| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 feels nothing like 4E. If it did, I wouldn't play it. I despised 4E. I know what game felt and played like and PF2 not even close to 4E, not sure why some keep making that ludicrous, unsupportable claim. They don't play the same at all. And I played 4E to give it a chance like every edition of D&D.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, the best thing about 5e is accessibility, the rules are simple, yes there are holes in them, which tends to lead to house ruling or GMing on the fly. But to me that isn’t a weakness.
...
If those people are casual about the game and don’t wanna have to do so much research I’d suggest 5e
I always find this point so strange, because in the grand scheme of tRPGs, 5e really isn't an accessible game - the core rules are several hundred pages long, there are big lists of equipment, spells, feats, etc to look through, the rules themselves are inconsistent and don't follow a pattern well, and you need to jump all over the several hundred page book to make a character from scratch. It's definitely a more accessible game than PF1, and at the very least less intimidating than PF2, but there are so many really good, really accessible ttRPGs that people could start off with instead of 5e. There are one-page RPGs and games like Index Card RPG that have the full rules in a page or so, and are incredibly accessible to learn. There are really good indie RPGs like Monster of the Week or Fellowship that give you all the rules a player needs to know to make and play their character on the same piece of A4 paper that is the character sheet. There are OSR games that embrace the philosophy of 'rulings over rules' that makes them very straightforward for players. There are RPGs like Spire that have similar crunch levels to 5e, but have rules that are consistent and are (in my experience at least) much easier for new players to grasp. If you want an experience that's as close to classic D&D as you can but with simpler, more accessible rules, there are games like Dungeon World (though it skews a little too close to the morality of old D&D for me personally) which capture that vibe well.
I hope this isn't coming off as an attack at you, Chromatic Durgon - that's definitely not my intent. I just get a little frustrated at how often I see this line of discussion when it comes to 5e. It's true that it's more accessible (for a player, at least) than PF2 and definitely more accessible than PF1 - but we're in the middle of such a wonderful renaissance of games with significant diversity of game design. There are so many interesting games that one could be playing, when a common talking point for 5e is 'the best thing about it is the accessibility!' I just want to point people to all the other really cool, more accessible games!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not playing the same as 4e is why I said fixed 4e and why I said they removed the MMO elements.
Also I say being bored of options make the game relatively less fun, but not actually less fun, hence why I specified bored. Similarly, bored of the options doesn't mean that the game doesn't work, just that you are tired of it. I still say most players don't care about harder or more balances content, just easy cool playable content that doesn't feel "samey"/"boring".
If they wanted harder and/or more playable content they would be playing GURPS or early DnD.
I'm not currently bored. Not sure what you're talking about.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The answer is simple.
Those other games are not DnD, Pathfinder, or [insert popular IP here].
Same way that some people will refuse to drink any soda unless its coke or pepsi.
I am under no illusion that my pointing out other games is going to meaningfully change the ttRPG industry! But if an individual enjoys 5e for its accessibility, there's a chance they may enjoy some of the other games or genres I mentioned :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That part was a response to Gortle, thought it was self explanatory.I'm not currently bored. Not sure what you're talking about.Not playing the same as 4e is why I said fixed 4e and why I said they removed the MMO elements.
Also I say being bored of options make the game relatively less fun, but not actually less fun, hence why I specified bored. Similarly, bored of the options doesn't mean that the game doesn't work, just that you are tired of it. I still say most players don't care about harder or more balances content, just easy cool playable content that doesn't feel "samey"/"boring".
If they wanted harder and/or more playable content they would be playing GURPS or early DnD.
Not really.
I'm still not sure why some think PF2 is doing badly or people are bored of it. Seems like PF2 is doing fine and suits quite a few people's taste in games. The TTRPG market seems to be able to support a lot of different games and preferences with sufficient money to support the companies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm gonna be honest, while I don't think PF2 is for everyone, I also don't think 5e is for anyone. The game gets its playerbase from inertia and marketing. If you want streamlined story time where the rules don't get in the way 5e isn't actually that great for that and as Arcaian said there are dozens of other systems that will do that better (I personally had a ton of fun running Wicked Ones for my girlfriend). 5e just sits in this weird middle ground between the crunchy and narrative games where the only thing it does well is be Dungeons and Dragons.
