freeform RP either instead of, or in addition to, more conventional RPGs.

An anecdote: I was a playtester for Ars Magica 5th Edition and thus learned about Dies Irae and the end of that game-line about a year before the general public and almost instantly things changed.

My saga was largely unaffected and continued until pretty recently, but lot of the mental energy that I had previously devoted to that game and its content was left without an outlet - my interest in new books decreased, I didn't visit the forums as frequently as I used to, and I started looking at other games again - something I hadn't done with any seriousness in almost a decade.

In the end, I spent most of the time and money I put toward gaming getting reacquainted with old friends like Call of Cthulhu and GURPS, but I could just as easily have picked a new system in that turmoil. It didn't matter that I could (and in fact did) just keep playing 5e because playing the game is just one way that I engaged with it.

[MongrelHorde]

Quote:

Many did.

Quote:

I mean, they kind of did, didn't they?

Quote:

A lot of us did.

Mea Culpa! I guess I was (incorrectly) assuming my groups dislike for 5E was universal. Clearly not the case.

I would be lying if I didn't say I have my fingers crossed for PF2's success.

[dirtypool]

MongrelHorde wrote:

I would be lying if I didn't say I have my fingers crossed for PF2's success.

PF2 will be successful, just like Starfinder is successful, just like PF1 remained successful through the death of 4E, Essentials and yes the rise and height of 5E.

Will it be MORE successful than PF1 at its highest point? Maybe. Maybe not. Will it be MORE successful than 5E at the moment? Maybe. Maybe not.

Does it really matter what's on top, or if PF2 draws hordes of players away from the other game as long as you're enjoying what you play?

[MaxAstro]

The good news is that PF2e doesn't need to compete with 5e.

For example, you can call 4e a failure - and it was in terms of market share - but if Paizo manages to be as successful as 4e was in terms of number of copies sold, 2e will actually be a success by most metrics.

[thejeff]

Crayon wrote:

One mustn't underestimate the importance of inertia.

People tend to keep doing what they're doing unless some new force is introduced into their system.

Though people will also often go back to check out new variants of old favorites and D&D has a deep pull in the industry thanks to its history. Nearly everyone at least will pay attention to a new release of D&D, despite inertia.

[bugleyman]

Debating whether Pathfinder "copied" from D&D is a bit weird to me. OF COURSE it did. How could it not have? It's a freakin' D&D offshoot, for heaven's sake.

Then again, I also don't see why it matters.

[Bill Dunn]

MaxAstro wrote:

The good news is that PF2e doesn't need to compete with 5e.

But it will. People don’t have infinite time or money, they’re in the same genre, they will compete. That is inevitable.

[dirtypool]

Bill Dunn wrote:

But it will. People don’t have infinite time or money, they’re in the same genre, they will compete. That is inevitable.

Yes they will enter the same marketplace, but they don’t need to be judged against each other in a sales competition that will make or break the other. They’ve existed alongside each other for 10 years now, there is a segment of the audience that prefers D&D and a segment of the audience that prefers PF. Where they will compete is for the attention of those who are not entrenched in either camp.

There is plenty of room in this hobby for both without making it a horse race.

[Doktor Weasel]

dirtypool wrote:

MongrelHorde wrote:

I would be lying if I didn't say I have my fingers crossed for PF2's success.

PF2 will be successful, just like Starfinder is successful, just like PF1 remained successful through the death of 4E, Essentials and yes the rise and height of 5E.

Will it be MORE successful than PF1 at its highest point? Maybe. Maybe not. Will it be MORE successful than 5E at the moment? Maybe. Maybe not.

Does it really matter what's on top, or if PF2 draws hordes of players away from the other game as long as you're enjoying what you play?

The success or lack thereof of the game is important to it's players in one way, continued support. If it's not financially successful, Paizo won't have the incentive or ability to continue to dedicate time, effort and money to put out so many products and to give them such high production values. Lower levels of success will result in cutting back new releases and likely not employing as large of a staff, and won't hire so many top-notch freelancers. So in that case, success certainly matters, to an extent. Whether it outsells D&D 5 or not isn't so much an issue (which is good, because that's highly unlikely, considering the amazing brand recognition D&D has and the huge success of 5th ed), just that it's successful enough to justify high-quality support.

