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

[dco]

They want to sell books and power creep and options helps that.
We play the vanilla game in my group and only buy adventures, for options we already have Fantasy Hero, one book will give far more options than 30 from D&D or Pathfinder. As I said long ago I think the designers should have gone the way of True20, using class powers like the feats of D&D 5e.

 

[redrick]

[MENTION=20005]Matthan[/MENTION]'s advice is the best I see here. Your ad, as it stands, is very generic. To follow that up with a bunch of restrictions could definitely play as a turn-off, even for players who might otherwise fit your play-style. Having read a lot of pitches for campaigns on Roll20 and similar, I've found that the best ads are the ones that pitch a specific kind of game, with the restrictions, alternate rules and house-rules that are put in place to support that.

I imagine two very different pitches:

"We like to play a stripped down game, with simpler mechanical options, because we find it focuses the attention on at the table creativity and story-telling, as opposed to carefully constructed character builds." (Some people will find that appealing and some will pass.)

"I like to run a my-way-or-the-highway game, so I've restricted most of the mechanical options from chapters of the PHB that I can't be bothered to read, and if you bring any ideas you got from anywhere else, I will definitely not be allowing those at MY table." (I think most people would pass on this, though I guess a case could be made...)

I think it's also great to note that you are building off a playstyle that you've reached with other players in your group. In my mind, that is a good sign, because it indicates that you are able to work with players to find a game you all want to play, as opposed to deciding unilaterally about a very specific game you want and looking for players who are willing to subject themselves to your personalized version of D&D.

 

[KahlessNestor]

I think there are factors pushing 5e and Pathfinder in similar directions (importance of organized play, revised/unchained options not replacing original options [summoner aside for organized play], and focus on 1-2 campaign worlds [and vocal splits on whether it is time for next editions among gamers]).

The biggest difference is that 5e came out when "rules lite" was more popular among game designers, and Pathfinder is built around the "there is a rule for everything, and for everything a rule" of 3x (and I suspect it is why they have been better able to absorb some 4e-ism [like the monster roles in the unchained book] than 5e has been). Since I don't see "rules lite" going away (it is less onerous and people can point to the success of 5e to justify doing it), if there ever is a PF 2.0, it will probably be more "rules medium" (being "rules lite" might be a bridge to far) than the current edition is.

I think you see a little of this with Starfinder. The rules are much more stripped down, though not as lite as 5e.

 

[S'mon]

I have not found difficulty getting players despite restrictions.

 

[Lanefan]

I have not found difficulty getting players despite restrictions.

You do have one small advantage...

Population of London: something like 8 million
Population of Whitehorse: something like 23,000.

 

[S'mon]

You do have one small advantage...

Population of London: something like 8 million
Population of Whitehorse: something like 23,000.

Yup (9 million now!) - and lots more would-be players than would-be GMs.
That said, I couldn't just declare I was going to run Chivalry & Sorcery and expect to have a bunch of players; there are limits.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

The problem with this level of play is, it is difficult to move characters from one campaign to another.

Just commenting on this - Is this really an issue? Anecdotes are not data and such, but in my 40 years of gaming (given not a lot of groups, but a fair number) I have never met a GM that let anyone just bring a character into a game. They could reroll/rebuild for the new GM game and build a "native" version of the character, following the tone, theme and house-rules of that campaign, but never just brought in. Does that actually happen?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Just commenting on this - Is this really an issue? Anecdotes are not data and such, but in my 40 years of gaming (given not a lot of groups, but a fair number) I have never met a GM that let anyone just bring a character into a game. ... Does that actually happen?

It was common practice in my area in the 80s - though not without revue & restrictions, and flat-out denial if the character was somehow unacceptable.

Of curse, it's perfectly normal in organized play.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

It was common practice in my area in the 80s - though not without revue & restrictions, and flat-out denial if the character was somehow unacceptable.

Of curse, it's perfectly normal in organized play.

Well yeah, that is sort of the point of organized play.

 

[Lanefan]

Just commenting on this - Is this really an issue? Anecdotes are not data and such, but in my 40 years of gaming (given not a lot of groups, but a fair number) I have never met a GM that let anyone just bring a character into a game. They could reroll/rebuild for the new GM game and build a "native" version of the character, following the tone, theme and house-rules of that campaign, but never just brought in. Does that actually happen?

When the home campaigns share a rule-set etc. we transfer characters between them all the time. But brought in from outside? Nearly never.