I mean sure, I guess DND can have the appeal of unflavored corn flakes. Unflavored corn flakes also make an inexplicable amount of money.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was saying people are starting to get bored of 5e. Where did you get the PF2 part?That part was a response to Gortle, thought it was self explanatory.I'm not currently bored. Not sure what you're talking about.Not playing the same as 4e is why I said fixed 4e and why I said they removed the MMO elements.
Also I say being bored of options make the game relatively less fun, but not actually less fun, hence why I specified bored. Similarly, bored of the options doesn't mean that the game doesn't work, just that you are tired of it. I still say most players don't care about harder or more balances content, just easy cool playable content that doesn't feel "samey"/"boring".
If they wanted harder and/or more playable content they would be playing GURPS or early DnD.
Not really.
I'm still not sure why some think PF2 is doing badly or people are bored of it. Seems like PF2 is doing fine and suits quite a few people's taste in games. The TTRPG market seems to be able to support a lot of different games and preferences with sufficient money to support the companies.
You seemed to be talking about PF2 in the original post.
5E is doing fine too as far as I know. Did you go see the Dungeons and Dragons movie? They spent some money on the cast this time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what your point is. I think we basically agree? DND's success comes from:
1) Cast the absolute widest net possible
2) Use marketing noise to make TTRPG equate to DND
3) Get your playerbase to believe that their issues with your game cannot be solved by looking at other games, only by playing more DND
It can make money and also suck. I don't respect it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please remember at even at its weakest, during 4e, D&D still outsold everything not named Pathfinder.
So it's unsurprising that during a boom that they created, backed by both tons of influencers and highly popular ones, that they're doing better than ever.
The D&D brand is just that strong, and that's the biggest factor behind their success.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Re: Balance in 5e.
I think 5e has a good tolerance for imbalance.
The game tends to be loaded towards the PCs in ways that the average person doesn't necessarily notice. For example, you get hit, fall to 0HP (because there are no negative HPs), then someone in the party uses 'Healing Word' to bring you back to 1HP so you can stand up (which doesn't provoke an attack) and keep on fighting.
This makes fights that seem hard to win actually quite hard to lose.
You can have a weak enemy seem like a threat, because they do significant damage, even though they have no real chance of winning.
You can have a bunch of incompetent players use terrible combat strategy and still win, when they'd have TPKd in the equivalent Pathfinder adventure.
You can have significant class imbalance in combat, and it doesn't really matter because the battles are pretty easy either way.
I always find this point so strange, because in the grand scheme of tRPGs, 5e really isn't an accessible game - the core rules are several hundred pages long, there are big lists of equipment, spells, feats, etc to look through, the rules themselves are inconsistent and don't follow a pattern well, and you need to jump all over the several hundred page book to make a character from scratch. It's definitely a more accessible game than PF1, and at the very least less intimidating than PF2, but there are so many really good, really accessible ttRPGs that people could start off with instead of 5e. There are one-page RPGs and games like Index Card RPG that have the full rules in a page or so, and are incredibly accessible to learn. There are really good indie RPGs like Monster of the Week or Fellowship that give you all the rules a player needs to know to make and play their character on the same piece of A4 paper that is the character sheet. There are OSR games that embrace the philosophy of 'rulings over rules' that makes them very straightforward for players. There are RPGs like Spire that have similar crunch levels to 5e, but have rules that are consistent and are (in my experience at least) much easier for new players to grasp. If you want an experience that's as close to classic D&D as you can but with simpler, more accessible rules, there are games like Dungeon World (though it skews a little too close to the morality of old D&D for me personally) which capture that vibe well.
That nobodies ever heard of.
That don’t have hundreds of popular YouTube channels dedicated to them.