[dirtypool]

Doktor Weasel wrote:

The success or lack thereof of the game is important to it's players in one way, continued support. If it's not financially successful, Paizo won't have the incentive or ability to continue to dedicate time, effort and money to put out so many products and to give them such high production values. Lower levels of success will result in cutting back new releases and likely not employing as large of a staff, and won't hire so many top-notch freelancers. So in that case, success certainly matters, to an extent. Whether it outsells D&D 5 or not isn't so much an issue (which is good, because that's highly unlikely, considering the amazing brand recognition D&D has and the huge success of 5th ed), just that it's successful enough to justify high-quality support.

If this were a new game launching in a vacuum, then yes it would be time for us supporters to cross our fingers and hope it lands right. This is, however, a new edition from a company that has an entrenched place in the market; successful brand recognition of its own; and two successful catalog games.

For the kind of nightmare scenario where support dries up completely and the staff is cut and future is thrown into jeopardy PF2 would have to be an immediate massive failure that can’t be course corrected.

There is literally nothing to justify that kind of fear. Even a modest initial success for PF2 will allow the company to keep pushing forward.

[Doktor Weasel]

dirtypool wrote:

Doktor Weasel wrote:

The success or lack thereof of the game is important to it's players in one way, continued support. If it's not financially successful, Paizo won't have the incentive or ability to continue to dedicate time, effort and money to put out so many products and to give them such high production values. Lower levels of success will result in cutting back new releases and likely not employing as large of a staff, and won't hire so many top-notch freelancers. So in that case, success certainly matters, to an extent. Whether it outsells D&D 5 or not isn't so much an issue (which is good, because that's highly unlikely, considering the amazing brand recognition D&D has and the huge success of 5th ed), just that it's successful enough to justify high-quality support.

If this were a new game launching in a vacuum, then yes it would be time for us supporters to cross our fingers and hope it lands right. This is, however, a new edition from a company that has an entrenched place in the market; successful brand recognition of its own; and two successful catalog games.

For the kind of nightmare scenario where support dries up completely and the staff is cut and future is thrown into jeopardy PF2 would have to be an immediate massive failure that can’t be course corrected.

There is literally nothing to justify that kind of fear. Even a modest initial success for PF2 will allow the company to keep pushing forward.

Agreed. It'd have to absolutely flop for that. And I find that highly unlikely. And if things do really badly out of the gate, they can lean on Starfinder as they correct course. I suspect it'll likely have about the same level of success as PF1 has in the post 5e era, if not a bit more. I was just pointing out that success does matter to an extant to the players. But yeah, there's no need to be a direct horse-race with D&D. They've got different niches and fan-bases (although with some overlap). While PF2 is trying to simplify somewhat compared to PF1, they are going for a niche of more complexity and customization than 5e has.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

I still argue that core to core PF2e has meaningful complexity on par if not moreso than PF1e. Some areas were simplified a lot, others gained more complexity in turn.

Also the argument of whether it will match current 5e success or not is asinine. I honestly doubt Paizo is even chasing that, getting half of 5e's sales would be huge and cause for celebration, as is they probably hope 5e continues to grow purely because its growth will almost certainly keep new customers coming to Paizo.

[Malk_Content]

I think there will be a significant portion (in terms of PF2 sales, not in terms of hurting 5e) players who look into PF2. Not even because it offers more customization (although that is a pull for me, I played 5e because a friend was running it not because the system allowed me to do much as a player) but because it is new content. 5e hasn't produced much player facing options at all in its lifespan (almost all of it has been GM facing adventures.) My friend who is (was) a devoted 5e person is excited for PF2 just because it isn't the same book he's been trying to draw inspiration from for 5 years.

[SteelGuts]

To be honest my group is waiting for PF2 as the messiah. Because we are getting tired of the disparity of power in PF1 between experimented players and the one a little bit lazy with the rules, and th fact that if you don't have th feat taxe to do anything you are for a lot of pain. But we are also tired of the lack of classes options for 5E, especially with some classes from the core book (Ranger...) that are badly designed.

So yeah we expect PF2 to fix all that. And our expectations are very high indeed, we will accept nothing short of the perfect mix of the two. Because if it is for a good roleplay we will have 5e and for a good rollplay we have PF1.

