D&D 2E What PF2E means for D&D5E

[Ruin Explorer]

I think the time and money investment are both factors. Players who don't have a lot of time to invest in playing multiple games (especially open-ended games that can take months or years to play a campaign with) and/or money to invest the variety of supplemental materials that improve the game. For example, if you can play only two times a month, you are much better off investing in one game that trying to play two different games (especially two that emulate the same genre and have similar core mechanics).

I mean, I lovd D&D and I love Pathfinder for different reasons, and I want to see them both succeed, but realistically my time and money is in short-enough supply that I can only support one of them.

I think on top of this, there's the investment of learning a system. I mean, that's partly time but there's more to it than that.

For more casual players, particularly, that's a huge issue. It's part of why the d20 system did so well, actually, because if you'd learned 3E, you'd effectively learned most d20 system games.

It's not even really about "supporting" a system for them. It's just that they don't want to have to re-learn a ton of stuff, especially complicated stuff, or stuff which is different from previous editions but hard to remember.

It seems to me that 5E did really good here. We had a new player join recently who hadn't played any 5E before, but had played other D&D, and they took to it like it wasn't even a thing. Whereas I did not see the same pattern with 3E or 4E.

I feel like, based on the information we have re: PF2E, they're already making some mistakes on the rules-learning investment front. It's fine to go more simple, but if you're going complex-but-different, or just wildly different, that's more of a problem.

 

[epithet]

We took a break from 5e to play Starfinder, and found that the rules jumbled heavily in our heads, often times mixing 3.5, PF, SF, and 5e rules based on who thought they could remember the "correct" rule at any given time. Ultimately, it was one of the many elements that lead us to go back to 5e sooner rather than later.

It sounds like you were very near the point where it all would have come together, where you realize that there isn't one "correct" rule, just the ruling. You want to do a thing, the DM decides how hard that thing is. You roll a die, add a number. Maybe you have advantage or disadvantage.

If everyone can agree on what you add to the die roll and trusts the DM to set a fair target for the check, you're golden. It doesn't matter whether the 5 foot step comes from Pathfinder if you're playing a 5e game... if you like it, and it works in the moment, use it. I do.

 

[Remathilis]

I think on top of this, there's the investment of learning a system. I mean, that's partly time but there's more to it than that.

For more casual players, particularly, that's a huge issue. It's part of why the d20 system did so well, actually, because if you'd learned 3E, you'd effectively learned most d20 system games.

It's not even really about "supporting" a system for them. It's just that they don't want to have to re-learn a ton of stuff, especially complicated stuff, or stuff which is different from previous editions but hard to remember.

It seems to me that 5E did really good here. We had a new player join recently who hadn't played any 5E before, but had played other D&D, and they took to it like it wasn't even a thing. Whereas I did not see the same pattern with 3E or 4E.

I feel like, based on the information we have re: PF2E, they're already making some mistakes on the rules-learning investment front. It's fine to go more simple, but if you're going complex-but-different, or just wildly different, that's more of a problem.

I quite agree. I mentioned earlier that when we tried to run Starfinder, we were very shocked because (when facing an incorporeal monster) nobody remembered the rules for incorporealness. The GM was adamant it was a 50% miss chance unless it was a force effect or magic item; someone else argued it was 1/2 damage to non-magical or force effect. Yet another said monsters were immune to non-magical weapons and non-force effects. We were all pretty sure we remembered how it worked, until we pulled up the rules...

Think you know what the answer is? I'll put it spoiler block below.

[sblock]
In 3.5, the incorporeal subtype ignores all nonmagical damage. It has A 50% chance of ignoring damage from a magical source, unless the damage is force, positive or negative energy, or from a ghost-touch weapon.
In Pathfinder, the incorporeal condition allows you to ignore nonmagical damage, and magical damage is halved (50%) unless it comes from force effects or other incorporeal sources.
In 5e, incorporeal is a trait that just allows for monsters to move through solid spaces; although most incorporeal monsters also have resistance to fire, cold, acid, lightning, thunder and nonmagical bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing damage (creating the effect of ignoring some, if not all "corporeal" damage)
In Starfinder, the incorporeal special ability gives the monster immunity to kinetic attacks, and halves damage (50%) from energy or magic unless it comes from force effects or or other incorporeal sources. [/sblock]

So we were all "right", just arguing it form different games/editions! The GM was thinking of 3.5, one player had 5e in mind, and the other was correctly remembering Pathfinder and trying to apply it to Starfinder, which was mostly correct once you take into account lazer guns. I can only imagine what PF2e will do to add more variants to the mix.

