|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think 5E is a worse game than PF2. I think it's a simpler game, and one I personally like less (though not due to its simplicity), but not a worse one.
It is, however, a gateway game, which means it's many people's first game and many people do 'graduate' from it, not because other games are better but because other games suit their specific play style better, something they discover after getting into the hobby via D&D. Many graduate to simpler games as well as more complex ones, and certainly not everyone starts with D&D...but a lot of people do start with D&D.
Guys, my post had a specific meaning, I clarified it, please don't remove my usage of the word superior from it's context. We were only discussing superiority in regards to a specific set of subjective criteria.
I drew the comparison further, so apologies for derailing.
Neither is superior. I was only trying to present the concept of superiority not always being some transparent definition.
What people find superior about things doesn't make those things superior, but it does make those things superior to that person. And if a great consensus of people agree on superiority of something, I think that holds some amount of value.
Progression of value can go in either direction, and some things might change about perception or concepts that haven't even really been introduced yet.
I'm making it worse probably...
I'm not saying either is superior or worse.
PF2 is doing great. And that's great. On to 1000 reviews!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AD&D was a gateway game. D&D 3.x was a gateway game. 4E, not as much. 5E is back to the role.
Surprisingly I’ve been encountering a lot of people in forums and threads on other sites declaring 4e as the game that got them into the hobby. I think it’s just true that every edition of D&D is likely to be someone’s gateway to the hobby, it’s just 4e had such a short life span.
|
|
It's a gateway game not really due to any specific features, but because it's D&D.
Precisely. I never intended to imply otherwise.
A pretty small fraction of D&D players ever move on to anything else, probably less than just stop playing entirely.
I think that depends on what you count as 'playing D&D'. If you mean ever play a single session, I'm sure you're right. But of those who become actual gamers and spend long periods of time playing, I suspect more move on than quite the hobby entirely by quite a bit. A lot just stick with D&D of course, but a lot of others do indeed move on to other games.
I suspect that most of those who do, don't actually leave D&D, but branch out to include other games as well.
Eh. I've met a lot of people who play D&D only rarely if at all despite having started with it. Some certainly play D&D and other things, but several others play one or more games...but not generally D&D.
Some do move from their first "One True Game" to another "One True Game", but I'll bet it's a fairly small minority and likely not strongly driven by "simpler" or "more complex".
I wasn't saying it was driven solely by the game being simpler or more complex (just clarifying that some people preferred both options), nor did I say they moved on to one specific game which they played exclusively, but I've known a lot of people who moved onto a different genre or type of games (more narrative focused games like FATE, for instance) having first started with something that didn't work quite as well for what they generally wanted.
5E and I think 3.x were both bigger sellers and had a larger percentage of that bigger market than 4E did. AD&D as well, though a very different market then.
But yeah, I suppose that still makes 4E a gateway. Just a smaller one.
Current metrics are more than a bit opaque but all indications are that 5E is a bigger seller than any previous edition, but even 4E was a very financially successful launch - with the narrative during the first several months being that the initial print run of 4E PHB being 50% larger than the 3.5 print run and selling out before Street release and the need of a second print run pre launch.
I completely agree with Midnightoker, there's a clear notion of superiority, even in roleplaying games. There is an evolution in RPG systems over the years, that can be clearly considered progress.
5E is a step towards simplicity. I don't think it can be considered progress, it's just a repositioning of third edition.
PF2, on the other hand, is changing paradigm. The creation of the system is far closer to video game design, balance being very important as well as mechanics (to the detriment of simulation in PF2 case). In my opinion, it's a cornerstone. Time will tell if I'm right :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree with Midnightoker, there's a clear notion of superiority, even in roleplaying games. There is an evolution in RPG systems over the years, that can be clearly considered progress.
5E is a step towards simplicity. I don't think it can be considered progress, it's just a repositioning of third edition.
PF2, on the other hand, is changing paradigm. The creation of the system is far closer to video game design, balance being very important as well as mechanics (to the detriment of simulation in PF2 case). In my opinion, it's a cornerstone. Time will tell if I'm right :)
Isn’t it a little hyperbolic to say that the paradigm has been changed? We’re still rolling a d20, adding our derived bonuses and comparing the result against a target number. No matter how tight the math gets, or how many different ways we decide to define the derived bonuses - the core of how the D20 games work remains. Surely PF2 is a refinement of the concept.