Paizo a leading company in the hobby since ten years +, they have wonderfull artists, authors, writers, workers. We expect PF2 to be breathtaking. RPG are getting smarter, funnier, better written, every day. PF2 has to be the revelation for the few years to come.

[Staffan Johansson]

Doktor Weasel wrote:

The success or lack thereof of the game is important to it's players in one way, continued support. If it's not financially successful, Paizo won't have the incentive or ability to continue to dedicate time, effort and money to put out so many products and to give them such high production values.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind a production schedule that releases stuff at about half or a quarter of the rate during PF1.

[Staffan Johansson]

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Also the argument of whether it will match current 5e success or not is asinine. I honestly doubt Paizo is even chasing that, getting half of 5e's sales would be huge and cause for celebration, as is they probably hope 5e continues to grow purely because its growth will almost certainly keep new customers coming to Paizo.

Indeed. According to ICV2, the "best guess" sales figures in the hobby market, RPGs as a whole have gone from $15M in sales in 2013 to $65M in sales in 2018. That $50M difference? I'd wager that over 90% of that is D&D.

[thejeff]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Also the argument of whether it will match current 5e success or not is asinine. I honestly doubt Paizo is even chasing that, getting half of 5e's sales would be huge and cause for celebration, as is they probably hope 5e continues to grow purely because its growth will almost certainly keep new customers coming to Paizo.

Indeed. According to ICV2, the "best guess" sales figures in the hobby market, RPGs as a whole have gone from $15M in sales in 2013 to $65M in sales in 2018. That $50M difference? I'd wager that over 90% of that is D&D.

And much of the rest is probably spillover - people drawn into the hobby (or back into it) because of D&D who then tried out other games.

[Baron Iveagh]

MaxAstro wrote:

Depends on who you ask.

At least one person on these forums is convinced that 2e is a sneaky attempt by the designers of 4e to spring their terrible ideas upon us all again even if it means financial ruin for Paizo.

A couple other people on these forums are personally offended if you so much as breathe the idea that 2e might have been in some small way inspired by 4e.

I don't have much opinion, but I'm pretty confident the answer is some where in between those options. :P

Its 4e, and I'm cancelling my subs. I got both Adventure paths at the same time yesterday. My reaction was best described as 'I can't even...'

[MaxAstro]

Baron Iveagh wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

Depends on who you ask.

At least one person on these forums is convinced that 2e is a sneaky attempt by the designers of 4e to spring their terrible ideas upon us all again even if it means financial ruin for Paizo.

A couple other people on these forums are personally offended if you so much as breathe the idea that 2e might have been in some small way inspired by 4e.

I don't have much opinion, but I'm pretty confident the answer is some where in between those options. :P

Its 4e, and I'm cancelling my subs. I got both Adventure paths at the same time yesterday. My reaction was best described as 'I can't even...'

You are certainly welcome to that opinion.

Having also just gotten the books, I feel very differently; nowhere in 2e is the "every class plays fundamentally the same" that turned me off to 4e. In fact if anything they've put a lot of work into making sure that different classes and even different races play very differently.

[dirtypool]

MaxAstro wrote:

Having also just gotten the books, I feel very differently; nowhere in 2e is the "every class plays fundamentally the same" that turned me off to 4e. In fact if anything they've put a lot of work into making sure that different classes and even different races play very differently.

My CRB arrived last night, so I'm not too deep in - but I've got to agree with MaxAstro here. I'll add that just from looking at the races and classes it looks like they have made them play a little more distinctly from each other than they did in the playtest.

[MongrelHorde]

Baron Iveagh wrote:

Its 4e, and I'm cancelling my subs. I got both Adventure paths at the same time yesterday. My reaction was best described as 'I can't even...'

What about the AP's made you conclude Second is a 4E clone? The first thing I did when I got my books was read the synopsis for Age of Ashe.

While there were hints on the forums about how it was going to shake out, I was genuinely more excited to play Second once I learned the truth.

The end choices for the AP are the kind of thing my group revels in.

[bugleyman]

Baron Iveagh wrote:

Its 4e, and I'm cancelling my subs. I got both Adventure paths at the same time yesterday. My reaction was best described as 'I can't even...'

