D&D 2E Which is the better fantasy rpg and why: D&D 5e or Pathfinder 2e?

[generic]

@jayoungr saying that WotC has been hidebound says nothing abound 5E design, and your definition is somewhat incorrect.

 

[generic]

I'm not so sure. If 3e had been between the covers of D&D in 2014 instead of 5e, I think it'd've had much the same results. If the pace of publication had been the same for the last 5 years, as well.

Agreed. The product release pace is a vital element.

 

[jayoungr]

@jayoungr saying that WotC has been hidebound says nothing abound 5E design, and your definition is somewhat incorrect.

Well, clearly Ruin Explorer feels like I jumped down their throat first, and I feel like Ruin Explorer clobbered me with a ten-ton hammer of sneer for what I thought was a relatively uncontroversial statement. So I'm taking a deep breath and turning to you as a neutral observer: where do you think the misinterpretation is happening?

 

[generic]

Well, clearly Ruin Explorer feels like I jumped down their throat first, and I feel like Ruin Explorer clobbered me with a ten-ton hammer of sneer for what I thought was a relatively uncontroversial statement. So I'm taking a deep breath and turning to you as a neutral observer: where do you think the misinterpretation is happening?

Okay, as far as I have seen, Ruin Explorer compared WotC's design style in terms of releases to Paizo's more vigorous release rate, and stated that he/she/they thought that the creativity (not strength of design in the system) of WotC in terms of 5E D&D had been constricted by a money-conscious conservatism that has made WotC unwilling to release sourcebooks with new rules systems.

Hope this helps.

 

[jayoungr]

Okay, as far as I have seen, Ruin Explorer compared WotC's design style in terms of releases to Paizo's more vigorous release rate, and stated that he/she/they thought that the creativity (not strength of design in the system) of WotC in terms of 5E D&D had been constricted by a money-conscious conservatism that has made WotC unwilling to release sourcebooks with new rules systems.

Okay. Thanks for restating this.

I'm not quite sure what the relationship between creativity and design quality is supposed to be. Are we saying 5E is "solid but dull," then? Or at least, the original core books are "solid but dull" and later releases are "low-quality and also dull"?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I accept the slight correction, but it's still a new claim from overly reliant on tradition ("shockingly hidebound").

C'mon. Quote the full quote and read all the words.

I do think they are overly cautious (especially re: adding content) and have proven to be rather shockingly hidebound about their approach to 5E, once they decided it. So I think the effort that would normally go on improving the game is rather being misdirected into more and more caution and narrow thinking and so on.

THE APPROACH to developing 5E after release is hidebound. Approach. Not the innate design. That's delightfully light and modern! See the bit I bolded too! "once they decided it" means after design and release. The issue is that they're obsessed with making sure stuff doesn't upset certain grognards or be too fun or overexciting or whatever instead of making cool stuff.

 

[generic]

Okay. Thanks for restating this.

I'm not quite sure what the relationship between creativity and design quality is supposed to be. Are we saying 5E is "solid but dull," then? Or at least, the original core books are "solid but dull" and later releases are "low-quality and also dull"?

That's sort of my opinion, I'm not sure what Ruin Explorer believes.

Given, I do love many of the sourcebooks released by WotC, and the APs are generally great. I just wish that the same effort (GoS, XGtE, MToF, VGtM) that was put into amazing sourcebooks could be directed towards creating some new systems, rather than just releasing "more stuff you fought against or played as in past editions.

 

[jayoungr]

The issue is that they're obsessed with making sure stuff doesn't upset certain grognards or be too fun or overexciting or whatever instead of making cool stuff.

Okay, so how is that different from being overly reliant on tradition in their design? I ask this totally without snark. I genuinely do not see a meaningful distinction.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Or at least, the original core books are "solid but dull" and later releases are "low-quality and also dull"?

No. The core books are good. Outright. 8.5/10 or 9/10.

EDIT okay not the MM - it's lovely but the monster design is like 7/10, where later MM books were 9/10.

Later releases are a mix. Most are high quality, some are disappointing. All are kinda limited and safe in design, and the choice of what to release has been even safer.

 

[generic]

No. The core books are good. Outright. 8.5/10 or 9/10.

Later releases are a mix. Most are high quality, some are disappointing. All are kinda limited and safe in design, and the choice of what to release has been even safer.

Ruin Explorer restated what I meant to type. This is pretty much my opinion as well.