• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

5E Is 5e Basically Becoming Pathfinder 2e?

MoonSong

Explorer
[MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] I guess that as an oversensitive person I could tell you that maybe it isn't as much the prohibition itself as the way it is made the difference. Maybe something totally upfront, emphasizing the reduction in options as a bonus and stuff? More like "Let's play a dangerous and high lethality Old-school D&D game, no frills, no fanfare, no complications! 4 races 4 classes and your imagination!". Then you can seem more flexible by allowing plain ranger or plain barbarian from the phb?
 

Hussar

Legend
Anecdote or data? Or neither?

That sounds suspiciously like the unproven assumption of somebody who likes more options.
I dunno. It sounds pretty logical. The more restrictions you place on the game, the smaller the population of gamers will be who will like your game. There's a reason that AL play doesn't have many restrictions.

For my current game, I would never try to pitch it to a group of new players. I restricted all classes with cantrips. There are no full casters in my Primeval Thule game. That's a pretty big restriction. And the setting comes with a number of other goodies as well. I can play that game because I have a nice, stable group that has been gaming together for years and they know me well enough to trust me that my idea might be fun.

But, for a group of strangers? Nope, I would never even consider pitching that game. Far too restrictive. As a player if I didn't know the DM? Yeah, I'd pass too.
 

Elfcrusher

Explorer
I dunno. It sounds pretty logical. The more restrictions you place on the game, the smaller the population of gamers will be who will like your game.
See, the inverse sounds logical to me. I find it easy to conclude that one reason 5e is so popular is because it has fewer options: the option bloat of 3e, Pathfinder, 4e drove people away.

There's a reason that AL play doesn't have many restrictions.
Um...no homebrew, no rolled attributes, no Unearthed Arcana, no special snowflake exceptions...those sounds like restrictions to me.
 

Hussar

Legend
See, the inverse sounds logical to me. I find it easy to conclude that one reason 5e is so popular is because it has fewer options: the option bloat of 3e, Pathfinder, 4e drove people away.
Ahh, well, I wasn't considering between editions. That's true. But, since we're talking within an edition, that's neither here nor there. IOW, it's not just one thing when you start going between editions.

Um...no homebrew, no rolled attributes, no Unearthed Arcana, no special snowflake exceptions...those sounds like restrictions to me.
But, none of those things are actually part of the game you just bought. All of those are additions, and other than Unearthed Arcana, not even from WotC. To add to that, the UA stuff DOES make its way into AL, just slowly. After all, you can play SCAG classes and Volo races in AL right now and I'm pretty sure that when Xanathar's hits the shelves, that stuff will be allowed as well.

I'd also point out that restricting playtest material is somewhat different from excising a large chunk of the PHB.

IOW, while it might be restricted right now, there's certainly the knowledge that as soon as the material hits the shelves, I can use it. While in a restricted home game, there is very, very little chance that these restrictions will change.
 
S

Sunseeker

Guest
Anecdote or data? Or neither?

That sounds suspiciously like the unproven assumption of somebody who likes more options.
Casual observation based on market forces. People who sell Ice Cream get more customers when they sell more than one flavor.

See, the inverse sounds logical to me. I find it easy to conclude that one reason 5e is so popular is because it has fewer options: the option bloat of 3e, Pathfinder, 4e drove people away.
5E is populat because it's the only official WotC D&D product on the market. Brand loyalty does amazing things...Also a system that works is pretty handy. As far as I'm aware, Pathfinder is still selling quite well, so I'd hardly say that their ever-expanding bloat is driving people off.

Um...no homebrew, no rolled attributes, no Unearthed Arcana, no special snowflake exceptions...those sounds like restrictions to me.
One of these things is not like what I was talking about.

The options for playing D&D aren't "no restrictions" or "all the restrictions". I've played at very few tables who allow everything and honestly, the people on the forums seem to be about the only folks I've ever met interested in running a no feats, no multiclassing, "core 4" PHB only game. I've really never encountered these people in real life.
 

Elfcrusher

Explorer
Ahh, well, I wasn't considering between editions. That's true. But, since we're talking within an edition, that's neither here nor there. IOW, it's not just one thing when you start going between editions.
Granted. But at least it's "data" and not "gut feel".

....and I'm pretty sure that when Xanathar's hits the shelves, that stuff will be allowed as well.
It will, and it will (or would?) be interesting to see if AL rises or shrinks in popularity.

I'd also point out that restricting playtest material is somewhat different from excising a large chunk of the PHB.
Yes, granted, but eliminating official content is different from keeping official content constrained in the first place. Didn't the Nobel in Economics just go to a guy who studied things related to this? I wonder if there could be two different phenomena that we have to consider:
1) The impact of the sheer number of options on the appeal of the game.
2) The psychology of what happens when potential players are told that options are eliminated.