As posters on the Paizo forums we’re certainly predisposed to supporting PF2, and many of us downright love it. That doesn’t mean that it’s better just that it is more preferably to us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree with Midnightoker, there's a clear notion of superiority, even in roleplaying games. There is an evolution in RPG systems over the years, that can be clearly considered progress.
5E is a step towards simplicity. I don't think it can be considered progress, it's just a repositioning of third edition.
PF2, on the other hand, is changing paradigm. The creation of the system is far closer to video game design, balance being very important as well as mechanics (to the detriment of simulation in PF2 case). In my opinion, it's a cornerstone. Time will tell if I'm right :)Isn’t it a little hyperbolic to say that the paradigm has been changed? We’re still rolling a d20, adding our derived bonuses and comparing the result against a target number.
The paradigm of how a game is built, yes.
I keep going back to it, but let’s look at the browser scenario again.
Nothing fundamentally different about browsing changed between chrome and ie. what changed was developers abilities to use latest website design patterns, bug resolution, and modular personalized additions (extensions) for browsers.
Thus both browser developers and website developers could move forward expecting certain things to be the case because of this. This enhanced the entire web experience for those using these browsers.
The user experience was altered because of how developers could rely on a continually updated client and being able to enhance the user experience behind the scenes without fundamentally changing anything about how they use a browser.
In some ways, the way this game is designed, like the actual structural integrity of the system, is reminiscent of that to me. As the edition continues, options can remain balanced while creating a permutation of new character concepts, on the foundation of a modular design and easily intuited system once you recognize the patterns.
Now I could be totally wrong, but that’s how it feels to me personally. Even the parts that could use some love are easily correctable because of how they structured the rules.
Isn’t it a little hyperbolic to say that the paradigm has been changed?
No I don't think so.
In my opinion, the paradigm shift has been done with 4E. They even commented on it: making the game closer to video game experience to attract video game players (if I recall correctly). This is clearly a paradigm shift as noone ever thought of making TTRPGs closer to video games (actually, it has always been the opposite, video games trying to get closer to TTRPGs).4E failed to make it properly, but I think PF2 nailed it.
Anyway, it's all my opinions and points of view. So, you can clearly think I'm going into hyperboles.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say the correct way to describe Pathfinder 2 is as a more customisable play experience than 5e while still being pretty easy to learn. More character build options, more tactical choices etc.
In any case another metric that can be used is how many people join and are on the PF2 Reddit.
It's at 12.8K and 249 online right now and it's been growing at a pretty healthy pace I think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The analogy of internet browser to game design is so broad that I don’t actually know what you’re trying to say is so revolutionary about PF2.
I’m also unsure what to make of the idea that RPG products being made more like video games constituting a paradigm shift.
So I disagree with the "it's like video games" in a sense.
What I think it's actually think is a better way to frame it, is it's like Software Development, which of course, Video Games are built with.
What is fundamentally stronger about the game is that it makes strongly "typed" objects, orients them in a way that allows users a lot of control, but designed in such a way that it's easy to add more content without overwhelming the user (choice paralysis).
Essentially, I think the level of control the user (player) has and the level of customizability and scalability inherent to the structure is what causes this paradigm shift.
But that's the off-table design (the rules that enable the game).
However, at the table the actual play is extremely varied. No two combats are alike because the permutations of actions is still exceptionally high, especially in combination with the battlefield, enemies, and other actors in the battle.
This variance at the table means things are unlikely to go stale. This DOES happen in video games, because Video games struggle to handle variable outcomes of this nature (particularly because of AI limitations) for a lot of reasons (though procedural generation is becoming increasingly popular and sort of helps with this).
So basically, you have a heavily scalable, highly customizable ruleset, that's easy to adapt and consume as a GM (or publisher) and offers a lot of freedom as a player while still being stuck within confines of balanced expectations.
And then you also have exceptional amount of variability in combat, because at the end of the day, the battlefield varies, the enemies vary, and the GM (and everyone else at the table) is not an AI but an actual person.
The latter has always been the case for TTRPG like DnD and such (but not so much for things like Mansions of Madness) but the former was the hard part that I don't think anyone quite "nailed" until this edition (just my opinion obviously).
4E went too far with it, 5E sort of just didn't do much of it at all, and 3.0/3.5/PF1 lacked silos that prevented "choice paralysis" and balancing issues.