That don’t have Amazon prime cartoon series.
Part of being accessible is having people know you exist
Part of being accessible is being able to Google something and get a 7 minute how to video about it, put together by someone whose comfortable speaking on camera.
Part of being accessible is hearing a name and thinking you know what it is. Nobody whose never played an rpg is gonna have any idea what spire is, they’re immediately gonna feel like they’ve got to learn and do research.
Someone says D&D and they already feel like they know something, they’re already ahead.
The fact you have a wide knowledge of the available rpg games out there, doesn’t mean someone wanting to pick something up for the first time as a casual game without much research.
I don’t know whether it’s plane denial of the facts or you all just genuinely don’t realise it but these are all factors in how easy a game is to pick up.
Re: Balance in 5e.
I think 5e has a good tolerance for imbalance.
The game tends to be loaded towards the PCs in ways that the average person doesn't necessarily notice. For example, you get hit, fall to 0HP (because there are no negative HPs), then someone in the party uses 'Healing Word' to bring you back to 1HP so you can stand up (which doesn't provoke an attack) and keep on fighting.
This makes fights that seem hard to win actually quite hard to lose.
You can have a weak enemy seem like a threat, because they do significant damage, even though they have no real chance of winning.
You can have a bunch of incompetent players use terrible combat strategy and still win, when they'd have TPKd in the equivalent Pathfinder adventure.
You can have significant class imbalance in combat, and it doesn't really matter because the battles are pretty easy either way.
The is definitely another factor is how accessible it is too.
For all the talk about pf2 being a more robust system with more customisation that’s harder to break.
The chances of a group of novices dying repeatedly in pf2 is much much higher. And there’s nothing like the character you just spent hours fiddling around with on path builder, dying unceremoniously to put you off a game.
I was saying people are starting to get bored of 5e. Where did you get the PF2 part?That part was a response to Gortle, thought it was self explanatory.I'm not currently bored. Not sure what you're talking about.Not playing the same as 4e is why I said fixed 4e and why I said they removed the MMO elements.
Also I say being bored of options make the game relatively less fun, but not actually less fun, hence why I specified bored. Similarly, bored of the options doesn't mean that the game doesn't work, just that you are tired of it. I still say most players don't care about harder or more balances content, just easy cool playable content that doesn't feel "samey"/"boring".
If they wanted harder and/or more playable content they would be playing GURPS or early DnD.
Not really.
I'm still not sure why some think PF2 is doing badly or people are bored of it. Seems like PF2 is doing fine and suits quite a few people's taste in games. The TTRPG market seems to be able to support a lot of different games and preferences with sufficient money to support the companies.
You seemed to be talking about PF2 in the original post.
5E is doing fine too as far as I know. Did you go see the Dungeons and Dragons movie? They spent some money on the cast this time.
This kinda feels like you’re being deliberately argumentative
Temp was clearly saying the people getting bored of 5e are getting bored for x reasons
And you’re picking fights over “I’m not bored”, “people aren’t bored of of2 why would you say that”, “people aren’t bored of 5e there’s a movie”
None of which has addressed what temp said. Maybe go back and understand their post, cause this exchange is frustrating.
I was saying people are starting to get bored of 5e. Where did you get the PF2 part?That part was a response to Gortle, thought it was self explanatory.I'm not currently bored. Not sure what you're talking about.Not playing the same as 4e is why I said fixed 4e and why I said they removed the MMO elements.
Also I say being bored of options make the game relatively less fun, but not actually less fun, hence why I specified bored. Similarly, bored of the options doesn't mean that the game doesn't work, just that you are tired of it. I still say most players don't care about harder or more balances content, just easy cool playable content that doesn't feel "samey"/"boring".
If they wanted harder and/or more playable content they would be playing GURPS or early DnD.
Not really.
I'm still not sure why some think PF2 is doing badly or people are bored of it. Seems like PF2 is doing fine and suits quite a few people's taste in games. The TTRPG market seems to be able to support a lot of different games and preferences with sufficient money to support the companies.