Does that make sense? I can definitely see how a player might be turned off by being told he can't play a dual-rapier wielding gnome Paladin named Loki XIII, while simultaneously being turned off by RPGs in general that have too much bloat.

I'm definitely an anti-bloater, but I would be greatly annoyed if a DM said, "Sorry but Second Wind offends my belief that HP are meat so, no, you can't play a Fighter" and might not join that table.
 
S

Sunseeker

Guest
Sure, but are 20 flavors better than 6?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/your-money/27shortcuts.html

TL;DR: at least read the 4th and 5th paragraphs.
I'm well aware of the concept of choice lock.

I've already stated that I place limits on my own game.

I believe I just posted about how I prefer one big "make your own thing" option to a million pre-made options.

I also already commented on the fact that "all or nothing" is a false dichotomy.

Anything else?
 

pming

Explorer
Hiya!

@pming you have had 18 hours and 69 posts since your OP. Care to add to the discussion you started?
Trying to catch up! :) I did post two (three?) replies, but I think they got over-run by more posts/pages. Right now I've got all that pesky life stuff going on...and my B-Day is Friday, so...yeah. Time is somewhat limited to read the pages and pages and reply...probably be a really rambling post. I'll post something later on tonight after the little one gets to sleep.

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 

MechaPilot

Explorer
Sure, but are 20 flavors better than 6?
Better? That's too subjective.

But, if we assume that each flavor has its own unique appeal, and that it also has some additional appeal that overlaps with that of other flavors, then each added flavor adds at least a fraction of its total appeal to the overall appeal.

As an example (using simple BS numbers for ease of illustration), let's say that each option appeals to 100 people. Of those 100 people, let's say that 50 of them already enjoy the appeal of other options. That would mean adding that option would expand the overall appeal of the game by 50 people.


Interesting, but here's the thing about that: it's up to the DM to be the store and decide which flavors of jam will be offered. The store however, is a middle-man. The one actually creating all the flavor options is the jam company. More jam flavors should be good for the jam company (provided each added flavor appeals to enough customers who are not already appealed to by the other flavors). It's also good for the stores, who then have more potential choices with which to fill their selection (whether they elect to offer a limited selection or not).

In other words, as long as a D&D options has enough unique appeal, adding that option should be good for WotC, and the existence of that option should be good for DMs who can choose to allow it or not.

Personally, I allow quite a bit. It's not that hard to accommodate a player who wants to do something out of the ordinary. For example, there are no warforged or dragonborn in my homebrew setting. But, if a player really wanted to play one, it wouldn't be hard to fit one of them in, even if I just took the lazy option and said they arrived there from another plane or dimension.

Also, I've never had a player paralyzed by the wealth of options available to them. But, I also don't shove a stack of books at a player new to the game and say have at it. I ask them to come up with a character idea, and then I help them find options to fit the bill. Once they have a suitable amount of familiarity with the game, then they can dive into the pile of books because they'll have a better eye for finding what they want than when they first started.
 

pming

Explorer
Hiya!

If you allow players to create and use homebrew content, then why not allow other content on a case-by-case (possibly tweaked to fit better in your campaign)?

I think that 5e does encourage homebrewing (there's a significant portion of the DMG devoted to it, plus DMs Guild). But not everyone has the time or energy to homebrew whole sale. If I see the Deep Ranger and think that's the concept I want to play then why not allow it (with any tweaks you might feel are needed)? Doesn't make much sense for me to reinvent the wheel, IMO.
Creating, tweaking or even using stuff from these aforementioned resources isn't the problem. The problem is the "expected stuff" now simply because of them. A lot of players expect to be able to use Feats, MC'ing, and stuff from the back's of various AP's. Because of this, it makes it significantly more difficult (for me, anyway) to find decent players who want to play 5e the way I/we like. That was why I was asking if I'm alone in this, or if there are others out there who are also feeling that they pretty much MUST capitulate to players wanting to use X, Y and Z options simply because "Well, that's what most want". Most...fine, may be true...probably is...but that's making it a PITA for me to find players that *don't* want or don't mind not using them.

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
It's one thing to ban UA, which is explicitly non-finalized playtest material. It's quite another to whack out an entire chapter from the Player's Handbook itself. Yes, feats and MCing are optional,
Are they optional or are they not?
 

pming

Explorer
Hiya!

Ah, that area is now called Panorama City. It's definitely changed over there. I live at Cameron Woods, which hasn't changed much since it was built in 1947. It's over close to what was once a drive-in theater on Sepulveda.