As someone who really liked 4E, I'd be fine with that. But just looking at the character sheet tells me that it really isn't the case.

[bugleyman]

Aldarc wrote:

Bye Felicia.

I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by being dismissive.

[dirtypool]

bugleyman wrote:

I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by being dismissive.

I don't think he's trying to accomplish anything beyond telling the person loudly announcing on a forum that he's rage quitting something to just suck it up and rage quit already.

[TOZ]

I.E. "don't talk about it, be about it".

[mrspaghetti]

dirtypool wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by being dismissive.

I don't think he's trying to accomplish anything beyond telling the person loudly announcing on a forum that he's rage quitting something to just suck it up and rage quit already.

It seems to me that someone who is announcing that they are flushing 2E before even having played it had their mind made up long ago.

[caps]

I've been talking extensively with a good friend of mine that plays and GMs a lot of 5e. He's very excited by a lot of the stuff I'm telling him about 2e and thinks he would enjoy playing it, but is also pretty engaged in 5e and doesn't have the spare capital for another RPG (his spare capital goes to other categories of games).

There are complaints people have about 5e that he doesn't understand, like "what's wrong with bounded accuracy" and "5e is very customizable; you can make up your own backgrounds!" but I'm talking through those with him :p

I suspect there are a lot of 5e players and gms with would be interested in trying PF2; if they have the time and $$ available to invest in it.

[Joana]

caps wrote:

I suspect there are a lot of 5e players and gms with would be interested in trying PF2; if they have the time and $$ available to invest in it.

The good thing is, anyone who's interested can access the whole ruleset for free at Archives of Nethys August 1st.

[WatersLethe]

caps wrote:

I've been talking extensively with a good friend of mine that plays and GMs a lot of 5e. He's very excited by a lot of the stuff I'm telling him about 2e and thinks he would enjoy playing it, but is also pretty engaged in 5e and doesn't have the spare capital for another RPG (his spare capital goes to other categories of games).

There are complaints people have about 5e that he doesn't understand, like "what's wrong with bounded accuracy" and "5e is very customizable; you can make up your own backgrounds!" but I'm talking through those with him :p

I suspect there are a lot of 5e players and gms with would be interested in trying PF2; if they have the time and $$ available to invest in it.

But... you can play PF2 for free because all the rules will be online on day 1!

[Malk_Content]

caps wrote:

I've been talking extensively with a good friend of mine that plays and GMs a lot of 5e. He's very excited by a lot of the stuff I'm telling him about 2e and thinks he would enjoy playing it, but is also pretty engaged in 5e and doesn't have the spare capital for another RPG (his spare capital goes to other categories of games).

There are complaints people have about 5e that he doesn't understand, like "what's wrong with bounded accuracy" and "5e is very customizable; you can make up your own backgrounds!" but I'm talking through those with him :p

I suspect there are a lot of 5e players and gms with would be interested in trying PF2; if they have the time and $$ available to invest in it.

You should tell him the best feature then, the game is free

[mrspaghetti]

Malk_Content wrote:

You should tell him the best feature then, the game is free

True. I was going to argue that it's not realistic to play for very long without buying any books, but then I realized that I played PFS for quite a while before I ever bought the core PF1 book. So to get people started that is certainly a factor.

[PossibleCabbage]

Joana wrote:

The good thing is, anyone who's interested can access the whole ruleset for free at Archives of Nethys August 1st.

I'm curious how this is going to be organized. Right now, AoN is great for looking up like "what are the medium archetypes" or "what spells can a druid cast" or really anything that can be put in a list, but I'm not sure I would know where to look for stuff like "crafting rules" on there.

I'm going to get a dead tree copy, but I'm getting it from my FLGS and I probably won't get out there right on Aug 1, so I'll be relying on AoN.

[Thebazilly]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Joana wrote:

The good thing is, anyone who's interested can access the whole ruleset for free at Archives of Nethys August 1st.

I'm curious how this is going to be organized. Right now, AoN is great for looking up like "what are the medium archetypes" or "what spells can a druid cast" or really anything that can be put in a list, but I'm not sure I would know where to look for stuff like "crafting rules" on there.

