Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[Parmandur]

2012 was bad, the old WotC forums. The hardcore 4E players had existed in a mod enforced bubble.

They were prepared to fight 3.X players but the influx of OSR and casuals flummoxed them lol.

It was around then I think some of the smarter ones worked out why 4E flopped. They spent so much time inventing arguments over 3.5. Ideas of playing OSR for balance reasons mostly eluded them.

It's was funny watching them trying to project 3.5isms onto older D&D when it became obvious a few hadn't played it and were projecting things based on hearsay.

I always got the impression those official forums were a give of scum and villainy, to be honest. Lots of moderaters, but not much moderation.

 

[Campbell]

You cannot meaningfully compare 4e and 5e. They were games with radically different design goals. In many ways 4e tried to transform mainstream roleplaying game culture and suffered for it. 5e embraced the existing paradigm and has flourished. Both are good games. There is literally no point in continuing to pursue this. All you succeed in doing is sowing division.

Look there are plenty of good games that are not popular. There have been bad games that were massively popular (like Vampire - The Masquerade).

 

[Zardnaar]

I always got the impression those official forums were a give of scum and villainy, to be honest. Lots of moderaters, but not much moderation.

Wasn't always like that, some of the mods posted on other sites.

They had the gleemax thing followed by 4E. Alot of people just left and the same names turned up on other forums.

At its best the old forums were great and very active. They had designers and authors posting, your post could be of the front page two hours later. Various sub forums were very active.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sooo nowhere?.

Right. So I corrected the oversight, in that same reply.

I really should watch the whole "obvious" thing.

Disagree.

I know, I recognized your name.

A new player having a lack of knowledge around the mechanics of previous editions in no way determines whether a difference from previous editions is one of or the reason they enjoy the game.

The /change/ from prior eds makes no difference. Only the New players actual experience with that game he plays actually matters to him.

In other words I don't need to have knowledge of gravity in order for it to affect me.

Gravity change a lot where you come from?

Lol, or 5e is just a better game.

Even if it were better than 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, Essentials, or worse than Spawn of Fshawn and FATAL, it would make no difference to whether someone tried Roleplaying for the first time after 2014, it'd still be the only RPG they were likely to have heard of, and tried.

Quality, they'll judge, after.... relative quality only if they stick with the hobby long enough to try something else.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Look there are plenty of good games that are not popular. There have been bad games that were massively popular (like Vampire - The Masquerade*).

/Ad populum/ is a fallacy for a reason. It is also, perhaps not ironically, a very popular one

(So is the contrary: that something unpopular must be rarefied and elite in it's superiority. Gamers, and nerds in general, used to go for that one, a lot, too.)

<4e & 5e> Both are good games.

That's charitable.

Metaphorically different eds of D&D may be Oldowan vs Mousterian vs Clovis tools, but they're all still in the TTRPG stone age - and the rest of the hobby's still trying to get bronze and agriculture right.

 

[Imaro]

Right. So I corrected the oversight, in that same reply.

I really should watch the whole "obvious" thing.

You probably should since a correction wasn't what I was asking about. A simple yes or no would have sufficed... I thought that was pretty obvious.

The /change/ from prior eds makes no difference. Only the New players actual experience with that game he plays actually matters to him.

An experience shaped by 5e's differences and similarities to previous editions...

Gravity change a lot where you come from?

Nope... Point still stands.

Even if it were better than 2e, 3e, 3.5, 4e, Essentials, or worse than Spawn of Fshawn and FATAL, it would make no difference to whether someone tried Roleplaying for the first time after 2014, it's still be the only RPG they were likely to have heard of, and tried.

And I am pretty sure if it provided a bad experience, irregardless of it being their first time trying a roleplaying game, new players would not only stop playing but would also affect the growth of 5e negatively... it also wouldn't continue to get positive buzz from old and new players alike, you know since since social media works both ways.

Or let me guess they aren't really having fun or enjoying their D&D games... they just don't know any better. Do you realize how arrogant and condescending that is... just like when you push the nostalgia angle for why people enjoy OSR games.

Quality, they'll judge, after.... relative quality only if they stick with the hobby long enough to try something else.

Well with the internet at our fingertips it's easier now than ever before to find out about other rpg's... the funny thing is we saw the dissatisfaction with the quality of other editions pretty quickly...5e doesn't seem to be heading in that direction anytime soon but I guess time will tell.