I can see that being a complication. I take it your old group is not happy with the direction of 5e at the moment then? Or did they split up a while back?
Ahhh...Sepulveda sounds awfully familiar. I do believe that is where my mom and dad took me to see Star Wars when it was released back in 1977. And yes, I still remember it. I was 8 at the time I think. "Lets all go to the laaaahh-be, lets all go to the laaahh-be, lets all go the laah-BE...and get our selves a snack!" LOL...dating myself; I still remember that little intermission jingle with the Disney'esque animated dancing snacks and drinks. Good times...good times... :D

As for my group. Two had to quit semi-temporarily due to real life job/child raising (they only allow themselves to play once per week, and were each dropping their respective games to join an online one with my brother down in Virginia) [one or both of them may be rejoining, as the campaign they were doing resulted in a TPK a couple weeks ago and I think they played a one-off of Cthulhu since, but that's it]. One just moved down to Vancouver island to try and start a life there for some crazy reason. Another just couldn't reliably do every Sunday (two kids; just discovered that his son is on the Autism spectrum with wild mood swings). And the last was my wife, Cheryl, who died a few months ago (May 23rd) due to MS complications. So...down to me and two players.

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
From a purely personal perspective, I probably wouldn't play in this proposed game either. I've had far too many negative experiences with DM's that I didn't know very well to simply trust that this or that DM will be fun.

And, yeah, if I called up, after reading an ad like PM Ming's, and the first thing I hear is a shopping list of restrictions, there'd be big alarm bells going off in my head. Not because Pm Ming is a bad DM or anything like that, but, because I've had so many negative experiences with DM's that basically began off exactly the same way - the DM telling me that this shopping list of things in the game is off the table.

I know correlation and causation and all that, but, it's been my experience that I won't enjoy a DM's game that starts off with that many restrictions. So, I cannot really blame the players for bowing out of the game. I know that I would.
"PHB only, no feats, not MC".

That's not a long shopping list. It's barely a list at all.
 

pming

Explorer
Hiya!

I'm not an 'old school' gamer, but I think I would question whether a highly deadly game and allowing player options are mutually exclusive ideals. If you guys need players for your group and you have a small population to draw from, then I would encourage you to boil your game down to its essential component and market that. From what you're saying, I think you run a very lethal game. I would market that.
Yeah, good idea. :) Maybe I'll give it a shot. Bill it as a sort of "if you think you are a real gamer...try this!" sort of thing. Then again, if I do that, I may have to just start running a Hackmaster 4e drop-in game down at the one and only game/rpg store in town. ;)

But appealing to those who want to try something "different", where their brains/choices make a bigger difference than what race/class/feat combo they took just *might* get me one or two decent bites. Worth a shot anyway. :)

Past that, I would encourage you to try and reconsider your perspective on player options. When you allow a player to play a certain race or archetype that isn't in the PHB, you are not allowing every other published option to enter your world. You're allowing that one option. Just like you would with a homebrew. Have a conversation with the player and figure out why they want to play a particular option.

Maybe they want to play a goliath because they love the idea of this hulking brute and like that the mechanics help reinforce that concept. They may not be interested in the nomadic giant-kin angle. If your world doesn't have goliaths as a race, then you can offer him the mechanics as an altered human (7th son of a 7th son? Magical tomfoolery?). Make a hook of it.

If it's the flavor of the wandering tribe and the mechanics don't matter to him, then offer a similar option to him within your world. Maybe there's a tribe of nomads who serve some stone giants in the northern mountains of your world.

Or, you can go the easiest route and just say that there are a small minority of goliaths that exist in distant areas. Maybe this guy is the only one that's been seen in these lands. That's a pretty interesting hook.

But, allowing goliaths doesn't mean that you're also introducing Firbolgs, Aaracockra, Duergar, Tabaxi, etc... You're expanding your world to make sure that your player can find his place, his fantasy, in it.
Thing is, we (when it was me and 6 players...sometimes 7) tried using the 'extras' (Feats, MC, and whatever new stuff was out at the time via UA/AP's), every time we all didn't like it. It just felt...well...limited. It felt to us like we were going from being able to use 2D and 3D tools to create our own MMORPG character equipment, effects, skins, etc....to paying for what someone else created. I know it's not all that rational...but this is RPG'ing, rarely are we, as a community, "rational" in our likes/dislikes. Some people say crazy...I say quirky. ;)

The additional races weren't, honestly, that bad...I think one person played a Goliath, and my wife tried an Aaracockra (who died within an hour of play, iirc). Other than that...humans, halflings, gnomes, the usual PHB races; mostly humans. I/we just don't find these "exotic" races to be all that interesting to play in a long-term campaign. They have their schtick, are fun/interesting for a couple of sessions, then just kinda become ho-hum, or outright boring. *shrug* Probably our old dogs, new tricks thing. We you've been at this as long as I (we...my players had between 15 to 38 years of RPG'ing experience...with only the daughter of one player being a complete newb...she's 13; she's not with us, she started her own game with her friends a while ago... :) ).