You seemed to be talking about PF2 in the original post.
5E is doing fine too as far as I know. Did you go see the Dungeons and Dragons movie? They spent some money on the cast this time.
This kinda feels like you’re being deliberately argumentative
Temp was clearly saying the people getting bored of 5e are getting bored for x reasons
And you’re picking fights over “I’m not bored”, “people aren’t bored of of2 why would you say that”, “people aren’t bored of 5e there’s a movie”
None of which has addressed what temp said. Maybe go back and understand their post, cause this exchange is frustrating.
I did read his post. There's nothing to understand. 5E is doing just fine. People who make these arguments don't have a basis. They're just saying it to say it.
Paizo and D&D are less competitors and more allies in keeping the gaming hobby alive. It's good for the entire hobby to have plenty of people playing all types of TTRPG games that appeal to different segments of the market to make for a robust hobby market with lots of crossover.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Re: Balance in 5e.
I think 5e has a good tolerance for imbalance.
The game tends to be loaded towards the PCs in ways that the average person doesn't necessarily notice. For example, you get hit, fall to 0HP (because there are no negative HPs), then someone in the party uses 'Healing Word' to bring you back to 1HP so you can stand up (which doesn't provoke an attack) and keep on fighting.
This makes fights that seem hard to win actually quite hard to lose.
You can have a weak enemy seem like a threat, because they do significant damage, even though they have no real chance of winning.
You can have a bunch of incompetent players use terrible combat strategy and still win, when they'd have TPKd in the equivalent Pathfinder adventure.
You can have significant class imbalance in combat, and it doesn't really matter because the battles are pretty easy either way.
The is definitely another factor is how accessible it is too.
For all the talk about pf2 being a more robust system with more customisation that’s harder to break.
The chances of a group of novices dying repeatedly in pf2 is much much higher. And there’s nothing like the character you just spent hours fiddling around with on path builder, dying unceremoniously to put you off a game.
Honestly, this kind of "accessibility" turns out to be very bad in the end. Because ultimately what you're saying is nothing matters, the important thing is that the players are going to win in the end no matter what they do. In the end, this leads to several questions about whether it's really worth continuing to play something that always leads to the same result no matter what you do.
I also don't necessarily think that most players think risk is bad. In fact the basic principle of a game is risk, a game with few risks at the end is a game doomed to triviality and that quickly becomes boring for many, if not most people. If risk aversion in gaming were such a significant thing, we wouldn't have so many people playing games like Dark Souls or competitive games where you have a huge chance of losing, even after a lot of effort.
However, it is an interesting view, which perhaps helps to explain why, in general, the players most averse to the difficulty of PF2 are precisely the players of D&D 5e, while players who are new to the hobby or who have experience with several different TTRPGs often do not have major problems. therefore.
Another problem is that this over time can end up creating the stigma that exists in video games towards smartphone gamers vs PC/Console gamers. Where due to the various facilities smartphone game players are considered 2nd class players who do not know how to play "real games".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That nobodies ever heard of.
That don’t have hundreds of popular YouTube channels dedicated to them.
That don’t have Amazon prime cartoon series.
Part of being accessible is having people know you exist
Part of being accessible is being able to Google something and get a 7 minute how to video about it, put together by someone whose comfortable speaking on camera.
Part of being accessible is hearing a name and thinking you know what it is. Nobody whose never played an rpg is gonna have any idea what spire is, they’re immediately gonna feel like they’ve got to learn and do research.
Someone says D&D and they already feel like they know something, they’re already ahead.
The fact you have a wide knowledge of the available rpg games out there, doesn’t mean someone wanting to pick something up for the first time as a casual game without much research.
I don’t know whether it’s plane denial of the facts or you all just genuinely don’t realise it but these are all factors in how easy a game is to pick up.
There is certainly a kind of accessibility in raw ubiquity and having a real juggernaut of an advertising machine behind it but it isn't good. At this point 5e is soundly drowning out other games in the space and forcing themselves to be defined in relation to D&D. People feel like 5e is THE GAME and then they get a product that is mechanically obtuse and inconsistent.