That sounds like an optimization of something that already existed, not an innovative paradigm shifting new thing.
The analogy of internet browser to game design is so broad that I don’t actually know what you’re trying to say is so revolutionary about PF2.
I’m also unsure what to make of the idea that RPG products being made more like video games constituting a paradigm shift.
It's like assembling some sort of complex furniture held together by screws.
PF1 and 5e's developer's tools are hand held screw drivers.
PF2's developer's tools are a power drill.
They both get the end result: furniture, just one is easier and faster.
Or something like that.
PF1 and 5e's developer's tools are hand held screw drivers.
PF2's developer's tools are a power drill.
The tools the developers used to create the game (i.e. the tight math which acts as the core of the system - a refinement of the D20 core that has existed for 20+ years)
The tools the developers used to stress test and receive feedback about the system (a public beta test not unlike the public beta they did to test mechanics of PF1)
Or the tools the developers emplaced to allow us to bolt unique systems onto the core mechanics (a feature of a number of non D20 games )
Which tools are the metaphorical power drill.
Maybe instead of continuous vague analogies you all say exactly what you’re referencing when you talk about how it is so innovative and groundbreaking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds like an optimization of something that already existed, not an innovative paradigm shifting new thing.
Sometimes a large number of compelling optimizations add up to an innovative paradigm shift.
I mean one could argue that the iPhone, or any other landmark Apple product of your choice, were mere optimizations of already existing concepts, but their impact certainly qualifies them as innovative paradigm shifts.
Plus it depends on what you define as an innovative paradigm shift in any case.
After all PF2 is a d20 based high fantasy table top role playing game. It's designed to be a similar experience to its predecessors. Does that disqualify it from being an innovative paradigm shifting new thing?
Looking at individual rules elements, The action economy is very novel, the tiered proficiency system used for ALL number progressions is an innovation, the siloed feat design is fresh, the ancestry system is compelling. Do they make the grade? Does the addition of 10th level spells qualify? It might for some, it probably doesn't for others. Does the Champion class?
PF1 and 5e's developer's tools are hand held screw drivers.
PF2's developer's tools are a power drill.
The tools the developers used to create the game (i.e. the tight math which acts as the core of the system - a refinement of the D20 core that has existed for 20+ years)
The tools the developers used to stress test and receive feedback about the system (a public beta test not unlike the public beta they did to test mechanics of PF1)
Or the tools the developers emplaced to allow us to bolt unique systems onto the core mechanics (a feature of a number of non D20 games )
Which tools are the metaphorical power drill.
Maybe instead of continuous vague analogies you all say exactly what you’re referencing when you talk about how it is so innovative and groundbreaking.
To be fair, I don't think it's a paradigm shift, so much as a game that comes with it's designer's manual for once.
I think the core paradigm shift is actually the "get what you need as base" rather than "spend resources to get what you need." The shift of focus allows PF2 a huge amount of design and customization space
I like this.
If I stop using analogies I’m probably not going to make sense. Bit of a crutch of mine.
The overall design of the game lends itself to be built on. It is the best foundation game that feels good right out of the gate on both sides of the table.
Just to keep it short and simple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe instead of continuous vague analogies you all say exactly what you’re referencing when you talk about how it is so innovative and groundbreaking.
2 things are making PF2 special: Balance and fun of game system.
I'll illustrate the second point with MAP. If I stand up from prone, climb a wall or cast a spell and then makes an attack, this attack will have higher accuracy than if I had made an attack as a previous action. It's highly illogical. MAP is illogical. But if you remove MAP, then all players will just Strike 3 times per round and you basically killed the 3-action system.
MAP is a rule that has been created for the sole purpose of making the system enjoyable. In most TTRPGs, rules are there to simulate the world, you don't create rules to make things more complicated if there is no simulation reason behind it. In PF2, they did it. They reduced the level of simulation to increase the level of fun. That is a very different mindset when creating rules.
You won't find much similar rules in other systems. Actually, there's not a single one in PF1 that is purely there for fun and not for simulation.
.....MAP is literally the same as the multi attack penalty of before, the innovations are related to attacks themselves and how abilities manipulate MAP.
So, why did they keep it when they removed so many things from the previous edition? Especially considering that MAP has no sense at all in PF2. It would have been far easier to remove it.
