5e & PF2 - Why Choose the Same Approach?

[Shasarak]

This here is precisely my main irritation with people who blindly criticize 4E as a 'bad game'. Thanks.

My main irritation was that someone else got to decide if your reasons for disliking something was somehow valid or not.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

There's no need to go offering an explanation for why you don't like something, in the first place. There's no accounting for taste and it's OK to just like or dislike something on a purely subjective level. When you do offer a 'reason' though, you're not just expressing the feeling, you're offering a justification and, in effect, an argument that others shouldn't like it, either.

And, at that point, it really should be a valid reason, or you're going to get called on it. The generalization you made, and, yes, it did happen a lot, was an example of a 'reason' that was invalid because it applied equally (or more) to some other edition that they did like. Another common pattern was to give a reason that claimed facts about the game that were in error (because it's against the CoC to characterize repeatedly making the same factual misstatement in spite of having the actual facts cited, as a 'lie').

It's like a smoker saying he doesn't vape, instead, because vaping causes cancer.

The kinds of reactions you saw then could conceivably happen to PF2, now. Afterall, fans of PF included those who defected from D&D after making such complaints, giving those kinds of invalid reasons why everyone should defect to PF, so the inclination is there. If PF2 somehow inadvertently pushes those same 'not on my watch' sort of buttons by changing too much, it could run aground on the same kind of controversy.
That'd be ironic as all heck.

But, considering how adroitly Paizo profiteered from the edition war, it seems unlikely they'd make the same mistakes WotC did.

 

[aramis erak]

It did sell a bit better than D&D a few times, and it's fans made a lot out if that, those particular fans could react badly if PF2 doesn't do well enough (whatever 'enough' might be for them). I doubt they're a huge number or that they'd war against a new/different PF the way they did a new/different D&D.

One other factor is development costs, if, like 5e, PF2 keeps it's staff and costs down, it won't need as high sales to be profitable, that could be a reason to adopt some 5e-isms, like slow pace of release, or re-cycling older mechanics.
The difference between 5e & PF isn't simplicity, D&D has never been simple, it's varied a little here and there in the nature of its complexity. PF has more content than any single edition of D&D, for instance. While, 5e has drawn together traditional elements of multiple past editions to make it familiar or at least acceptable to fans of the TSR era and 3.5, both, making it easily as complex, mechanically, as any single other edition.

The main difference is in 5e's glacial pace of release vs PF's huge library, it'd take decades for 5e to offer the same sheer volume of options.

Whether PH2 can sustain the same rapid output, or has a different strategy this time around is a question I suspect Paizo already has an answer for...

You come across as one who hasn't actually run 5E. It's considerably simpler than PF or 4E mechanically, especially in play, as modifiers are rare, almost entirely replaced by advantage/disadvantage. Every skill is boolean. Those two factors alone are a HUGE simplification of the mechanics. Simplifying everything to either attack rolls or ability checks, and those differing only in how Nat 1 and Nat 20 are handled.

5E, compared to PF1, is simpler; 5E compared to any edition of D&D prior is also largely simpler; this excepts the basic sets (Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, Denning), but those were ne'er intended to be editions of their own. (Holmes was supposed to be the basic for AD&D, but ... Gygax.) Just by making all the rolls go the same direction as good was a simplification.

4E rivals 5E for simplicity, but loses out with the numeric modifiers and treasure packages.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You come across as one who hasn't actually run 5E.

Nope, I've run 1e & 2e extensively back in the day, 3.0 some, 3.5 very little, PF not at all, 4e & 5e weekly. I've run & played plenty of other systems, too, particularly Storyteller in the second half of the 90s, and Hero System. I've been at this a long time. I find running 5e to be fun, easy & even exciting, because my skills from running AD&D back in the day port over very effectively, but a little wearing after a while, because it is kinda old hat that way. Similarly, 4e is fun & easy to run, because it's just easy to run - it's neither as exciting nor as wearing as 5e, though. 3.5, OTOH, while not vastly more complex than the other two, I'd rather not run again.