Meanwhile D&D is distinctly much more of a lifestyle brand than a game, with people encouraged to tie up their entire identity in it and churn out huge quantities of content around it, actively sucking the air out of the room for anything else. Their market saturation isn't good and the game frankly isn't good either.
People are trying to produce that content for other games. Pathfinder, WoD, Lancer, Blades in the Dark, Kids on Bikes, Eclipse Phase, Wanderhome, Numenera, and much more but they get drowned out and by a company with incredibly dodgy designs on what TTRPGs should be.
Re: Balance in 5e.
I think 5e has a good tolerance for imbalance.
The game tends to be loaded towards the PCs in ways that the average person doesn't necessarily notice. For example, you get hit, fall to 0HP (because there are no negative HPs), then someone in the party uses 'Healing Word' to bring you back to 1HP so you can stand up (which doesn't provoke an attack) and keep on fighting.
This makes fights that seem hard to win actually quite hard to lose.
You can have a weak enemy seem like a threat, because they do significant damage, even though they have no real chance of winning.
You can have a bunch of incompetent players use terrible combat strategy and still win, when they'd have TPKd in the equivalent Pathfinder adventure.
You can have significant class imbalance in combat, and it doesn't really matter because the battles are pretty easy either way.
The is definitely another factor is how accessible it is too.
For all the talk about pf2 being a more robust system with more customisation that’s harder to break.
The chances of a group of novices dying repeatedly in pf2 is much much higher. And there’s nothing like the character you just spent hours fiddling around with on path builder, dying unceremoniously to put you off a game.
Honestly, this kind of "accessibility" turns out to be very bad in the end. Because ultimately what you're saying is nothing matters, the important thing is that the players are going to win in the end no matter what they do. In the end, this leads to several questions about whether it's really worth continuing to play something that always leads to the same result no matter what you do.
I also don't necessarily think that most players think risk is bad. In fact the basic principle of a game is risk, a game with few risks at the end is a game doomed to triviality and that quickly becomes boring for many, if not most people. If risk aversion in gaming were such a...
5e is currently the most popular D&D has ever been so “very bad in the end” seems like a relative term, more people are playing and enjoying it than ever.
Not to mention that’s not what I’m saying.
You’ve conflated “relatively easy” with “no challenge at all”.
That nobodies ever heard of.
That don’t have hundreds of popular YouTube channels dedicated to them.
That don’t have Amazon prime cartoon series.
Part of being accessible is having people know you exist
Part of being accessible is being able to Google something and get a 7 minute how to video about it, put together by someone whose comfortable speaking on camera.
Part of being accessible is hearing a name and thinking you know what it is. Nobody whose never played an rpg is gonna have any idea what spire is, they’re immediately gonna feel like they’ve got to learn and do research.
Someone says D&D and they already feel like they know something, they’re already ahead.
The fact you have a wide knowledge of the available rpg games out there, doesn’t mean someone wanting to pick something up for the first time as a casual game without much research.
I don’t know whether it’s plane denial of the facts or you all just genuinely don’t realise it but these are all factors in how easy a game is to pick up.
There is certainly a kind of accessibility in raw ubiquity and having a real juggernaut of an advertising machine behind it but it isn't good. At this point 5e is soundly drowning out other games in the space and forcing themselves to be defined in relation to D&D. People feel like 5e is THE GAME and then they get a product that is mechanically obtuse and inconsistent.
Meanwhile D&D is distinctly much more of a lifestyle brand than a game, with people encouraged to tie up their entire identity in it and churn out huge quantities of content around it, actively sucking the air out of the room for anything else. Their market saturation isn't good and the game frankly isn't good either.
People are trying to produce that content for other games. Pathfinder, WoD, Lancer, Blades in the Dark, Kids on Bikes, Eclipse Phase, Wanderhome, Numenera, and much more but they get drowned out and by a company with incredibly dodgy designs on what...
