|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Forbes, yes, the business magazine, lists its favourite RPGs of 2019, quite succinctly describing PF2 as the game for 5e fans ready to move on from D&D.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that's what I and my group are, so it's at least accurate for us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what our 5E group did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’m in this post and I DO like it.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Forbes.
I guess I did live to see the day.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Forbes, yes, the business magazine, lists its favourite RPGs of 2019, quite succinctly describing PF2 as the game for 5e fans ready to move on from D&D.
IMO, it's also the game for Pathfinder fans ready to move on from 1E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forbes, yes, the business magazine, lists its favourite RPGs of 2019, quite succinctly describing PF2 as the game for 5e fans ready to move on from D&D.IMO, it's also the game for Pathfinder fans ready to move on from 1E.
Well, that's what I and my group are, so it's at least accurate for us.
Two of the players in my group came from 5E, so it's definitely true in my experience.
Well, that's what I and my group are, so it's at least accurate for us.
Most of the 5e players I have introduced have had fun but are happy with either.
Most of the pf1e players I have introduced have bought books and are busy convincing their friends it is actually worth playing and is a fun system.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that scene in Die Hard when Hans is talking to the business man in his office about opening the vault? In the scene he drops that he reads Forbes. The intention being "oh s~+~, this is a well read and intelligent guy who knows what he's about"
These days, I read Forbes in order to get breakdowns of Destiny 2 quest steps.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm super curious as to "we came from 5e" people. I've played and ran 5e, enjoyed it, appreciated the (relative, it's still D&D after all) lightness of the ruleset and the elegance of advantage/disadvantage mechanic, but I've found character development uneventful and the lack of player-side options annoying - I wanted to make an urban "cobblestones and cockroaches" druid, the game is 5 years old and it still doesn't give me the building blocks for that. I expect PF2 to be much more robust in this department 5 years in.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a "came from 5e" person, the character creation options weren't actually the main reason I made the switch (though it is a big part of it). I actually did it from a GM's point of view. 5e is incredibly simple from a player's standpoint, but it dumps a lot of the complexity on the GM. The final boss for my 5e campaign took me a couple weeks to make, working on and off. The potential final boss for my 2e campaign took me about an hour and a half.
Not even mentioning calculating encounter difficulty, which is also incredibly easy in PF2. Plus, encounters are actually as difficult as they advertise. Every encounter I threw at my 5e players was hard or deadly, and they breezed through the hard ones and only had a little trouble with deadly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm super curious as to "we came from 5e" people. I've played and ran 5e, enjoyed it, appreciated the (relative, it's still D&D after all) lightness of the ruleset and the elegance of advantage/disadvantage mechanic, but I've found character development uneventful and the lack of player-side options annoying - I wanted to make an urban "cobblestones and cockroaches" druid, the game is 5 years old and it still doesn't give me the building blocks for that. I expect PF2 to be much more robust in this department 5 years in.
I'm currently running a game with two 5e players and a GURPS player. There's quite the disconnect in what they see as character customization and development. The 5e players have been the darlings of the game, excitedly pointing out all the cool things they can do (even if they are't tactically sound). Yup, we have a 10 Con Goblin sorceress who gleefully grows her glutton's jaws and wades into combat. It's not always effective, but they have a blast.
The GURPS player approached me to make "a 5 inch tall salamander man." I showed them the ancestries and worked with them to make some ancestry feats that fit their idea of a character and we were off to the races. (They're essentially a Small Lizardfolk with some Stealth-based custom ancestry feats) Everyone has devoured the Core Rulebook and seems excited to let their class feats further define their character! We're... still coming around on the whole tactics thing, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can't read the article, it's got an adblocker-blocker.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a 'came from 5e' person. I DMed 5e since launch. Ran maybe half of every campaign WOTC put out to at least lvl 5 and two to level 10. Was an Adventure League DM for a year too. Even have a weekly homebrew game in 5e. So I would say I was and am a fan of their stuff. But lately I felt, i dunno, bored with their campaigns. Something was missing. I started not caring about the new product releases and I wasn't sure why.
Then I happened to pick up the PF2 Core book at Gencon this year with Hellknight Hill (signed by the author, which was a nice bonus). I read through the rules and the adventure and saw something I was missing in latest D&D modules; a deep story set within a deeper setting and run in a tactically interesting system. I think PF2 is exactly what I was missing.
Now I have convinced my 5e group to give the Age of Ashes AP a try. We had a playtest of PF2s rules first on New Years with Plaguestone and everyone had a great time. The module had interesting things happening for non obvious reasons (good storytelling) and every combat with the group was fun and fresh. People really seemed to grok the 3 action economy quickly. At one point the druid asked if he could use an action he had on his sheet to calm the guard dogs instead of fight them. That was a perfect example of PF2's explicit actions helping players be creative. I loved it.