 

[Morrus]

I think the time and money investment are both factors.

I knew that would be the first reply.

I don’t buy it; never have. That applies to not just to all RPGs, but all hobbies (many of which are considerably more expensive!) That doesn’t explain why D&D and Pathfinder players, of all hobbies and all RPGs, display that behaviour so much.

No, it’s a weird brandname loyalty effect. A bit like the Apple-Android one (which verges on religion). Some specific brands attract this behaviour, while others don’t.

 

[Remathilis]

I knew that would be the first reply.

I don’t buy it; never have. That applies to not just to all RPGs, but all hobbies (many of which are considerably more expensive!) That doesn’t explain why D&D and Pathfinder players, of all hobbies and all RPGs, display that behaviour so much.

No, it’s a weird brandname loyalty effect. A bit like the Apple-Android one (which verges on religion). Some specific brands attract this behaviour, while others don’t.

Well, you're always going to have brand-loyalists. My point is that the investment point is higher than say which movie or TV show you prefer or band you listen to. Its probably a little closer to the aforementioned Apple/Android, or Playstation/X-box, or even GM vs. Ford in that choosing one is a significant investment in something that you are going to spend a lot of time and money with (and that plenty of people don't want/can't afford to have both) that you become married to your choice and defensive of it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No, it’s a weird brandname loyalty effect. A bit like the Apple-Android one (which verges on religion). Some specific brands attract this behaviour, while others don’t.

There's more to it than just brand loyalty. I mean, some people are like that, sure.

But learning the actual rules of the game and making a character and so on is considerably more effort than passively watching a new TV show, etc. I'd argue it was more active effort than changing from iOS to Android, for example, even.

And there's the big difference that everyone has to get on board. If you want to change to Apple, that's just on you. If you want to watch a different TV show, that's really just you and maybe your spouse deciding that.

If you want to run a different RPG, whilst the DM may have ultimate say, if you don't get the players on board, there isn't going to be much playing. So that exacerbates the issues.

 

[Morrus]

Well, you're always going to have brand-loyalists. My point is that the investment point is higher than say which movie or TV show you prefer or band you listen to. Its probably a little closer to the aforementioned Apple/Android, or Playstation/X-box, or even GM vs. Ford in that choosing one is a significant investment in something that you are going to spend a lot of time and money with (and that plenty of people don't want/can't afford to have both) that you become married to your choice and defensive of it.

Yes, but then why don’t you see the same behaviour with Fate fans? Trying a new game is not a significant investment of either time or money. People do it all the time.

 

[Parmandur]

I think on top of this, there's the investment of learning a system. I mean, that's partly time but there's more to it than that.

For more casual players, particularly, that's a huge issue. It's part of why the d20 system did so well, actually, because if you'd learned 3E, you'd effectively learned most d20 system games.

It's not even really about "supporting" a system for them. It's just that they don't want to have to re-learn a ton of stuff, especially complicated stuff, or stuff which is different from previous editions but hard to remember.

It seems to me that 5E did really good here. We had a new player join recently who hadn't played any 5E before, but had played other D&D, and they took to it like it wasn't even a thing. Whereas I did not see the same pattern with 3E or 4E.

I feel like, based on the information we have re: PF2E, they're already making some mistakes on the rules-learning investment front. It's fine to go more simple, but if you're going complex-but-different, or just wildly different, that's more of a problem.

For myself, I don't at all mind the idea of investing effort in learning a new system...as long as it offers a new experience. I've been interested in looking into Hero recently, because it offers something that the games I already own fo not.

PF2 asks the same energy and investment, but doesn't seem to offer a significantly different experience than my existing D&D material.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes, but then why don’t you see the same behaviour with Fate fans? Trying a new game is not a significant investment of either time or money. People do it all the time.

I have, actually, seen that attitude from fans of other games like Fate, Savage Worlds or GURPS. I reckon that the folks who play other games, however, are more likely to be open-minded and adventurous which is why they are playing those games.

 

[Jester David]

I knew that would be the first reply.

I don’t buy it; never have. That applies to not just to all RPGs, but all hobbies (many of which are considerably more expensive!) That doesn’t explain why D&D and Pathfinder players, of all hobbies and all RPGs, display that behaviour so much.

No, it’s a weird brandname loyalty effect. A bit like the Apple-Android one (which verges on religion). Some specific brands attract this behaviour, while others don’t.

Have you ever read the Order or the Stick compilation book of the Dragon strips? There’s a fun 3e OotS vs 4e OttS discussion that brings it up.

Still... you tend to see people watching football or hockey or baseball and not every sport. It's rare someone plays multiple sports and is part of multiple teams.