Also, by what standard are you saying rules that encourage simulation are not fun?
I've never said that, read my post again.
Now, find me a rule in PF1 that doesn't promote simulation or stories and is just there for the sake of making the game more fun.
PF2 is still simluationist enough for me, compared to 4E, that is.
Though I wish fire spells still explicitly lit things on fire...
I mean one could argue that the iPhone, or any other landmark Apple product of your choice, were mere optimizations of already existing concepts, but their impact certainly qualifies them as innovative paradigm shifts.
What impact has PF2 had that is so clearly as innovative and game changing as the iPhone in this altogether new technology based metaphor?
The overall design of the game lends itself to be built on. It is the best foundation game that feels good right out of the gate on both sides of the table.
That is a new concept on D&D style D20 games, it isn’t a new concept on gaming. Ease of building things onto a simple core system that both players and GM’s could find easily useful was the foundation of GURPS and that game filled that role very well until book bloat made it impossible to wade through all the options to pick the ones you needed/wanted.
MAP is a rule that has been created for the sole purpose of making the system enjoyable.
PF2 is not the originator of multiple attack penalty, D20 systems aren’t the originator of the multiple attack penalty.
Further robust action economies with more than 2 actions have been tried and failed in other games, Paizo balances it and made it work.
My point in all this is that we keep using terms like superiority. We keep using examples where there is a clear process of one product over one other product. We keep talking about this game as if it is head and shoulders above other games in terms of design and customization and we use as example - one other game and neglect the rest of the TTRPG industry.
PF2 is a great game, I love it. It is the best version of the D20 game and it has refined that form into something unique. It isn’t shifting the paradigm of gaming, it isn’t full of brilliant new whole cloth ideas - it is full of refinements of prior good ideas. It isn’t a Ford Model T, it’s a Tesla. Lots of other cars have existed between the two and the things it does are unique to it. Other developers have done similar things in other iterations of the cars between.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simulationism is a matter of degrees, not something that you turn off or on. However, 2E definitely has a lower focus on simulation than something like 3.5/1E.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, find me a rule in PF1 that doesn't promote simulation or stories and is just there for the sake of making the game more fun.
Hit points.
It’s so ubiquitous, people don’t notice it, but a one dimensional measure of “health” (where you are functionally unimpaired until you’re suddenly unconscious) is a terrible model of reality, but it’s widely favoured due to desire for fun trumping desire for accurate simulation (coupled with a belief that complicated, multi-dimensional measures of health are less fun)
Experience points/levelling is the same. The fact that PCs advance all at the same time and at such a ridiculous pace compared with everyone else in the universe is a weak simulation of how thing actually “should be” if it were to make sense, but it’s done that way through a belief it’s more fun than the various alternatives.
Now, find me a rule in PF1 that doesn't promote simulation or stories and is just there for the sake of making the game more fun.Hit points.
It’s so ubiquitous, people don’t notice it, but a one dimensional measure of “health” (where you are functionally unimpaired until you’re suddenly unconscious) is a terrible model of reality, but it’s widely favoured due to desire for fun trumping desire for accurate simulation (coupled with a belief that complicated, multi-dimensional measures of health are less fun)
Experience points/levelling is the same. The fact that PCs advance all at the same time and at such a ridiculous pace compared with everyone else in the universe is a weak simulation of how thing actually “should be” if it were to make sense, but it’s done that way through a belief it’s more fun than the various alternatives.
Not at all.
Hit points and experience points have a purpose.If you remove hit points, people are invincible. If you remove experience points, people don't get better. Both are there to tell the story.
MAP has none. If you remove MAP from the game, it works the same, you tell the same stories. MAP has no purpose at all but increasing the fun of the game system.
There is no single rule in PF1 that is there only for the mechanics. You can look for it, you won't find one.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not at all.
Hit points and experience points have a purpose.
If you remove hit points, people are invincible. If you remove experience points, people don't get better. Both are there to tell the story.
Not buying it. Hit points are there to make the combat system fun, not to tell stories.
Plenty of us don’t us XP, meaning you can tell the same stories without it as with it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, find me a rule in PF1 that doesn't promote simulation or stories and is just there for the sake of making the game more fun.Hit points.