It's considerably simpler than PF or 4E mechanically

D&D is simply(npi) a complex - and often very complicated - game. It was often needlessly so in the TSR era - 'baroque' would not be an unfair way of characterizing AD&D. The WotC era brought consolidation of base mechanics around d20 resolution, which is a simplification, of sorts, but, really, that's the lion's share of the simplification from baroque AD&D to 5e (the other major simplification was related: going from matrixes to proficiency). AD&D had fewer class & race choices than 5e, fewer methods of spellcasting, and no skill system (which didn't /exactly/ make it simpler, just less complete), for instance - it was still more complicated than 5e, less coherent would be a fair way of putting it, too. But they're both very complex, the differences aren't as major as all that, except for AD&D being needlessly complicated and self-contradictory on top of complexity.

3e & 4e (and PF) have a lot of material relative to 1e or 5e, which brings with it potential complexity and 'bloat' issues, but the systems, themselves, are mostly comparable to 5e in complexity. 4e was clearer and more consistent, making heavy use of keywords to make things less complicated, and better-balanced so bloat was lower-impact, thus the complexity was more manageable. 3e/PF has greater rewards for system masters who embrace it's complexities, so there's a strong incentive to master/internalize that complexity, which makes it seem much less of a negative. 5e copes with it's complexities by Empowering the DM so players deal directly mainly with the complexity of their own characters which can be modest (Fighter, Rogue) to extreme (Druid, Wizard), and much of the complexity of the rest of the game (including that implicit in deciding which of the many optional sub-systems to implement or ban) is loaded on the DM.

especially in play, as modifiers are rare, almost entirely replaced by advantage/disadvantage.

The d20 core mechanic makes modifiers pretty simple, it's only ever adding or subtracting mostly on the character sheet outside of actual play. Yes, 3.5 did have myriad named bonus/penalties which could get a little crazy when someone went fishing for as many of them as possible, and could overwhelm the d20, losing some of the advantages of consolidating on the d20. Adv/Dis is a neat little mechanic that consolidates many bonuses the way Combat Advantage consolidated many bonuses & various 'loss of DEX bonus' rules in 3.x for 4e. But, 5e doesn't take full advantage of it: there are still numeric bonuses & penalties, and even, now, added-dice bonuses. So, where the simplicity of the core d20+bonus vs DC is compromised in 3.x/PF/4e/E by contested rolls, re-rolls, named bonuses, and unnecessary penalties (they could just add to DCs consistently, but don't), in 5e there are also Adv/Dis procedures, re-rolls, contested rolls, bonuses, penalties, and added dice so "d20+bonus vs DC" potentially becomes "(2)d20(take the highest or lowest, depending) + bonuses - penalties + (0, 1, or more) bonus dice vs DC or vs a contested check."

Every skill is boolean. Those two factors alone are a HUGE simplification of the mechanics.

When have skills ever not been pass/fail in D&D? I can think of only a few examples of degrees of success like failing to pick a pocket but not actually being caught at it in AD&D, or failing to climb any further in 3e/4e/5e but not actually falling. I suspect there are other, essentially dual-DC checks, but not a lot.

Simplifying everything to either attack rolls or ability checks, and those differing only in how Nat 1 and Nat 20 are handled.

And saving throws. Some attacks are resolved with saving throws by the defender, some with attack rolls by the attacker - same level of complexity as 3e/PF (which, in turn, by not using Matrixes or THAC0 was simpler in that regard than AD&D), more complex than 4e's use of attacker-rolls vs a defense DC for all attacks.

5E, compared to PF1, is simpler

I haven't run PF, and only played it a little. It has some positive innovations that actually are arguably simplifications from 3.5, like CMB/CMD instead of various opposed skill checks for maneuvers in combat. But, yeah, obviously as a 3.x clone, not to mention having more material published for it than any single edition of D&D, very complicated, decidedly bloated.

5E compared to any edition of D&D prior is also largely simpler; this excepts the basic sets (Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, Denning), but those were ne'er intended to be editions of their own. (Holmes was supposed to be the basic for AD&D, but ... Gygax.)

Even the basic sets were merely shorter. There was less there, but it was still just a sub-set of a very complex system.

Just by making all the rolls go the same direction as good was a simplification.

One shared with 3.x/PF & 4e/E, so meaningful only relative to AD&D, which, yeah, was a nightmare.