I'm going to get a dead tree copy, but I'm getting it from my FLGS and I probably won't get out there right on Aug 1, so I'll be relying on AoN.

I heard some hearsay that D20PFSRD has advance copies of the books as well, so I'm sure they will have rules posted on or around August 1st, too.

AoN has also said that they will be hosting more complete rules as part of their upgrade to official SRD source, IIRC.

[caps]

I'll remind him of that, but he is of the breed that really likes having a physical rulebook. He doesn't even do PDFs.

[crognus]

PF 2E does seem to take inspiration from 4E mechanics with codified actions. However, there are far fewer dissociated mechanics. Therefore, it still feels like a TTRPG and not a board game.

For those who are not familiar with the term, Justin Alexander has a great essay on "dissociated mechanics". In short:

"An associated mechanic is one which has a connection to the game world. A dissociated mechanic is one which is disconnected from the game world.

For example, consider a football game in which a character has the One-Handed Catch ability: Once per game they can make an amazing one-handed catch, granting them a +4 bonus to that catch attempt.

The mechanic is dissociated because the decision made by the player cannot be equated to a decision made by the character. No player, after making an amazing one-handed catch, thinks to themselves, “Wow! I won’t be able to do that again until the next game!” Nor do they think to themselves, “I better not try to catch this ball one-handed, because if I do I won’t be able to make any more one-handed catches today.”

On the other hand, when a player decides to cast a fireball spell that decision is directly equated to the character’s decision to cast a fireball. (The character, like the player, knows that they have only prepared a single fireball spell. So the decision to expend that limited resource – and the consequences for doing so – are understood by both character and player.)"

One of the biggest dissociated mechanics in 4E was the separation of abilities as "At-Will", "Encounter", or "Daily". PF 2E doesn't do that. Yes, special attacks exist, but generally speaking they don't break immersion in the same way as 4E.

[MaxAstro]

Well said, Crognus.

There are some abilities like that - the standout for me is Quicken Spell, which I think is all kinds of weird at 1/day - but it's not a pervasive theme like 4e.

[thejeff]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Joana wrote:

The good thing is, anyone who's interested can access the whole ruleset for free at Archives of Nethys August 1st.

I'm curious how this is going to be organized. Right now, AoN is great for looking up like "what are the medium archetypes" or "what spells can a druid cast" or really anything that can be put in a list, but I'm not sure I would know where to look for stuff like "crafting rules" on there.

I'm going to get a dead tree copy, but I'm getting it from my FLGS and I probably won't get out there right on Aug 1, so I'll be relying on AoN.

It's not quite obvious and making the tree structure more visible would help, but there's a "Rules" link on the side scroll that has all that kind of thing under it.

[WatersLethe]

Yep. The dissociated mechanic problem was a big reason I left 4E. It got real old trying to suspend disbelief to explain why I couldn't swing my axe a certain way too many times. It turned out that at the back of my mind I was imagining all martial characters as geriatric athletes who refuse to stretch. "I could do that flip thing, but I know it'll pull a muscle, so I better wait until I really need to."

[crognus]

MaxAstro wrote:

Well said, Crognus.

There are some abilities like that - the standout for me is Quicken Spell, which I think is all kinds of weird at 1/day - but it's not a pervasive theme like 4e.

Yes, there's a few. Another one that comes to mind is the Barbarian capstone feat "Quaking Stomp" (page 93). But no game is perfect.

Some types of dissociated mechanics are completely fine, however. For example, Halfling Luck (page 52). Once per day you can reroll a skill check or saving throw. This is a dissociated mechanic, but it works, because luck should be dissociated from the in-game character.

[dirtypool]

WatersLethe wrote:

It turned out that at the back of my mind I was imagining all martial characters as geriatric athletes who refuse to stretch. "I could do that flip thing, but I know it'll pull a muscle, so I better wait until I really need to."

I went the other route and head canon'ed that each usage of the Encounter or Daily powers were bestowed upon the PC by their patron god. A blessing of extra strength, etc. It's a great in game way to justify the limitations, but it was additional flavor that was above and beyond the usual settings tropes so it didn't feel right.

Had that ability boost system been in a fresh launched game that didn't hold setting and game play baggage from multiple previous editions it might have been a neat narrative element for the setting.