I’m not sure anyones saying the ubiquity is good.
I’m simply saying it is. Refusing to acknowledge that fact isn’t productive, it’s a massive factor in accessibility.
As for whether the game is “good” I’m not absolute statements are that helpful or whether this is the thread for that discussion.
I did read his post...I was saying people are starting to get bored of 5e. Where did you get the PF2 part?That part was a response to Gortle, thought it was self explanatory.I'm not currently bored. Not sure what you're talking about.Not playing the same as 4e is why I said fixed 4e and why I said they removed the MMO elements.
Also I say being bored of options make the game relatively less fun, but not actually less fun, hence why I specified bored. Similarly, bored of the options doesn't mean that the game doesn't work, just that you are tired of it. I still say most players don't care about harder or more balances content, just easy cool playable content that doesn't feel "samey"/"boring".
If they wanted harder and/or more playable content they would be playing GURPS or early DnD.
Not really.
I'm still not sure why some think PF2 is doing badly or people are bored of it. Seems like PF2 is doing fine and suits quite a few people's taste in games. The TTRPG market seems to be able to support a lot of different games and preferences with sufficient money to support the companies.
You seemed to be talking about PF2 in the original post.
5E is doing fine too as far as I know. Did you go see the Dungeons and Dragons movie? They spent some money on the cast this time.
This kinda feels like you’re being deliberately argumentative
Temp was clearly saying the people getting bored of 5e are getting bored for x reasons
And you’re picking fights over “I’m not bored”, “people aren’t bored of of2 why would you say that”, “people aren’t bored of 5e there’s a movie”
None of which has addressed what temp said. Maybe go back and understand their post, cause this exchange is frustrating.
And yet you continue to argue against a point they weren’t making.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That nobodies ever heard of.
That don’t have hundreds of popular YouTube channels dedicated to them.
That don’t have Amazon prime cartoon series.
Part of being accessible is having people know you exist
Part of being accessible is being able to Google something and get a 7 minute how to video about it, put together by someone whose comfortable speaking on camera.
Part of being accessible is hearing a name and thinking you know what it is. Nobody whose never played an rpg is gonna have any idea what spire is, they’re immediately gonna feel like they’ve got to learn and do research.
Someone says D&D and they already feel like they know something, they’re already ahead.
The fact you have a wide knowledge of the available rpg games out there, doesn’t mean someone wanting to pick something up for the first time as a casual game without much research.
I don’t know whether it’s plane denial of the facts or you all just genuinely don’t realise it but these are all factors in how easy a game is to pick up.
There is certainly a kind of accessibility in raw ubiquity and having a real juggernaut of an advertising machine behind it but it isn't good. At this point 5e is soundly drowning out other games in the space and forcing themselves to be defined in relation to D&D. People feel like 5e is THE GAME and then they get a product that is mechanically obtuse and inconsistent.
Meanwhile D&D is distinctly much more of a lifestyle brand than a game, with people encouraged to tie up their entire identity in it and churn out huge quantities of content around it, actively sucking the air out of the room for anything else. Their market saturation isn't good and the game frankly isn't good either.
People are trying to produce that content for other games. Pathfinder, WoD, Lancer, Blades in the Dark, Kids on Bikes, Eclipse Phase, Wanderhome, Numenera, and much more but they get drowned out and by a company with incredibly dodgy designs on what...
To further emphasize this point: Every single person I know who plays D&D 5e has massively homebrewed it. To give just a few examples: They didn't like that it either did not support, or did not do skill challenges well, so they made their own. Another felt like it was, in fact, too easy and thus nerfed everybody's HP to the same formula as Pathfinder 2E's Proficiency progression stuck at trained, for the entire game to "make it harder." There are numerous other mods, additions, homebrew rules, literally entire systems hand crafted to make D&D 5e "better."
And the entire time that one gripe, that one pain point, or multiple, or even all of them I'm saying, "There's a game for that." Often the game that addresses their issue is PF2E. But there's also Wrath & Glory, Age of Sigmar Soulbound, Kult: Divinity Lost, etc etc and another person already listed out 50 games.
