D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[FrogReaver]

I have heard quite a few people who like it just fine...

No one said people didn’t like it...

 

[Lanefan]

To answer the OP: having played a fair bit of 1e and 3e and having read through 2e-4e-5e I don't think 4e's presentation - as in, layout, organization, etc. - in its core books was any worse than the others; and is perhaps better than some. Unfortunately, the actual material that was so nicely presented in those books did nothing for me at all except provide a few really cool monsters and a couple of good, if isolated, edition-agnostic rules ideas e.g. bloodied.

The presentation of 4e's adventure modules is another question entirely. I've converted modules from every D&D edition to use in my game, and the 4e ones are the worst. (3e and 5e modules aren't much better but unlike the 4e ones at least they usually have all the info I need buried in there somewhere)

Another thing that turned me right off of 4e after reading through it was that there seemed to be bits missing from the initial core three books, likely because they held things back for the next round of core books. As far as I'm concerned the initial core three books (PH, DMG, MM) should be all I ever need to run a given edition in the way it's intended to be run.

As for frequency of failure: if PF2 (which I honestly know next to nothing about) and 4e systemically set you up to fail often enough that you notice it, I'd call that a feature rather than a bug.

 

[CapnZapp]

That depends on your definition of success. I certainly wouldn't consider 5E to be successful, as a game. As a marketing exercise, perhaps.

Lol.

You sure provide a refreshening perspective, Sae

Myself, I remain awestruck about how brilliantly the 5E devs solved the LFQW problems of 3E. Sure, 5E is too simple for hardcore D&Ders. And they made it too easy to fight at range, against too-naive monster stats. Etc.

But not considering the monumental achievement that is the magic and spell structure, the very core of D&D, that both feels fun like 3E and yet is so comprehensively much better balanced, is your mistake.

 

[CapnZapp]

And it seems PF2 is doing as well as can be expected in an environment where D&D dominates.

You sure you're not simply lowering your expectations in order to not have to admit not meeting them?

I don't think Paizo has any illusions about reclaiming the spot they held during the era when 4e was cancelled.

And I think that a game released five years into the dominant edition should have made a much much larger splash, at least when published by the only other publisher with any real D&D name recognition besides WotC.

Illusions or no, Paizo grew to its current size based on being more than just another in the long line of D&D-adjacent publishers. They obviously had "illusions" on not having to greatly downsize.

I believe the only reason they're not announcing those layoffs is because they know it will hurt PF2 sales even more. The longer they can stick it out, the better chances they give their game. But just look at it*. It should be readily apparent this game just doesn't have what it would take for Paizo to retain the elevated presence they have enjoyed the last decade or so.

*) Again, I don't mean superficial presentation. I mean the deep design philosophy I started this thread with. Nobody asked 4E to solve "but my character is slightly better or worse than yours, how can we make everything the same?", and nobody asked Paizo to provide a second solution to the same uncalled for problem.




tl;dr: Why didn't the failure of 4E clue Paizo into what the customer base doesn't want, doesn't like and doesn't need? Especially when the roaring success of 5E couldn't make it any more clear what the customer base does want, like and need?!

 

[CapnZapp]

No one said people didn’t like it...

Kind of ironic given the thread you're posting in, wouldn't you agree?

 

[CapnZapp]

To answer the OP

Since my main interest is in the decisions that went into PF2, I would love to hear from you once you've tried it out. Cheers

 

[FrozenNorth]

You make it sound like the outcome of a single roll is significant.

It isn't.

(All the math of PF2 is predicated on averages.)

I haven’t really made up my mind on this point, but while I certainly agree that in combat, a single die roll is insignificant, it seems to me that outside combat, single die rolls can be very significant.
I am pro- a certain level of randomness, so I tend to roll my eyes a little at players who seem to act like dice are the enemy, but I understand that they could find PF2 frustrating.

 

[CapnZapp]

outside combat, single die rolls can be very significant.

This is certainly an astute observation.

Of course, a dungeonmastering style that works well in, say, 5th edition, where you might have a 90% shot at success on a single roll, must be expected to vary from a gamesmastering style that works well in Pathfinder 2, where you might have a 45% shot.

 

[FrogReaver]

Kind of ironic given the thread you're posting in, wouldn't you agree?

Perhaps that's because the impression isn't that it's a bad game. I mean I don't think it's a bad game. I think it's very solid and well put together game and very balanced game. It's just when I dig into it there's nothing that stands out that really makes me excited.

5e had:
bounded accuracy
less fiddly bonuses
advantage/disadvantage
Classes felt right - different and not samey
Characters from a class could often be made drastically different

These are all things I got excited about 5e. What am I supposed to get excited about for PF2?

 

[Arilyn]

Perhaps that's because the impression isn't that it's a bad game. I mean I don't think it's a bad game. I think it's very solid and well put together game and very balanced game. It's just when I dig into it there's nothing that stands out that really makes me excited.

5e had:
bounded accuracy
less fiddly bonuses
advantage/disadvantage
Classes felt right - different and not samey
Characters from a class could often be made drastically different

These are all things I got excited about 5e. What am I supposed to get excited about for PF2?

I really like how the game plays. The 3 action economy, for example, is really good.

What I'm having trouble with is character creation. It feels more mechanical and like jumping through hoops. I think I like how the stats work, not sure. I just can't get as excited about making characters like I did in PF1. It just feels less organic.