It’s so ubiquitous, people don’t notice it, but a one dimensional measure of “health” (where you are functionally unimpaired until you’re suddenly unconscious) is a terrible model of reality, but it’s widely favoured due to desire for fun trumping desire for accurate simulation (coupled with a belief that complicated, multi-dimensional measures of health are less fun)
Experience points/levelling is the same. The fact that PCs advance all at the same time and at such a ridiculous pace compared with everyone else in the universe is a weak simulation of how thing actually “should be” if it were to make sense, but it’s done that way through a belief it’s more fun than the various alternatives.
Not at all.
Hit points and experience points have a purpose.
If you remove hit points, people are invincible. If you remove experience points, people don't get better. Both are there to tell the story.
MAP has none. If you remove MAP from the game, it works the same, you tell the same stories. MAP has no purpose at all but increasing the fun of the game system.There is no single rule in PF1 that is there only for the mechanics. You can look for it, you won't find one.
Pretty obviously, the choice wasn’t between “hit points and never dying” it’s between “fun one-dimensional health system and simulationist, multi-dimensional health system”.
PF1 designers chose fun over simulationism when deciding how to track health (as have most games, in the history of RPGs).
You’re overly wedded to your hypothesis.
That is a new concept on D&D style D20 games, it isn’t a new concept on gaming. Ease of building things onto a simple core system that both players and GM’s could find easily useful was the foundation of GURPS and that game filled that role very well until book bloat made it impossible to wade through all the options to pick the ones you needed/wanted.
I don’t agree on GURPS personally, but even, first doesn’t mean best or executed as well. In fact, rarely is the first iteration of something the thing that truly excels.
Let’s just leave it alone. It seems you disagree. That’s fine.
I don’t agree on GURPS personally, but even, first doesn’t mean best or executed as well. In fact, rarely is the first iteration of something the thing that truly excels.
Yes but the argument that we have been engaging in over and over is whether or not PF2 is “superior” or “innovative.” Analogies about web browsers are intended to prove that it is, but the specific reference to an antecedent with a similar design philosophy however requires your agreement?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean one could argue that the iPhone, or any other landmark Apple product of your choice, were mere optimizations of already existing concepts, but their impact certainly qualifies them as innovative paradigm shifts.What impact has PF2 had that is so clearly as innovative and game changing as the iPhone in this altogether new technology based metaphor?
Merely pointing out that a multitude of refinements in a product can qualify it as an innovative paradigm shift.
Merely pointing out that a multitude of refinements in a product can qualify it as an innovative paradigm shift.
Merely pointing out that refining the existing modalities until they are optimally presented qualifying as proof of a paradigm shift is only accurate if you’ve changed the definition of the word paradigm.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t agree on GURPS personally, but even, first doesn’t mean best or executed as well. In fact, rarely is the first iteration of something the thing that truly excels.Yes but the argument that we have been engaging in over and over is whether or not PF2 is “superior” or “innovative.” Analogies about web browsers are intended to prove that it is, but the specific reference to an antecedent with a similar design philosophy however requires your agreement?
You asked why I felt such a way. If you didn’t really want to know and only wanted context to argue, then I’m afraid I’m not interested. I feel like this system has accomplished something that could be special, because ultimately it takes time for people to change preferences, especially when a game is less than a year old, in some industries. TTRPGs aren’t like video games in the sense that they take the Industry by storm and then fall off a cliff in a year, they usually last several years and successful can go much longer.
You basically said “gurps did something similar so therefore PF2 is not special”. I think that’s a flawed statement and GURPS in my browser analogy is Opera.
You asked why I felt such a way. If you didn’t really want to know and only wanted context to argue, then I’m afraid I’m not interested. I feel like this system has accomplished something that could be special, because ultimately it takes time for people to change preferences, especially when a game is less than a year old, in some industries. TTRPGs aren’t like video games in the sense that they take the Industry by storm and then fall off a cliff in a year, they usually last several years and successful can go much longer.
You basically said “gurps did something similar so therefore PF2 is not special”. I think that’s a flawed statement and GURPS in my browser analogy is Opera.
I asked why you felt it was groundbreaking and you gave me an example. I pointed out that the example you gave was another company did 34 years ago. By definition that isn’t groundbreaking.
You argue that my statement is flawed is based on your opinion of GURPS. I argue your statements are flawed based on the actual definitions of the words “innovative” “groundbreaking” and “paradigm.”