Yet for some inexplicable reason nobody wants to leave the comfort of D&D 5e. They'll put in thousands of hours of work to morph this game they basically don't like into something else they DO like rather than try a new game, and I really don't think this is a good thing. I don't know why people cleave so closely to D&D 5e and refuse to branch out or expand their horizons or god forbid play something they actually like that solves all of their problems with 5e. I'm not even saying these new systems or games won't have their own issues said DMs (multiple) won't find, but like...many of them, PF2E specifically even, fixes a lot of these pain points straight away.
I can continue with example of homebrewing new systems, reworking entire features, etc, but I'm sure all of you probably don't know a single person who actually plays pure 5e completely RAW no homebrew.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That nobodies ever heard of.
That don’t have hundreds of popular YouTube channels dedicated to them.
That don’t have Amazon prime cartoon series.
Part of being accessible is having people know you exist
Part of being accessible is being able to Google something and get a 7 minute how to video about it, put together by someone whose comfortable speaking on camera.
Part of being accessible is hearing a name and thinking you know what it is. Nobody whose never played an rpg is gonna have any idea what spire is, they’re immediately gonna feel like they’ve got to learn and do research.
Someone says D&D and they already feel like they know something, they’re already ahead.
The fact you have a wide knowledge of the available rpg games out there, doesn’t mean someone wanting to pick something up for the first time as a casual game without much research.
I don’t know whether it’s plane denial of the facts or you all just genuinely don’t realise it but these are all factors in how easy a game is to pick up.
I'm definitely not trying to argue that 5e doesn't have a tremendous advantage in reach and visibility over all other ttRPGs - that would be plainly ignoring reality, as you say. I ran a club at uni introducing students to ttRPGs, and I am fully aware how few of them even knew what Pathfinder was, despite being the second biggest RPG on the market. How I'm using accessibility doesn't really include visibility though. I was talking about the game design, and when saying accessibility I am talking about how the game design gives rise to more or less accessible games for new players. When I'm talking about visibility, I'm meaning the popularity of the game in the cultural zeitgeist.
I feel they're important to distinguish, because if someone is talking to a new player who wants to get into tRPGs and says 'the key advantage of 5e is its accessibility', I think they'll interpret that as 'this is a really easy-to-get-into beginner's game'. If you say 'the key advantage of 5e is its visibility', they'll interpret that as 'it's easy to find tables and information' instead. Perhaps that isn't how everyone is using the words, or the distinction isn't helpful to everyone - but it is meaningful to me. When introducing new players, I had quite a few who just wanted to get into the ttRPG hobby regardless of system - I wouldn't send them in the direction of 5e, as I think there are more accessible, better games for beginners. For prospective players who had listened to all of Critical Role and watched a bunch of youtube videos and just wanted to play 5e because of that visibility, it's a different thing to me. When someone says '5e's biggest advantage is its accessibility', if they're meaning visibility then I fully agree; if they're meaning accessibility, then I'd love for them to find out about games that are more accessible! :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You also raise another advantage 5e has going for it, which is the amount of tables/groups running it.
It’s orders of magnitude easier to find a 5e table than a pf2 for example.
|
|
I can continue with example of homebrewing new systems, reworking entire features, etc, but I'm sure all of you probably don't know a single person who actually plays pure 5e completely RAW no homebrew.While I very much support what you've wrote, I definitely know a lot of such people: DnD Adventurers League exists, and it uses RAW, just like PFS for PF.
I'll amend my statement to: I'm sure you don't know anyone who plays D&D 5e RAW in a homegame that has not been standardized to public standard like Adventure League :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm definitely not trying to argue that 5e doesn't have a tremendous advantage in reach and visibility over all other ttRPGs - that would be plainly ignoring reality, as you say. I ran a club at uni introducing students to ttRPGs, and I am fully aware how few of them even knew what Pathfinder was, despite being the second biggest RPG on the market. How I'm using accessibility doesn't really include visibility though. I was talking about the game design, and when saying accessibility I am talking about how the game design gives rise to more or less accessible games for new players. When I'm talking about visibility, I'm meaning the popularity of the game in the cultural zeitgeist.I feel they're important to distinguish, because if someone is talking to a new player who wants to get into tRPGs and says 'the key advantage of 5e is its accessibility', I think they'll interpret that as 'this is a really easy-to-get-into beginner's game'. If you say...