A D&D group is about relationships, right? The best groups like each other and work together to make sure that everyone is having fun. When you're looking for new players, be abundantly clear about your group's identity (highly deadly), but past that, make sure there is room for their fantasy within that identity. Ideally, you're going to be the DM for these players. You want a good relationship with them. Work with them and build that relationship. If they're a good player, they'll be willing to compromise with you too. A good player doesn't want to join a game and upset everything. However, every player wants to express himself through his character and play something that engages his imagination for whatever reason. There's room to meet in the middle.

I recognize that advice is more work than laying out a long list of what you want and that it may involve some compromise on your part. However, if you're in an environment where players are scarce then you may need to be more flexible in some areas to grow your group. I believe you can do that without sacrificing the core identity of your group. If you were in a high population area (or playing online), then you might be able to get that group of ideal players. If you're on the internet advertising, you might be able to find the five other people in the world who always wanted to run an all gnome bard party in the whole world, right? But, if your potential playerbase is much smaller, then you have to cast a wider net to get what you want.
Good advice all around. Thanks for the input!

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 

Elfcrusher

Explorer
I'm well aware of the concept of choice lock.

I've already stated that I place limits on my own game.

I believe I just posted about how I prefer one big "make your own thing" option to a million pre-made options.

I also already commented on the fact that "all or nothing" is a false dichotomy.

Anything else?
Whatever, man. You claimed that more choices leads to more "customers". Research says otherwise. Have a good night.
 

Parmandur

Adventurer
Hiya!



Ahhh...Sepulveda sounds awfully familiar. I do believe that is where my mom and dad took me to see Star Wars when it was released back in 1977. And yes, I still remember it. I was 8 at the time I think. "Lets all go to the laaaahh-be, lets all go to the laaahh-be, lets all go the laah-BE...and get our selves a snack!" LOL...dating myself; I still remember that little intermission jingle with the Disney'esque animated dancing snacks and drinks. Good times...good times... :D

As for my group. Two had to quit semi-temporarily due to real life job/child raising (they only allow themselves to play once per week, and were each dropping their respective games to join an online one with my brother down in Virginia) [one or both of them may be rejoining, as the campaign they were doing resulted in a TPK a couple weeks ago and I think they played a one-off of Cthulhu since, but that's it]. One just moved down to Vancouver island to try and start a life there for some crazy reason. Another just couldn't reliably do every Sunday (two kids; just discovered that his son is on the Autism spectrum with wild mood swings). And the last was my wife, Cheryl, who died a few months ago (May 23rd) due to MS complications. So...down to me and two players.

^_^

Paul L. Ming
Maybe a bit off topic, but... condolences on your wife.
 

Mistwell

Adventurer
Hiya!



Ahhh...Sepulveda sounds awfully familiar. I do believe that is where my mom and dad took me to see Star Wars when it was released back in 1977. And yes, I still remember it. I was 8 at the time I think. "Lets all go to the laaaahh-be, lets all go to the laaahh-be, lets all go the laah-BE...and get our selves a snack!" LOL...dating myself; I still remember that little intermission jingle with the Disney'esque animated dancing snacks and drinks. Good times...good times... :D
Wow what a wild coincidence, that's where I saw Star Wars for the first time too! I recall my brother fell asleep curled up on the back window ledge of the car and I woke him for the bar scene.

As for my group. Two had to quit semi-temporarily due to real life job/child raising (they only allow themselves to play once per week, and were each dropping their respective games to join an online one with my brother down in Virginia) [one or both of them may be rejoining, as the campaign they were doing resulted in a TPK a couple weeks ago and I think they played a one-off of Cthulhu since, but that's it]. One just moved down to Vancouver island to try and start a life there for some crazy reason. Another just couldn't reliably do every Sunday (two kids; just discovered that his son is on the Autism spectrum with wild mood swings). And the last was my wife, Cheryl, who died a few months ago (May 23rd) due to MS complications. So...down to me and two players.

^_^

Paul L. Ming
I am so sorry to hear about your wife.

You have two players, so that meets a minimum at least. And if you get a third, that's plenty enough to run a game (I happen to be writing this while playing online, and only three players showed up for tonights game - I am not playing distracted though as the DM is on a 5 min break).
 

Advertisement

Top