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

[pemerton]

If you can't create an un-special character, you can't create a special character.

This claim is pretty implausible. @Neonchameleon has given AW as a counter-example. Most RPGs I play are similar. The only RPG I'm familiar with where an important feature of the system is the ability to build a PC that is not very useful or effective in play is 3E D&D. And I'm not sure why that would be a virtue in a game which is all about doing things in the fiction via the play of a character.

 

[prabe]

This claim is pretty implausible. @Neonchameleon has given AW as a counter-example. Most RPGs I play are similar. The only RPG I'm familiar with where an important feature of the system is the ability to build a PC that is not very useful or effective in play is 3E D&D. And I'm not sure why that would be a virtue in a game which is all about doing things in the fiction via the play of a character.

The claim (in a TRPG context) always seems to me as though it comes from someone who wants system mastery to matter, especially in making a character. It seems to shake out as, "If there aren't any bad choices then the choices don't matter." I admit to some ambivalence, here, as I like being able to master a system (as someone I played with once put it, "to bend the rules to my will") but I am not enamored with the idea of trap options, or with the idea that some people might be treating chargen as a competition.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah, there's a kind of player who wants their enormous knowledge of optimization to be reflected in their character. I don't love it. One of my favorite things about Burning Wheel is that system mastery is reflected in play, not so much character gen.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The claim (in a TRPG context) always seems to me as though it comes from someone who wants system mastery to matter, especially in making a character. It seems to shake out as, "If there aren't any bad choices then the choices don't matter." I admit to some ambivalence, here, as I like being able to master a system (as someone I played with once put it, "to bend the rules to my will") but I am not enamored with the idea of trap options, or with the idea that some people might be treating chargen as a competition.

To me the problem here is the wrong ambition. I actively enjoy bending systems to my will in character creation - but what I don't enjoy is when that leads to a character that makes the rest of the game too easy. Instead I like to be able to bend the system sideways (if it's going to take longer than a few minutes to create my character) and come up with characters with internal synergies or overall approaches that the designers didn't plan but still work well while not overshadowing everyone else.

 

[prabe]

To me the problem here is the wrong ambition. I actively enjoy bending systems to my will in character creation - but what I don't enjoy is when that leads to a character that makes the rest of the game too easy. Instead I like to be able to bend the system sideways (if it's going to take longer than a few minutes to create my character) and come up with characters with internal synergies or overall approaches that the designers didn't plan but still work well while not overshadowing everyone else.

That's kinda my own approach, as well. I'd rather come up with something weird but effective than something overpowered, and I understand and appreciate niche-protection, so I'm reluctant-to-unwilling to step on another character's toes that way.

 

[Sadras]

Why did nobody at Paizo realize they were going down the same path as WotC's last and failed edition in this regard?

Apologies I'm NOT knowledgeable enough on PF2, but I will take a stab at this.

Maybe they didn't believe they were going down the same rabbit hole.

Many (hopefully) can admit 4e had some amazing innovative ideas, its biggest issues besides its marketing was that it wasn't user friendly to tinkering the way some past editions were IMO. This is important in a D&D game because it allows for tables to customise their play experience and not being seemingly forced to play in a particular way.

PERHAPS, the benefit of PF2 is that it takes all that was learned about 4e and places it in a system that is tinker-friendly, thus bypassing one of 4e's major issues.

EDIT: I'm assuming the PF2 chassis is homebrew-friendly.

 

[Maxperson]

DNDBeyond data would seem to suggest that, yes, you did luck out, statistically at least. Although, the demographics you tend to associate are probably a factor. Rather than “you hit the lottery” I’d suggest you tend to associate with people with far more ability to make and keep a long-term commitment to a campaign than the average D&D player today.

The 5 different groups all consisted of people with jobs, some married and some not. Some with kids and some not. Unmarried people tended to be in relationships, but not always.

I did tend to play with people I considered to be friends and not strangers, or on online, and we were all adults of at least late 20's and older.

The campaigns I have been in outside of those groups all fell apart before 10th. They were at game stores, playing with kids to very young adults, or online. I generally don't play online any longer due to it being so hard to keep a game going.

I suspect with the influx of new players, there are a huge number of new campaigns under the above categories that are bringing the numbers down.

 

[Aldarc]

I've been in 5 different groups over the last 30+ years that have wanted to play high level. All of them have succeeded. One of them made it to epic levels(3e) twice. Not every time, but most of the time. I find it really hard to believe that I've somehow won the lottery and hit the 1 in 300 million chance by being 5 for 5 on this.

It's not as tough as you make it out to be if the group as a whole cares and invests in playing to high level.

Cool, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, and it only applies to you Max, but not for the typical or total experience of the hobby as a whole.

It also comes down to vetting your players before starting and only inviting in those who are willing to commit to the long haul.

Committing for the long haul? Vetting? It's a game played with friends, not marriage. Perhaps you should also require that your players submit a professional medical exam so that they can prove that they have no health issues that would prevent them from disrupting your game by their departure?

Crap happens in the lives of my friends, and unless I was completely devoid of sensitivity, I would prefer that they prioritize their problems than any silly game, because it is, in fact, just a silly game meant to be played with friends.

 

[Garthanos]

I actively enjoy bending systems to my will in character creation - but what I don't enjoy is when that leads to a character that makes the rest of the game too easy. Instead I like to be able to bend the system sideways (if it's going to take longer than a few minutes to create my character) and come up with characters with internal synergies or overall approaches that the designers didn't plan but still work well while not overshadowing everyone else.

That drives a lot of my character design it's explicit why I thought the Princ(ess) build warlord back when was so satisfying (posted here around the same time someone did the lazylord on WOTC boards) or the Bloodwright Vampire (any good Hybrid design to me feels like a new thing)

 

[Chaosmancer]

True, but "My games do this, which proves it can be done," is strong as a rock.

I don't think anyone even believes that it cannot be done.

What angers me about Max's post is the idea that all it takes is the desire to do it, and therefore any group or game that ends early is simply because they did not care enough.

Considering the sheer number of games I've had fall apart for life reasons, I can state unequivocally that he is wrong. No matter how much you desire a game or a group to continue, sometimes that isn't a choice you can make.

That's because it's evidently impossible to discuss Pathfinder 2 and how it relates to 4E without a deluge of posts that just talk about 4E completely ignoring PF2... [emoji102]

That might because a lot of us have no knowledge of PF2, I've never even looked at the rules for it. But, we can discuss 4e, and through that we can potentially highlight why a game might emulate some of that game.

Let's not discuss this in general, or in theory.

If you try creating a PF2 character I think you will find that you are asked to make a ton of decisions. I posit they don't have enough of an impact.

I'm asking the question:

Why did nobody at Paizo realize they were going down the same path as WotC's last and failed edition in this regard?

Perhaps they believed each decision does have enough of an impact.

Perhaps they wanted to create a game where a character was a dozen minor impacts instead of three major ones.

Perhaps they heard complaints about 5e characters being locked into their path by 3rd level and decided to design a game where that would not be true, while keeping the balance of 5e.

Perhaps their designers liked 4e and thought it could have been a success with different marketing
Perhaps

Perhaps they don't see the similarities you are claiming between PF2 and 4e

Perhaps they see this as an expansion upon the mix-and-match design that players of PF have expressed enjoyment of, so the designers are building to increase their most popular feature.


Without having sat down with one of the designers and asking them, I can't tell you for certain. But, I can posit that as professional game designers, they likely have a reason for it.