I'm honestly more excited for the next session of PF2 with AoA this sunday than I am for tonight's year long homebrew game in 5e.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GURPS player approached me to make "a 5 inch tall salamander man."
As soon as you mentioned having a GURPS player I saw this coming, but reading it still cracked me up.
Having played GURPS before, that's such a GURPS mindset. XD One of my friends decided to make a character that was, and I quote, "A psychic hive mind nanobot swarm infesting and controlling the body of a cyborg wizard".
It only took him a couple hours to build. XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can't read the article, it's got an adblocker-blocker.
Easily defeated by disabling Javascript. :-)
Can't read the article, it's got an adblocker-blocker.Easily defeated by disabling Javascript. :-)
Wasn't even necessary. I run Firefox with uBlock Origin, and it never even came up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forbes contributors is basically a blog network run by Forbes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm super curious as to "we came from 5e" people. I've played and ran 5e, enjoyed it, appreciated the (relative, it's still D&D after all) lightness of the ruleset and the elegance of advantage/disadvantage mechanic, but I've found character development uneventful and the lack of player-side options annoying - I wanted to make an urban "cobblestones and cockroaches" druid, the game is 5 years old and it still doesn't give me the building blocks for that. I expect PF2 to be much more robust in this department 5 years in.
5e characters tend to be very flexible from a core chasis. It leads to character development and interest coming from what the characters do and how they are played rather than how they are built mechanically.
This philosophy can be seen throughout the entire system, prepared casters being Arcanist like and magic items not being factored into progression are great examples of this.It won't be for everyone, it is a more oldschool style of character valuing.
I still play/run B/X so it should tell you quite a bit about what I can be happy with... Elf... what class... oh just elf ;)
Don't get me wrong, I also love character building. I run PF2e for a reason, and own every PF1e item on herolab too.
But character development and value to me is entirely how I play it and the decisions I make in the game, as long as I can do something or reskin to do something I couldn't care less that I didn't have to invest feats/skills/spells/items to do it.
I would rather be a fighter who chooses to use a bow but could use any weapon competently, than be a fighter who chooses to use a bow but is relatively useless in fights unless they use a bow thanks to all those feat investments I had to make. (more a PF1e issue than a PF2e issue but still seen outside of the fighter example)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm coming from 5e, and it's just got some weirdness to it.
While DMing, I don't feel like I'm given enough levers. Most modifiers come down to just giving out advantage (2d20, take highest) or disadvantage (2d20 take lowest) and while I love that mechanic, in a lot of situations it ends up mattering more than your bonus ever could. I played enough of early editions that I'm comfortable just assigning an arbitrary +2 here or there so it isn't much of a deal, but it's an example of the system by default just not having a lot of nuance. You give a mathematical equivalent to +-6, or nothing.
At the same time, it can be surprisingly finicky in certain areas. Figuring out all of the flavors of attack rolls can be a headache. Granted, pf2 has some of the same complexity. The difference is, I feel pf2 has fairly even complexity. I know with pf2 that there is a certain level of knowledge I need in each bit of the rules to feel confident. 5e can range wildly from "GM just makes everything up" to "this is absolutely set in stone, hinging on a single word choice". The system is built for speed and quickly moving through the story, but there are some random roadblocks it'll throw in your way like "is a saving throw an ability check?"
The action economy sucks. You get a move action, a standard action, a bonus action, and a reaction. There's no trading around, so if all my bard abilities key off of my bonus action, then I'm just kind of screwed. Sure, it's balance stuff, but it feels bad. I much preferred the 4e action pyramid, but the pf2 system is even better.
The major factor for why I'm here, though, is the options. After playing 5e for ~5 years now, I just feel like my players have played everything. I'm bored. You make a few choices here and there if you aren't a spell caster, and that's about it. pf2 gives me options at every single level, and they seem extremely different. Likewise, while GMing I feel like my players have fought every monster. Not literally, but there's so little variation between them that they might as well have.
I don't think pf2 is perfect. I wish they would have stolen 5e's spell casting system, for one. But it's something new, and I don't get a lot of that from WotC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GURPS player approached me to make "a 5 inch tall salamander man."As soon as you mentioned having a GURPS player I saw this coming, but reading it still cracked me up.
Having played GURPS before, that's such a GURPS mindset. XD One of my friends decided to make a character that was, and I quote, "A psychic hive mind nanobot swarm infesting and controlling the body of a cyborg wizard".
It only took him a couple hours to build. XD
I had a coworker I used to play with who would come up with all these b$&#$$+ crazy characters he used to play as and I'd think to myself "how the f#*$ did you find someone to let you do all this s#%*!".
Now I know. :-D
I had a coworker I used to play with who would come up with all these b$+$#@! crazy characters he used to play as and I'd think to myself "how the f!~@ did you find someone to let you do all this s%@%!".