I'd argue that accessibility includes visibility, in that it's hard to get people to join a game if people have no idea what it is. It's rare that people go "I'm fine with playing any TTRPG" as they enter into the system.
I think 5e is accessible enough in gameplay that it doesn't deter people from its overwhelming popularity.
|
|
A hot take...if Hasbro execs were savvy, they'd diversify their investment by having WoTC release PF2 versions of some (or even all) of their campaign source books.
What does that mean? How would that work? You mean like Princes of the Apocalypse or that one with Baron Ravendrath the Vampire guy? But in 2E rules?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll amend my statement to: I'm sure you don't know anyone who plays D&D 5e RAW in a homegame that has not been standardized to public standard like Adventure League :PI can continue with example of homebrewing new systems, reworking entire features, etc, but I'm sure all of you probably don't know a single person who actually plays pure 5e completely RAW no homebrew.While I very much support what you've wrote, I definitely know a lot of such people: DnD Adventurers League exists, and it uses RAW, just like PFS for PF.
I was in a game that wasn't AL that played 5e RAW... or at least did so to the best understanding of the DM, which is about as close as you're going to get.
I'll also say that those of you out there saying that 5e has no virtues are fooling yourselves. 5e is built of a different kind of player than PF2 is, and its virtues are likewise different.
Simply put, getting into 5e is really very low-effort for the players. You pick a race, and possibly a subrace. You pick a class. You pick a background. You develop vague plans about your class path. You arrange something resembling a reasonable set of stats, you grab some gear... and you're done. If you're not a caster, you've just done most of the design work that this character will ever need. That's the accessibility gain. I can throw together a brand new 5e character by hand in an hour, tops, plus maybe another hour of backstory work if I want to get fancy with it. By contrast, if I want to actually do a proper job of designing a PF2 character, it involves lots more work than that - more decisions to make, and the decisions interact with one another in more complicated ways.
Now personally? I like the PF2 way of doing things a lot more. I prefer it... but there are people out there for whom character design is "that part that you have to drag yourself through in order to get to the good stuff" rather than itself being an entertaining part of the game, and 5e is very much designed for those people.
...and, you know, it turns out that there are a lot of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Realistically, WotC does better if they can avoid acknowledging that Paizo exists. They don't want to sell any of their books under PF2 because they don't want to have anything that they sell point people in that direction. They want to own it all themselves.
At some point, PF2 may become a big enough deal that that's no longer the case for them, but for the moment, I'm pretty sure it still is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll also say that those of you out there saying that 5e has no virtues are fooling yourselves. 5e is built of a different kind of player than PF2 is, and its virtues are likewise different.
Exactly this. I've met plenty of people whose preferred edition is 5e and who have bounced off other systems.
On several different axes - complexity, simulationism, difficulty, and so on - 5E is a middle-of-the-road option and therefore very appealing. There's a comment up thread by Angwa about how 5e fails to capture the good points of several other systems, but I'd flip that statement around:
- It lacks the frequency of character death from early d&d and the focus on treasure hauls, enabling a more narrative focused game.
- It lacks the overwhelming crunch of 3e, PF1 and even Pf2, making it more accessible.
- It takes a looser approach to balance than pf2, enabling players to "win via character build", which a quite a few people actually *like*, based on my experience.
- It's more simulationist than 4e, making gameplay feel more natural and less like a fancy boardgame.
Of course, it's less narrative focused than a rules-light storytelling game, its crunchier than a PbtA game, it's more balanced than things like 3.5e, and less simulationist than something like Harnmaster.