Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7411315" data-attributes="member: 996">TTRPGs don't /have/ mass market appeal - heck, books hardly do, these days.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />   There's definitely a niche that'd be delighted with more crunch on the character-building side of 5e, though, and apart from D&D core, any RPG product is a niche product.5e isn't actually simple, not by any stretch of the imagination, not even 'by RPG standards.'  It /is/ more familiar to fans of the TSR era than PF, just as PF was more familiar to fans of 3.x than 4e was.  In the in the latter case it was system mastery that was preserved by that familiarity, but, in former case that familiarity often seems to be perceived as simplicity, because it's /easier/ to use something that feels familiar (easy = simple).  Anyway, just as PF2 seems to be gunning for 5e's audience, a 5e supplement that gunned for PF1's audience would probably be a good move - and D&D could likely win both those battles, thanks to the advantage of it's name.</blockquote>