D&D 2E Is 5e Basically Becoming Pathfinder 2e?

[MoonSong]

[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?

 

[Guest 6801328]

More variety typically draws in more players. So naturally the reverse holds true, less variety results in less players.

Anecdote or data? Or neither?

That sounds suspiciously like the unproven assumption of somebody who likes more options.

 

[Hussar]

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.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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]

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.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Casual observation based on market forces. People who sell Ice Cream get more customers when they sell more than one flavor.

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.

 

[Sunseeker]

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]

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