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You asked why I felt such a way. If you didn’t really want to know and only wanted context to argue, then I’m afraid I’m not interested. I feel like this system has accomplished something that could be special, because ultimately it takes time for people to change preferences, especially when a game is less than a year old, in some industries. TTRPGs aren’t like video games in the sense that they take the Industry by storm and then fall off a cliff in a year, they usually last several years and successful can go much longer.
You basically said “gurps did something similar so therefore PF2 is not special”. I think that’s a flawed statement and GURPS in my browser analogy is Opera.
I asked why you felt it was groundbreaking and you gave me an example. I pointed out that the example you gave was another company did 34 years ago. By definition that isn’t groundbreaking.
You argue that my statement is flawed is based on your opinion of GURPS. I argue your statements are flawed based on the actual definitions of the words “innovative” “groundbreaking” and “paradigm.”
The actual definitions of innovative and paradigm absolutely are met.
If you want to act like there’s nothing innovate in PF2 or that it hasn’t changed the way a typical TTRPG would be played by a group, go ahead.
By that logic though, there hasn’t been a single innovative game since Ad&d and GURPS or what exactly qualifies as innovative and paradigm changing?
And as someone else said, iterative improvements can absolutely be innovative and create paradigm shifts.
By that definition Chrome doesn’t count as innovative in terms of browsers. It most certainly was/is, IMO.
Merely pointing out that a multitude of refinements in a product can qualify it as an innovative paradigm shift.Merely pointing out that refining the existing modalities until they are optimally presented qualifying as proof of a paradigm shift is only accurate if you’ve changed the definition of the word paradigm.
Nope. I realize this is becoming a tiresome struggle over semantics but I did provide backing for my statement by referring to landmark Apple products which did exactly that. I have never claimed proof, only possibility.
Pf2e being a paradigm shift would entail future ttrpg products taking significant cues from it. It's too early to say one way or the other by that measure and nothing currently disqualifies the game from that potential.
As for innovation, the character creation system, especially the ancestry design, absolutely qualify as novel, as do the details of the action system, the siloed feat design, and the take on the Paladin.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread took a weird turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The actual definitions of innovative and paradigm absolutely are met.
Then by all means demonstrate how a system designed to easily accept the addition of subsystems constitutes either a “fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions” or “introduces new ideas; original or creative in thinking.” Bonus points if you can do it in a way that doesn’t casually dismiss PF1 Unchained, 3.0 Unleashed, OD/AD&D Unearthed Arcana or 30+ years of other people’s work.
If you want to act like there’s nothing innovate in PF2 or that it hasn’t changed the way a typical TTRPG would be played by a group, go ahead.
How has this edition changed the way RPG’s are played?
By that logic though, there hasn’t been a single innovative game since Ad&d and GURPS or what exactly qualifies as innovative and paradigm changing?
That pushes my statement to an absolutely illogical extreme. Obviously a single dice resolution mechanic rolled high against a DC was a paradigm shift from individual table based mechanics with some rolled low and some rolled high and some rolled as percentile.
And as someone else said, iterative improvements can absolutely be innovative and create paradigm shifts.
That person was absolutely wrong, because an iterative improvement cannot by definition be a “fundamental change in approach”
By that definition Chrome doesn’t count as innovative in terms of browsers. It most certainly was/is, IMO.
Innovative is based on the newness of ideas, not your preference of them.
As for innovation, the character creation system, especially the ancestry design, absolutely qualify as novel, as do the details of the action system, the siloed feat design, and the take on the Paladin.
1. novel and innovative are not exactly the same thing.
2. The idea of creating a character by beginning with a base score, adding bonuses for your race/ancestry then more bonuses for your background and then more for your career was absolutely a new and innovative design idea when it was introduced in the CODA Star Trek 20 years ago. I’m very glad that Paizo found a way to take that approach, apply it to a D20 system and make it work in a way that the other didn’t.
All of us here love this game. I’m just saying let’s stop applying opinion as fact or praising it as being the greatest and most original game on the market and then going down the rabbit hole of defending it’s brilliance. This game was influenced by multiple games that came before it. It’s wonderful the devs were able to put so many ingredients into the stew of PF2 and come up with this strange alchemy that is this great game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dirtypool, I'm pretty sure your "strange alchemy" is exactly Midnightoker's "paradigm shift", and you two are arguing over nothing but semantics.