D&D 2E Is 5e Basically Becoming Pathfinder 2e?

[cbwjm]

While I think it may be a little unfair to say that players of pathfinder aren't free thinking creative types, I can understand that many may not try things as much if they think there isn't a rule for it or if they think that to do something requires a feat. I also wouldn't be surprised if players of pathfinder like it because of the detailed rules. It means there will be no surprises when they try something since they'll know the underlying rule behind it. I also think with new players learning a game, they may be more inclined to look at their character sheet and use what's written there as what their character can do, this could easily happen with 5e as well whether they are creative or not.

Pathfinder has some great ideas but mainly I prefer 5e because of laziness. I just can't be bothered learning all the rules or knowing all the feats. It could happen again with 5e where instead of looking at all of the supplements I end up just sticking to choosing feats from the PHB. Luckily, 5e isn't at that point yet so it is easy enough to keep up with everything.

Boop!

 

[Mistwell]

While I have no study to support this, I will make a hypothesis: Free-thinking creative types prefer Castles & Crusades, and D&D 5E, while those other inclined folks prefer Pathfinder, where everything is laid out for you.

One style holds your hand, the other says "have at it."

Please no hate mail, I am being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Though I do think there might be something to my above hypothesis.

To some extent I agree. I think the more bare-bones the rules, the more it's expected the players can simply say "I do X" and the DM makes a judgement call based on the rules that do exist and their experience and instincts and campaign setting and the party and tells the player to roll something, or they roll something, or both, or simply say what happens. The fewer rules, the more the game encourages free thinking which gets away from looking at the character sheet and the rules to decide what to do and how to do it.

IE, it might actually be easier to express your perfect, unique PC in all their varied quirks and specialties using a system which expressly has no rules for all those things. One which simply says, "The player tells you what their character is trying to do, and you as GM decide how to adjudicate that thing, using the vague guidelines given in the rules and your judgement as a GM".

This is also the primary reason for those DMs I know who do not allow feats in their games - they want players to try and do most of those things anyway, as the situation and their imagination call for it. In fact, it's one of the primary reasons for those DMs I know who use only the basic game. If you want to play a Ranger, you just play a fighter (or Cleric or Rogue or Wizard, whichever works best for your concept) who is like a Ranger and describe the PC in Ranger-like terms and it works just fine in their games.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Personally, I think you've got right-brained and left-brained and I think you're on the right track (generally) with the right-brained = rules light and left = rules heavy. I do think though that both can be as creative as the other so I'd be very careful there.

In my experience it's a matter of longevity. The right brained folks may be really creative out of the gate, but they need to learn the skill of impersonating depth. The left brained folks will create depth out of the gate, but it'll take a good while before players will necessarily deem them creative.

Different approaches but it all balances out over time so long as you're with a game that meets your needs and a DM you like.

KB

 

[prosfilaes]

Another cognitive nugget: If you can only accomplish things in a fantasy world because you have some "mechanic," perhaps you are not ready to think for yourself. While I have no study to support this, I will make a hypothesis: Free-thinking creative types prefer Castles & Crusades, and D&D 5E, while those other inclined folks prefer Pathfinder, where everything is laid out for you.

Right, "free-thinking creative types" prefer the one and only mass-market RPG, designed to appeal to the maximum number of people in the RPG market. There's nothing fundamentally different in D&D 5 from Pathfinder mechanic wise. Compare "Primetime Adventures"; there's no fancy rolls or calculations to see if you can jump to the ship, you just do if you say you do and nobody disagrees.

I prefer Pathfinder because of the APs, because everything is online, because there's more options of races and other stuff. And the fact that's I've already spent a lot of time and money buying and becoming familiar with the material. Nothing to do with creativity.

Please no hate mail, I am being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Though I do think there might be something to my above hypothesis.

Own up to your statements; don't try and evade the consequences of expressing your opinion. This is much annoying than if you'd just left those sentences out.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Right, "free-thinking creative types" prefer the one and only mass-market RPG, designed to appeal to the maximum number of people in the RPG market. There's nothing fundamentally different in D&D 5 from Pathfinder mechanic wise. Compare "Primetime Adventures"; there's no fancy rolls or calculations to see if you can jump to the ship, you just do if you say you do and nobody disagrees.

