5e & PF2 - Why Choose the Same Approach?

[Scott Christian]

Looking at both of these new rulesets, my question is: Why did the developers decide to start from the place: attributes, skills, proficiency, etc?

If there true goal is narrative, as both parties have explained, why not start there?

Not upset about it. I really like 5e, and have two campaigns running. But, I am a bit perplexed about the lack of uniqueness.

Thanks in advance for any insight.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't think PF2 is aiming for a more narrative style of play. Just less cluttered play.

 

[ccs]

$?
If x sells, make more of it, just with your own logo attached.

 

[Shasarak]

Looking at both of these new rulesets, my question is: Why did the developers decide to start from the place: attributes, skills, proficiency, etc?

Is it because they are both based on the same game?

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I had a really good explanation for this, but unfortunately I rolled a natural 1 on my Narration check.

 

[Morrus]

We're talking about different variations of D&D (albeit some under a different name) -- they have the same roots. There are bound to be similarities. Attributes, skills, etc... those are D&D's DNA. Moving from those would be a pretty bold move.

I don't think either has said to be a narrative style game; though D&D 5E is considerably lighter in terms of rules than PF1 and presumably the upcoming PF2.

 

[Tony Vargas]

PF was like Arduin: both were alternatives to the then-current editions of D&D for fans of the past edition who thought D&D just wasn't D&D enough, anymore, so they were distinct from the ed of D&D they competed with, and more like the preceding ed. It was a winning formula for both (Arduin even got sued by TSR over it).

No one feels that way about 5e, which is clearly much more D&D than the prior ed even tried to be.

But, Paizo still has a core of loyal fans, so I guess it's worth it for them to put out a PF2. But what to do with it?

The only formula that's ever beaten D&D is to come up with something even worse than D&D, while setting off a firestorm of controversy against D&D on-line (the Role v Roll 'debate' on UseNet when Storyteller took the head-space lead in the hobby in the 90s; the edition war when PF took a sales lead in some quarters c2010).
But, D&D is currently golden - everyone either praises it or remains politely silent - and new players aren't being repelled from even trying it (only repelled by actually playing it), and in the grip of much-anticipated, much-delayed come-back, so growing like crazy.

Even if PF2 retains it's loyal base, it's sales won't seem like much compared to D&D, and that seems to matter to said base, who may then defect to the 'more popular' on-brand version.

IDK if moving closer to 5e is the right call or not, but Paizo has been managing their brand very well, so I wouldn't count them out. They certainly know things we don't.

 

[Jonathan Grant]

PF was like Arduin: both were alternatives to the then-current editions of D&D for fans of the past edition who thought D&D just wasn't D&D enough, anymore, so they were distinct from the ed of D&D they competed with, and more like the preceding ed. It was a winning formula for both (Arduin even got sued by TSR over it).

No one feels that way about 5e, which is clearly much more D&D than the prior ed even tried to be.

But, Paizo still has a core of loyal fans, so I guess it's worth it for them to put out a PF2. But what to do with it?

The only formula that's ever beaten D&D is to come up with something even worse than D&D, while setting off a firestorm of controversy against D&D on-line (the Role v Roll 'debate' on UseNet when Storyteller took the head-space lead in the hobby in the 90s; the edition war when PF took a sales lead in some quarters c2010).
But, D&D is currently golden - everyone either praises it or remains politely silent - and new players aren't being repelled from even trying it (only repelled by actually playing it), and in the grip of much-anticipated, much-delayed come-back, so growing like crazy.

Even if PF2 retains it's loyal base, it's sales won't seem like much compared to D&D, and that seems to matter to said base, who may then defect to the 'more popular' on-brand version.

IDK if moving closer to 5e is the right call or not, but Paizo has been managing their brand very well, so I wouldn't count them out. They certainly know things we don't.

Pretty much agree, but I have to say that I have a soft spot in my heart for 4E. That game was really hurt by a poor starting adventure (KotS) and some very poor nomenclature decisions for mechanics that WORKED well but were described poorly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Pretty much agree, but I have to say that I have a soft spot in my heart for 4E. That game was really hurt by a poor starting adventure (KotS) and some very poor nomenclature decisions for mechanics that WORKED well but were described poorly.

Sure, me too. XOMG KotSf seemed aweful at the time. Then, later, I ran HotDQ, and, yeah, something about 1st modules of an ed just seems to be tripping WotC up. But, a horrid first module didn't even slow down 5e (well, I assume, I suppose it could've done even better had the first module been CoS).

Of course, 5e doesn't have an issue with bad jargon decisions, because it doesn't have many jargon decisions, it mostly just used immemorial D&Disms and natural language - though I'm curious which particular bad choice of jargon you're thinking of....

edit: ...hm, my guesses would have to include: exploit, power, Tier, Core Rule Book, Leader, Healing (the keyword) and Healing Surge.

 

[Jonathan Grant]

Pretty much exactly what you guessed.

I think 4E's primary design philosophy was just to take all of the occasionally fuzzy, open-to-interpretation or overly complex systems in 3.5 and distil them down into their most basic mechanical form and then build up from that to smooth out some problems that people have been complaining about since the AD&D days.

And for what it's worth--I think it does a good job at that.

But I think that kind of mechanical, "gamification" of the core rules hit people wrong. The INTENTION was to build a sound mechanical framework with minimal confusion that players could then hang any number of settings or stories on--a solid skeleton for whatever fluff you wanted to dress it in.

But a lot of people just couldn't get past how different it looked on the page to what they were used to. And that's where the jargon comes in. What's the difference, really, between a cantrip and an at-will power? Mostly just that one sounds more D&D-ey. And maybe that IS a problem, but cantrip wouldn't have made sense for a non-magic action so...they chose a word they thought was more general in deference to clarity. Ditto for, say, feet vs squares.

I've had so many conversations with people that will describe how they don't like this or that "gamey" mechanic of 4E but when asked what they prefer in 3.5 or 5 mostly just describe the same thing but with a higher word count, more steps and/or less clarity.

That's not to say one edition is strictly speaking "better". I think 4E would probably be the edition I would go back to if I started playing D&D again but there's nothing wrong with any of them--it's the definition of a YMMV choice. I just feel like 4E gets a lot of weird hate and a lot of the reasons for it (like the idea that it somehow discourages roleplaying) just seem to have more to do with people's feelings around the jargon and ethos changes than the product and experience itself.

PS: if anyone's starting a 4E game in Portland...I want to join you, lol.