D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[CapnZapp]

PF2 isn't a reaction to 5E. It's a reaction to PF1. I would no more expect Paizo to take 5E into consideration, than I would expect it to take Savage Worlds, or that Star Wars system (with the funky dice) into consideration.

You're turning their inability to learn from success from flaw to virtue.

Comparing D&D to one SW game or the other. Please.

They are targeting an entirely different audience.

No, they don't.

 

[CapnZapp]

Damn, can’t argue with that logic.

shrug You called not even trying to tap the vast 5E market "smart".

Look, Paizo had a lot of credibility and name recognition. They had one shot at getting it right.

They went for a design that actively scares away 5E gamers. And PF1 gamers. Yeah, that's smart within scare quotes alright.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But individual rolls fail in both games. Yet heroes win challenges and combats 99% of the time in both games. Go figure.

That is not my experience with 4E. In 4E, you spend your expensive reagents, spend your healing surge, and then you have a 30% chance of the door remaining closed. Even if I thought it was worth starving a village in order to make the attempts, after a hundred tries on a hundred doors, the heroes would inevitably fail to overcome 30% of those challenges.

 

[CapnZapp]

But theirs isn't the kind of crunch I wanted.

Thing is, theirs is the kind of crunch gamers already rejected back in 4E.

What I can't figure out is who at Paizo thought that would be a good idea? The only logical answer I can come up with is "4E people hired by Paizo".

But that only begs the question who at Paizo thought hiring people from the failed edition was a good idea?

So I'm going in circles here...

 

[CapnZapp]

That is not my experience with 4E.

Apologies if I wasn't clear. With "both" I referred to 5E and Pathfinder 2.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You're turning their inability to learn from success from flaw to virtue.

That depends on your definition of success. I certainly wouldn't consider 5E to be successful, as a game. As a marketing exercise, perhaps.

If I was Paizo, and my goal was to make a good game, I wouldn't use 5E as a starting point, that's for certain. Third Edition, at least, was salvageable. Fourth Edition had some good ideas in it, which were worth re-examining.

I think it's pretty unlikely that they were actually trying to de-throne 5E, and any attempt at that would have surely fallen short. By rejecting 5E, they at least have a shot of succeeding at whatever they want to be.

 

[Arilyn]

And it seems PF2 is doing as well as can be expected in an environment where D&D dominates. I don't think Paizo has any illusions about reclaiming the spot they held during the era when 4e was cancelled.

 

[Charlaquin]

And it seems PF2 is doing as well as can be expected in an environment where D&D dominates. I don't think Paizo has any illusions about reclaiming the spot they held during the era when 4e was cancelled.

This

 

[FrogReaver]

And it seems PF2 is doing as well as can be expected in an environment where D&D dominates. I don't think Paizo has any illusions about reclaiming the spot they held during the era when 4e was cancelled.

As well as can be expected? I don’t know hardly anyone that’s said omg they got it right or even a this game is great. I’m not saying it’s a bad game. Just not much stands out about it IMO.

 

[Arilyn]

I have heard quite a few people who like it just fine...