Now I know. :-D
GURPS takes the "universal" part of its name very seriously.
It would be hard to come up with a character concept, no matter how weird, that you couldn't build in GURPS. And unlike systems like Fate or Risus that handle weird concepts by being very rules-light, GURPS takes the approach of just providing rules for absolutely everything you can imagine.
Sometimes rules for too many things, honestly. We don't talk about GURPS Vehicles...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes rules for too many things, honestly. We don't talk about GURPS Vehicles...
I actually have a copy of that. It's super fascinating from a design perspective, especially as a contrast to the philosophy from PF2e. GURPS Vehicles was (I'll use past tense, since it's a 3rd edition book and 4th came out ... 15 years ago) kind of the crowning achievement of a bottom-up design. If you want your vehicle design choices to be limited by the volume they take up, or their power requirements, or their weight, hoo boy, you could. I mean, you had to, that's how it was written. Same with GURPS Robots, which was the same author.
And PF1 monsters were kinda like that - slowly build it all up according to the various rules about which type/subtype/hit dies/etc., then throw on a bunch of modifiers to make it balanced-ish.
When the explanations for the top-down approach for PF2 NPC/monster/hazard design were first coming out, and again when the GameMastery Guide monster/hazard design preview PDF came out, I couldn't help but think of how it was the antithesis of GURPS Vehicles. I'll always have a soft spot for weird, simulationist design, but it's kind of always fighting with good gameplay - things like balance (typically some options are going to always be better), ease of play, and GM overhead are the costs.
It's also interesting because a sharp GURPS GM would end up taking the same top-down approach with NPCs - because the points system for GURPS characters didn't balance things like combat separately from, say, non-combat skills, it was easier to just set a number and not worry about the point cost. The math would tell you how good that number was independently of anything else.
And by contrast to the point cost approach, this is another place to mention how much I love that PF2 player characters have a bunch of different buckets that don't always directly compete for choices; skill feats, ancestry feats, general feats, and class feats. Sure, there's some concern about optimizing for combat vs. general utility with every single category of choices, but I think it's still a good approach.
Fascinating perspective, RicoTheBold. I'll be honest - by the time I finished reading the table of contents of Vehicles I was laughing so hard I had a hard time actually parsing the rest of the book.
And this was years and years ago so my memory is hazy.
But I do remember thinking that if my goal had been "I want to make a car" and I opened to that table of contents, I would have had no idea where to even begin to start. :)
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then there's this:*
PRO: ROLEPLAYING GAMES MARKET REPORT AND TOP BRANDS CHART - SUMMER 2019
Paizo Launches 'Pathfinder 2E,' but 'D&D' is Still KingNo "Pro" account for me but it would be interesting to know what the Top 5 looks like below #1.
This also looks like it ends with the summer and not fall or holiday sales but I doubt the #1 position changes in either case.
* Cross-posted here --> Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 5th Edition (And Beyond)
You're not a Pro? That's ... mildly disappointing. But only so.
1. D&D
2. PF
3. Shadowrun
4. V:tM
5. Star Wars
The article also notes that it covers feedback for the period May - August and PF2 launched only in Aug, so it's indeed interesting how the next one will come.
I'm super curious as to "we came from 5e" people. I've played and ran 5e, enjoyed it, appreciated the (relative, it's still D&D after all) lightness of the ruleset and the elegance of advantage/disadvantage mechanic, but I've found character development uneventful and the lack of player-side options annoying - I wanted to make an urban "cobblestones and cockroaches" druid, the game is 5 years old and it still doesn't give me the building blocks for that. I expect PF2 to be much more robust in this department 5 years in.
Disclosure: I'm currently wrapping up a 5E campaign, should be done in the next few months. My local org play is ~all PFS2 these days, and I tend to split my cons 50/50 with DDAL and Paizo org play, depending on the con. GenCon was more Paizo; GameHoleCon was more DDAL.
In 5E I've tended to play at least part casters, so I had more customization options than pure martials, which likely would have felt stale. A friend just finished playing a 5E campaign and shared he had the same sorts of issues with the system: I told him to take a look at PF2E; he did and likes it. He just signed up on Warhorn to play his first session locally tomorrow, and plans to run Age of Ashes for the other players in his group.Aside the first: for the cobblestones and cockroaches druid, have you looked at the Circle of Spores from the Ravnica supplement? might be close enough for you.
Aside the second: After my 5E campaign ends, I plan to take a couple months off, and then start running a PF2E AP. Probably Extinction Curse; the premise seems really neat. That will be my literal circus, and the PCs will be my figurative monkeys. :)
Vampire's definitely an RP heavy game. I played one session with a large group with 3 DMs who more or less LARPed it around a strip mall. It was weird, but the system seemed like a simple d6 die pool thing. Reminded me of Warhammer mechanically.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't understand the V:tM attraction. It's been a Top 5 contender for a long time and not only have I never played, I don't know anyone who has and have only heard of one person that did about 5 years ago now, maybe longer.