4E rivals 5E for simplicity, but loses out with the numeric modifiers and treasure packages.

They are both complex (IDK if they're 'equally' so - they're different in where the complexity is concentrated, and the form it takes), but each can feel simpler than they actually are for very different reasons. 4e felt simpler, especially to new players, because the rules were clearer, more consistent, and better-balanced, so there wasn't the impetus for deep system mastery and players who didn't want to cope with complexity simply did't engage as much of it. 5e feels simpler, especially to long-time & returning players, because it calls back substantial aspects of each prior edition, making it familiar - that familiarity makes the game's complexity more palatable and easier to master, so it feels simpler.

I've run a lot of 'introductory' games for both 4e & 5e, from 2010 at Encounters, including the Next Playtest and 5e, and since 2014 at Conventions (because I offered to run intro 4e games as early as 2008, but was turned down flat, while in 2014 the same con not only changed it's policies but offered special incentives to run 1st-level, basic-pdf intro games - I ran /five/).
4e tended to confuse long-time & returning players, it simply didn't look like D&D when you opened it up, there weren't tables with each class showing their spells/day, for instance, the character sheet didn't equate weapons with combat options - many times I'd see an older player completely flummoxed by his fighter or slayer character sheet, whether it was two pages or an Encounters laminated half-sheet, because he couldn't find the list of weapons or 'weapon in hand' to make his attack. The attack options were right there, staring at him, neatly spelled out, but he'd feel the need to find a weapon, get it's damage die, and then look for bonuses to it elsewhere, and not finding that level of complexity was confusing - precisely because it was much simpler. New players, OTOH, took to it readily, it was the most accessible version of D&D I've ever seen (to be fair, my exposure to Basic D&D back in the day was the '79 'blue book,' not the famed 'Red Box' version).
5e is night and day. Ongoing & returning players (including those who hadn't participated in the playtest) were briefly flummoxed by the new neo-Vancian system of both prepping & casting spontaneously, but that was the only bump on the road for them, everything else was perfectly familiar, even the 'new'(ish) idea of having a stat bonus and a proficiency bonus added together instead of hitting up a matrix or calculating THAC0 was easy enough. Thought there were new things, there were plenty of the usual suspects, too. New players, OTOH, as they've always been, were often put off by the many classes and the magic system, disappointed that their character didn't end up resembling whatever they were expecting, or confused by the complexity & arbitrary variations of the casting sub-systems, wanting to roll with a spell that granted a save, or not realizing they needed to roll with a cantrip that didn't, wanting to recover slots on a short rest, etc. Prettymuch business as usual, and not that hard to deal with when you've done it a thousand times before (though, yeah, a little wearing by the 4th session in a single weekend).


TL;DR: D&D is a game with a quite high order of complexity, while we can point to and analyze one sub system or another in one edition vs another, and say it's a bit more or less complex, they're still all going to be at that same relatively high order of magnitude when it comes to complexity. Whether PF2 tries to be simpler (or more familiar to returning fans of old-school D&D) or not is probably not going to make a big difference to how complex it actually turns out to be.

 

[Imaro]

You come across as one who hasn't actually run 5E. It's considerably simpler than PF or 4E mechanically, especially in play, as modifiers are rare, almost entirely replaced by advantage/disadvantage. Every skill is boolean. Those two factors alone are a HUGE simplification of the mechanics. Simplifying everything to either attack rolls or ability checks, and those differing only in how Nat 1 and Nat 20 are handled.

5E, compared to PF1, is simpler; 5E compared to any edition of D&D prior is also largely simpler; this excepts the basic sets (Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer, Denning), but those were ne'er intended to be editions of their own. (Holmes was supposed to be the basic for AD&D, but ... Gygax.) Just by making all the rolls go the same direction as good was a simplification.

4E rivals 5E for simplicity, but loses out with the numeric modifiers and treasure packages.

Anecdote time...

Whereas I actually lost a player during our time playing 4e (and saw quite a few bewildered first time players trying to get a handle on their powers at the encounters sessions I attended during that time period)... I've been able to introduce 3 new players to D&D that have joined our group and continue to play IMO 5e is a simpler edition than 4e (especially when one doesn't have access to DDI).