 

[Tony Vargas]

An experience shaped by 5e's differences and similarities to previous editions...

By it's qualities, at the table, the new player has no experience of the prior ed, thus none if the changes. If you're playing for the first time with an experienced DM, his attitudes towards those changes /might/ have an effect on the experience he delivers, though

And I am pretty sure if it provided a bad experience, irregardless of it being their first time trying a roleplaying game, new players would not only stop playing

Yes. Happens a lot, RPGs aren't for everyone.

but would also affect the growth of 5e negatively...

It might, if they were invested enough in the hobby to assertively share the experience.

But, there's only so many new players the hobby can accommodate, anyway. Relatively few DMs are born, most need experience.

So a steady stream is probably better than a sudden flood.

it also wouldn't continue to get positive buzz from old and new players alike, you know since since social media works both ways.

Buzz is a funny thing, and it's one area where nerdy/cult properties have to tread especially carefully. A few newbs disliking an established cult IP will be told off, with practiced defensiveness and well-honed arguments, and aren't invested enough to dig in. A few disgruntled hardcore fans, OTOH, can get quite the torrent of nerdrage going.

the funny thing is we saw the dissatisfaction with the quality of other editions pretty quickly...

From established fans who disapproved of changes, yes. Grognards were incensed at 3e's grid dependence, RaW-obsession, Multi-classing, & player entitlement, among other things, for instance, and with 3.5 as a 'money-grab.' Similar diatribes were locked and loaded before 4e even hit the shelves.

New players weren't making those complaints.

 

[Zardnaar]

There difference in scale is key.
Grognards were a minority. Paizo gave the numbers that 2/3rds of the Dragon/Dungeon subscriber lists stuck with them.

Some numbers at PAX also came out similar to Ryan Danceys numbers on the Giant in the Playground numbers. Circa 2014 PF sold around 2/3rds to 100% of 3.5.

You can also look at the numbers of online players from pre 5E. It wasn't just a few Grognards the majority of the 3.X playerbase went to Pathfinder, a decent number stuck with 3.5.

The overall trend was downwards year after year.

I don't expect Pathfinder 2 to do Pathfinder numbers but hopefully they'll do all right. Monopolies are kinda bad.

 

[Parmandur]

/Ad populum/ is a fallacy for a reason. It is also, perhaps not ironically, a very popular one

(So is the contrary: that something unpopular must be rarefied and elite in it's superiority. Gamers, and nerds in general, used to go for that one, a lot, too.)


That's charitable.

Metaphorically different eds of D&D may be Oldowan vs Mousterian vs Clovis tools, but they're all still in the TTRPG stone age - and the rest of the hobby's still trying to get bronze and agriculture right.

All TTRPGs are still in the "Stone age," many of the first people to ever play an RPG are still playing.

If we want to use technological analogies, the actual mechanics are less important than the design structure: in which case WotC and Paizo are currently ahead of the pack due to their access to big data pools for what does and doesn't work for their player base.

 

[Parmandur]

By it's qualities, at the table, the new player has no experience of the prior ed, thus none if the changes. If you're playing for the first time with an experienced DM, his attitudes towards those changes /might/ have an effect on the experience he delivers, though
Yes. Happens a lot, RPGs aren't for everyone. It might, if they were invested enough in the hobby to assertively share the experience.

But, there's only so many new players the hobby can accommodate, anyway. Relatively few DMs are born, most need experience.

So a steady stream is probably better than a sudden flood.
Buzz is a funny thing, and it's one area where nerdy/cult properties have to tread especially carefully. A few newbs disliking an established cult IP will be told off, with practiced defensiveness and well-honed arguments, and aren't invested enough to dig in. A few disgruntled hardcore fans, OTOH, can get quite the torrent of nerdrage going.


From established fans who disapproved of changes, yes. Grognards were incensed at 3e's grid dependence, RaW-obsession, Multi-classing, & player entitlement, among other things, for instance, and with 3.5 as a 'money-grab.' Similar diatribes were locked and loaded before 4e even hit the shelves.

New players weren't making those complaints.

New players might not be able to make the comparisons, but they may find a particular thing (such as grid-intensive miniature combat) a turn-off.