Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?

[Hussar]

New players might not be able to make the comparisons, but they may find a particular thing (such as grid-intensive miniature combat) a turn-off.

On the flipside though, with the incredible surge in popularity of VTT's, grid intensive miniature combat is a breeze. I realized that I had no idea what folks were on about when they talked about "the 4e grind" when it occured to me that 99% of the mechanics of 4e were being handled by the framework of my virtual tabletop. It was all point and click. We never had these incredibly long combats because we could track and resolve stuff instantly using the VTT.

4e today would be reacted to quite differently I think, simply because you have such a large audience of VTT players that didn't exist in 2008.

 

[Celtavian]

On the flipside though, with the incredible surge in popularity of VTT's, grid intensive miniature combat is a breeze. I realized that I had no idea what folks were on about when they talked about "the 4e grind" when it occured to me that 99% of the mechanics of 4e were being handled by the framework of my virtual tabletop. It was all point and click. We never had these incredibly long combats because we could track and resolve stuff instantly using the VTT.

4e today would be reacted to quite differently I think, simply because you have such a large audience of VTT players that didn't exist in 2008.

I doubt it. That was the least of my problems with the game. It just wasn't a very good game for suspending reality. 4E let you look at the wizard behind the curtain too much and expected you to forget he was there. RPGs walk a very fine line much like a good book, movie, or TV show of creating rules that allow a DM to create a suspension of reality for the players. 4E was very bad at that in my opinion in a way that 5E and PF are not, though they do it in different ways.

 

[Zardnaar]

On the flipside though, with the incredible surge in popularity of VTT's, grid intensive miniature combat is a breeze. I realized that I had no idea what folks were on about when they talked about "the 4e grind" when it occured to me that 99% of the mechanics of 4e were being handled by the framework of my virtual tabletop. It was all point and click. We never had these incredibly long combats because we could track and resolve stuff instantly using the VTT.

4e today would be reacted to quite differently I think, simply because you have such a large audience of VTT players that didn't exist in 2008.

Not by a lot though. My wife right now is playing fire emblem on the switch. It's a tactical rpg, but it's niche compared to say Dragon Age, Mass Effect etc.

The young uns using maps do it for convenience, they are still not big fans of complexity.

 

[Hussar]

I doubt it. That was the least of my problems with the game. It just wasn't a very good game for suspending reality. 4E let you look at the wizard behind the curtain too much and expected you to forget he was there. RPGs walk a very fine line much like a good book, movie, or TV show of creating rules that allow a DM to create a suspension of reality for the players. 4E was very bad at that in my opinion in a way that 5E and PF are not, though they do it in different ways.

This I actually 100% agree with. 4e let you see (or more accurately force you to see) how the sausage was made. And a lot of folks were REALLY turned off by that.

 

[Aldarc]

I doubt it. That was the least of my problems with the game. It just wasn't a very good game for suspending reality. 4E let you look at the wizard behind the curtain too much and expected you to forget he was there. RPGs walk a very fine line much like a good book, movie, or TV show of creating rules that allow a DM to create a suspension of reality for the players. 4E was very bad at that in my opinion in a way that 5E and PF are not, though they do it in different ways.

Some of this, however, could have been solved by the writing. The 4e Essentials line, for example, was a move back towards more natural language and changing the aesthetic of 4e in a way that attempted to hide the nuts and bolts. If 4e had been written in a way that adopted natural language, then you can bet that it would have been better received. Presentation is key.

Not by a lot though. My wife right now is playing fire emblem on the switch. It's a tactical rpg, but it's niche compared to say Dragon Age, Mass Effect etc.

Then you also have the resurging popularity of Tacitcal CRPGs like Pillars of Eternity, Divinity: Original Sin, and Banner Saga. These are certainly niche when compared to AAA games from Bioware, but Bioware also got its start from similar sort of tactical games.

 

[Zardnaar]

They're still niche, last time I played one new was 1996. They're an acquired taste. She bought Pillars of Eternity and couldn't get into it. But she loves Fire Emblem, I bought it for the GBA years ago and she started playing it and has stuck with the series ever since.

She's actually taken a week's holiday to play it lol. It's close to midnight and she's still playing and she is normally in bed around 9.

 

[Aldarc]

They're still niche, last time I played one new was 1996. They're an acquired taste.

If you are not a AAA game, then you are niche. That said, Dragon Age Origins is a turned-based tactical game wearing an RPG coat.

 

[Imaro]

On the flipside though, with the incredible surge in popularity of VTT's, grid intensive miniature combat is a breeze. I realized that I had no idea what folks were on about when they talked about "the 4e grind" when it occured to me that 99% of the mechanics of 4e were being handled by the framework of my virtual tabletop. It was all point and click. We never had these incredibly long combats because we could track and resolve stuff instantly using the VTT.

4e today would be reacted to quite differently I think, simply because you have such a large audience of VTT players that didn't exist in 2008.

I don't know about this one. I think that games played on a VTT have become more visible but I'm not sure I'd buy into the thinking that they are necessarily used by a large portion of the player base, I still tend to think the vast majority of games are played face to face. Now I'll readily admit I could be wrong since I don't have data to back it up, but I just don't think a large enough portion of the playerbase are using (or want to be required to use) VTT where it would have made a difference in the case of 4e. Honestly I think if you need to be using electronic devices to bring the overhead of a roleplaying game down to manageable levels for most people... well that's still going to be a nail in it's coffin even if said VTTs exist and are readily available...

 

[Parmandur]

On the flipside though, with the incredible surge in popularity of VTT's, grid intensive miniature combat is a breeze. I realized that I had no idea what folks were on about when they talked about "the 4e grind" when it occured to me that 99% of the mechanics of 4e were being handled by the framework of my virtual tabletop. It was all point and click. We never had these incredibly long combats because we could track and resolve stuff instantly using the VTT.

4e today would be reacted to quite differently I think, simply because you have such a large audience of VTT players that didn't exist in 2008.

VTT are much more common now, but it does seem the majority of people still play without them, particularly people who like TTRPGs as a break from electronic media. I think you are right, that 4E would run more smoothly with a computer aid, which they promised day one as a first party solution.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think they just messed up their assumptions. Here we are 10 years later, everyone has smart phones and most people still use books.

I suspect books are just part of the D&D experience for most people. It's about selling emotions and feelings, hell vinyl still sells despite being obsolete for 30+ years.