I prefer Pathfinder because of the APs, because everything is online, because there's more options of races and other stuff. And the fact that's I've already spent a lot of time and money buying and becoming familiar with the material. Nothing to do with creativity.



Own up to your statements; don't try and evade the consequences of expressing your opinion. This is much annoying than if you'd just left those sentences out.

If it were me, I'd give the guy a break. He may have an opinion, but he may also lack the ability or level of tact to avoid expressing it without twisting a few knickers along the way.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

"Free-thinking creative types" should be able to adapt to and thrive in just about any system. That's what makes them free-thinking and creative. If you want to complain about Pathfinder or 5E or whatever game for whatever reason, clearly you're not free-thinking and creative enough.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Right, "free-thinking creative types" prefer the one and only mass-market RPG, designed to appeal to the maximum number of people in the RPG market.

The RPG market is still tiny and prone to fancy itself 'free-thinking creative types.'

I suspect the creative types are more like to be found participating in NaNoWriMo or on elfwood or something, y'know, creating, than playing an RPG. RPGs can be a creative outlet, but they're also very much games, and can be played & enjoyed without constantly engaging that creative side. What's more, they're cooperative, so the whole 'free-thinking' thing has to compromise a bit to get along.

Finally, while I've found RPGs to be a creative outlet, I've always found part of the appeal of an RPG to be the way it imposes models on fantasy bits. In a fantasy novel, you just come up with poetic ways of saying 'mighty warrior' to get across that a character is strong and skilled with weapons, in an FRPG, you get rules & numbers to back it up. In a crossover, which warrior is mightier probably has a lot to do with who's writing the book. In an FRPG, it's numbers on a character sheet.

RPGs appeal to our nerd side, the part of us that wants to argue whether Batman could take Superman, and how he'd do it...

There's nothing fundamentally different in D&D 5 from Pathfinder mechanic wise.

Nothing fundamental, no. Mainly volume: there's just more to PF than any one WotC ed of D&D - the 3.5 PF is a clone of not excepted.

 

[Eric V]

Own up to your statements; don't try and evade the consequences of expressing your opinion. This is much annoying than if you'd just left those sentences out.

Seriously.

What's more demanding of someone's creativity? A system with few boundaries, or one with more? In the first, there's little demand for creativity at all; the player declares something, and that's it, because there are no/few boundaries to concern oneself with. In the second, the player has to work within boundaries to create something special...that requires more imagination and creativity, it seems to me.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

IE, it might actually be easier to express your perfect, unique PC in all their varied quirks and specialties using a system which expressly has no rules for all those things. One which simply says, "The player tells you what their character is trying to do, and you as GM decide how to adjudicate that thing, using the vague guidelines given in the rules and your judgement as a GM".

I do know that, in every edition, it's easier to express your own personal conception of samurai using a basic fighter class, rather than waiting for an explicit samurai class which will invariably end up disappointing.

This is also the primary reason for those DMs I know who do not allow feats in their games - they want players to try and do most of those things anyway, as the situation and their imagination call for it. In fact, it's one of the primary reasons for those DMs I know who use only the basic game. If you want to play a Ranger, you just play a fighter (or Cleric or Rogue or Wizard, whichever works best for your concept) who is like a Ranger and describe the PC in Ranger-like terms and it works just fine in their games.

Er, yeah. That.

 

[prosfilaes]

Finally, while I've found RPGs to be a creative outlet, I've always found part of the appeal of an RPG to be the way it imposes models on fantasy bits. In a fantasy novel, you just come up with poetic ways of saying 'mighty warrior' to get across that a character is strong and skilled with weapons, in an FRPG, you get rules & numbers to back it up. In a crossover, which warrior is mightier probably has a lot to do with who's writing the book. In an FRPG, it's numbers on a character sheet.

In D&D and D&D-like RPGs, it's numbers on a character sheet. In Primetime Adventures, it's not. In Fate, it's a lot less mechanical and a lot more descriptive. D&D and Pathfinder are just one corner of RPGs.