PF is obviously PF2 and it surprises me that SF dropped out of the Top 5 but then, as mentioned, I don't understand V:tM's placement so what do I know?
Be interesting to see if SW moves up with the 4th quarter returns.
Masquerade is in contention because it’s 5th Edition came out at the end of 18, and two major release supplements came out in 19 - one during the summer. There was also a major Kickstarter for a beloved supplement’s redesign over the summer that brought renewed attention.
The game had been dormant for a long time (White Wolf stopped publishing it in 04, replacing it with Vampire: The Requiem and left the game unsupported until 2011 when they released a Masquerade 20th Anniversary edition.)
While you may not have personally met anyone who played it, there is still a huge fan base. Remember, before Paizo managed to topple D&D from the top of the sales chart the only other company to have done so for any real period of time was White Wolf
It was weird, but the system seemed like a simple d6 die pool thing.
d10’s but yeah. Dots on your sheet equal a die, you roll the number of d10’s determined by the number of dots you have. 1-6 are failures (except in V5 where 6 is a success) 7-9 are successes. 10’s explode.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not even know who Melf was
A male elf.
Seriously.
I do not even know who Melf wasA male elf.
Seriously.
Technically, yes. However, that answer is just a bit incomplete.
[1st Ed AD&D] Melf was an male elf fighter/magic-user (IIRC, he was an agent of Tenser). In addition to Melf's acid arrow, he is credited as the creator of Melf's minute meteors.
I can't remember if he appeared in any modules, but he did appear in one of Gary Gygax's Gord the Rogue novels. [/1st Ed AD&D]
Who's up for Forbes RPG?
Class:
o Banker
o Robber
o Manager
o Office Worker
o Janitor
o IT
o Salesman (the magic user)
.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not even know who Melf wasA male elf.
Seriously.
Technically, yes. However, that answer is just a bit incomplete.
[1st Ed AD&D] Melf was an male elf fighter/magic-user (IIRC, he was an agent of Tenser). In addition to Melf's acid arrow, he is credited as the creator of Melf's minute meteors.
I can't remember if he appeared in any modules, but he did appear in one of Gary Gygax's Gord the Rogue novels. [/1st Ed AD&D]
I think he’s pointing out the funny naming convention of the named spellcasters.
For instance Drawmij from Drawmij’s instant summoning was Jim Ward’s character (drawmij is Jim ward spelled backward). The spell is actually named after the adventuring party Gary gigax was running needed an item they didn’t have with them and Jim Ward remarked that there should be a spell for that.
I kinda hope paizo does some iconic spellcaster spells. Maybe they have already and I missed it, but I found it gave a sense that magic was more “alive” since it was still being perfected (since most of the casters were still around in the setting).
I would just like to say a Forbes contributor saying it's one of the best RPGs of the year in their blog/listicle isn't the same as Forbes, the institution itself, saying it's one of the best RPGs of the year.
Yes it is.
Who's up for Forbes RPG?
Class:
o Banker
o Robber
o Manager
o Office Worker
o Janitor
o IT
o Salesman (the magic user).
o Attorney (the Cleric)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lol. What would “Forbes the institution” coming out with an opinion on the best RPG of the year even look like? Announcement to the share market? Letter to shareholders?
|
I would just like to say a Forbes contributor saying it's one of the best RPGs of the year in their blog/listicle isn't the same as Forbes, the institution itself, saying it's one of the best RPGs of the year.Yes it is.
If the byline reads "Forbes Staff" then it is someone who is a vetted journalist full-time employed by Forbes.
If the byline reads "Forbes Contributor" then it can be anyone who is an "expert" in their field who can hopefully drive traffic to Forbes' website and potentially make money from popular articles. Basically the contributors are blogging.
Forbes.com uses a "contributor model" in which a wide network of "contributors" writes and publishes articles directly on the website.[28] Contributors are paid based on traffic to their respective Forbes.com pages; the site has received contributions from over 2,500 individuals, and some contributors have earned over US$100,000, according to the company.[28] Forbes currently allows advertisers to publish blog posts on its website alongside regular editorial content through a program called BrandVoice, which accounts for more than 10 percent of its digital revenue.[29]
While some contributors are former/current professional journalists, many others are not--and none represent the official opinion or views of Forbes.
No, it isn't.I would just like to say a Forbes contributor saying it's one of the best RPGs of the year in their blog/listicle isn't the same as Forbes, the institution itself, saying it's one of the best RPGs of the year.Yes it is.
Thank you for proving your innocence. You've convinced me.
If they rate it by sells it makes sense.
If they rate it by sells it makes sense.
We already have the quarterly sales data (in another thread.)
Edit: ICv2 something, something