That's the take away I think. The 4e elements that people complained about took the player out of D&D and that made it not work. Similar elements in PF2 so far to me feel like they won't take me out of Pathfinder.

[thejeff]

crognus wrote:

PF 2E does seem to take inspiration from 4E mechanics with codified actions. However, there are far fewer dissociated mechanics. Therefore, it still feels like a TTRPG and not a board game.

For those who are not familiar with the term, Justin Alexander has a great essay on "dissociated mechanics". In short:

"An associated mechanic is one which has a connection to the game world. A dissociated mechanic is one which is disconnected from the game world.

For example, consider a football game in which a character has the One-Handed Catch ability: Once per game they can make an amazing one-handed catch, granting them a +4 bonus to that catch attempt.

The mechanic is dissociated because the decision made by the player cannot be equated to a decision made by the character. No player, after making an amazing one-handed catch, thinks to themselves, “Wow! I won’t be able to do that again until the next game!” Nor do they think to themselves, “I better not try to catch this ball one-handed, because if I do I won’t be able to make any more one-handed catches today.”

On the other hand, when a player decides to cast a fireball spell that decision is directly equated to the character’s decision to cast a fireball. (The character, like the player, knows that they have only prepared a single fireball spell. So the decision to expend that limited resource – and the consequences for doing so – are understood by both character and player.)"

One of the biggest dissociated mechanics in 4E was the separation of abilities as "At-Will", "Encounter", or "Daily". PF 2E doesn't do that. Yes, special attacks exist, but generally speaking they don't break immersion in the same way as 4E.

Though I will not the long running common complaint of "It makes no sense that I forget how to cast fireball. If I know it I should just know it."

So for some subset of players, even old school D&D spellcasting is dissociated.
Often it's fluff framing device that leads to most players finding a mechanic dissociated or not. PF1 is full of limited use mechanics with varying (or in some cases no) justification. Point pools, once per round, x/day, once a day, etc.
I just took Improved Iron Will in one game. That leads to exactly the “I better not try to catch this ball one-handed, because if I do I won’t be able to make any more one-handed catches today” situation. And there's no real attempt at any justification for it.

4E did do it more and did it more generically - making most of the powers work that way, which made it more obvious.

[bugleyman]

TOZ wrote:

I.E. "don't talk about it, be about it".

*shrug* I guess. To me they it's a valid opinion and they should feel free to express it without eating a glib comeback. YMMV.

[Barnabas Eckleworth III]

The disassociated mechanic thing doesn't bother me. I'll try to explain why; not sure how well I'll do.
Because these are stories. And the mechanics are rules ways to implement something that a "reader" (of the story we're telling) would just see as something that happened during the telling of the story.
They are limited applications from the player's perspective, not the character's.
It's like the stories you always hear about a mother lifting a car off the ground to save her baby. Or fighting off a grizzly bear.
Can that mom always do this? No. Probably adrenaline. But in the story we hear after the fact, she mustered her grit and got things done.
So. The halfling is lucky. It's not something he does. It's something that happens. And only the players keep track of it in a once-per-day/round/encounter format.

[bugleyman]

thejeff wrote:

Though I will not the long running common complaint of "It makes no sense that I forget how to cast fireball. If I know it I should just know it."

So for some subset of players, even old school D&D spellcasting is dissociated.
Often it's fluff framing device that leads to most players finding a mechanic dissociated or not. PF1 is full of limited use mechanics with varying (or in some cases no) justification. Point pools, once per round, x/day, once a day, etc.
I just took Improved Iron Will in one game. That leads to exactly the “I better not try to catch this ball one-handed, because if I do I won’t be able to make any more one-handed catches today” situation. And there's no real attempt at any justification for it.
4E did do it more and did it more generically - making most of the powers work that way, which made it more obvious.

Exactly. ALL RPGs have "dis-associated mechanics" by necessity. The only difference is the degree of lip service paid to simulation.

As it turns out, whole-scale universe simulation is impractical. ;-)

[Matthew Downie]

Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

They are limited applications from the player's perspective, not the character's.

Which is the problem. It's not easy to experience a sense of immersion in an RPG; to feel the character's hopes and fears, to share in their triumphs.

Any mechanic that causes separation between the player's and character's perspective only makes it more difficult.