Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GrahamWills" data-source="post: 7629542" data-attributes="member: 75787"><p>Returning to the central theme, I'll give my answer not from the "success in the market" point of view as much from the core feel of the game. D&D 3/3.5/PF stressed the simulation side of the game. Things were supposed to Work A Certain Way That Made Sense, and the rules would support that. People would argue about whether things were realistic (hit points anyone?) and we had some overly complex rules in an attempt to make things work "right" (I'm looking at you, grappling).</p><p></p><p>4E had a different goal; it put the game element up front. It said things like "To be a fun game, all team members should be able to contribute substantially in all scenes", contrasting with previous versions where magic wins because in the world of fantasy, that is what is "realistic". Whereas previous editions were simulations first (from the wargaming roots), with rules supporting it, 4E went all-in on being a game first. </p><p></p><p>Some people liked that. They said "OK, a fireball burst is a square. That makes it easy". Others went "that is totally stupid. How can a spell with a radius be a freaking square?". And because most roleplaying game enthusiasts are not actually rules-first people, 4E irritated more people than those who loved it.</p><p></p><p>5E's success is partly attributable to the general rise in nerd appreciation; it's cool to be into D&D, way more so than it was around 4E's time, so that, for me, is a big factor. But so is the fact that they did a bang-up job of mashing together AD&D's "rules? it's about the story, about cool ways of doing things, about player inventiveness"; 3.5's "this is a simulation of a fantasy world -- if you think it should work a certain way it probably will"; 4e's "this is a game where the rules are fair and well designed". Its telling that no matter which version of D&D you prefer, you see your favorite version in 5E. That's a stellar accomplishment.</p><p></p><p>So, back to PF2. If PF2 was Paizo's 4E, they would have gone for a strongly one-dimensional way of playing; they would have gone all-in for rules (as 4E did), or simulation, or story. But they haven't. They have looked at what 5E did -- making a deliberately unopinionated game; one that takes classical GNS theory and says "screw this; I can so make a system that does it all". Fantasy is the most successful RPG genre because it is a malleable mix of anything goes in a way that sci-fi or other genres cannot hope to be. 5E doubled down on being that loose, even-handed system that all types of players see good in.</p><p></p><p>As far as I can tell, PF2 is trying for the exact same kind of thing, but since that would directly compete with Wizards, they have edged to the simulation side a bit more. 13th Age sits just off to the more narrative side of the same spot, so that seems a good decision on their part.</p><p></p><p>If you want a fantasy game exactly at the middle of al gamers' preferences: 5E. If you want one edging towards narrative elements: 13th Age. If you want one edging towards simulation: PF2. If you want one zooming out to the horizon of gamism -- there's 4E!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GrahamWills, post: 7629542, member: 75787"] Returning to the central theme, I'll give my answer not from the "success in the market" point of view as much from the core feel of the game. D&D 3/3.5/PF stressed the simulation side of the game. Things were supposed to Work A Certain Way That Made Sense, and the rules would support that. People would argue about whether things were realistic (hit points anyone?) and we had some overly complex rules in an attempt to make things work "right" (I'm looking at you, grappling). 4E had a different goal; it put the game element up front. It said things like "To be a fun game, all team members should be able to contribute substantially in all scenes", contrasting with previous versions where magic wins because in the world of fantasy, that is what is "realistic". Whereas previous editions were simulations first (from the wargaming roots), with rules supporting it, 4E went all-in on being a game first. Some people liked that. They said "OK, a fireball burst is a square. That makes it easy". Others went "that is totally stupid. How can a spell with a radius be a freaking square?". And because most roleplaying game enthusiasts are not actually rules-first people, 4E irritated more people than those who loved it. 5E's success is partly attributable to the general rise in nerd appreciation; it's cool to be into D&D, way more so than it was around 4E's time, so that, for me, is a big factor. But so is the fact that they did a bang-up job of mashing together AD&D's "rules? it's about the story, about cool ways of doing things, about player inventiveness"; 3.5's "this is a simulation of a fantasy world -- if you think it should work a certain way it probably will"; 4e's "this is a game where the rules are fair and well designed". Its telling that no matter which version of D&D you prefer, you see your favorite version in 5E. That's a stellar accomplishment. So, back to PF2. If PF2 was Paizo's 4E, they would have gone for a strongly one-dimensional way of playing; they would have gone all-in for rules (as 4E did), or simulation, or story. But they haven't. They have looked at what 5E did -- making a deliberately unopinionated game; one that takes classical GNS theory and says "screw this; I can so make a system that does it all". Fantasy is the most successful RPG genre because it is a malleable mix of anything goes in a way that sci-fi or other genres cannot hope to be. 5E doubled down on being that loose, even-handed system that all types of players see good in. As far as I can tell, PF2 is trying for the exact same kind of thing, but since that would directly compete with Wizards, they have edged to the simulation side a bit more. 13th Age sits just off to the more narrative side of the same spot, so that seems a good decision on their part. If you want a fantasy game exactly at the middle of al gamers' preferences: 5E. If you want one edging towards narrative elements: 13th Age. If you want one edging towards simulation: PF2. If you want one zooming out to the horizon of gamism -- there's 4E! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
Top