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

[Don Durito]

My guess is they looked at 5e's positioning with respect to the OSR crowd and felt it was way too overcrowded a market. The less served market was between 5e and 4e and so that's where they aimed. It's also possible that their addiction to APs leads them to want a system that more strongly supports presenting situations that need to get resolved in a particular order / preferential way and tight mechanics works towards that

It seems an odd choice from my perspective.

What evidence is there that such a market even exists?

The only other thing in that space is 13th Age and it doesn't seem to be a huge seller.

 

[Garthanos]

Sounds like an argument a 4E proponent would make.

Sounds like an attack on the arguer instead of the argument

I still suspect hiring former 4E devs was a trojan horse and Paizo will suffer for it though...

Hurray for you lots of opportunity, are you having fun?

 

[Garthanos]

People are asserting PF2 has this lazer focus on balance. Are you saying PF2 skills are a match for the utility of spells? honestly I find myself doubting it and without that its just more worship at the alter of "only combat is really important"

5e put plenty into making sure the numbers for combat work but in a boring sort of mathematical way hey damage damage damage is the only important thing amiright is actually a simplification so there is less variation between characters (in fact they largely used 4e numbers scaled)

 

[Maxperson]

"When people say X, all I hear is Y" is a pretty common turn of phrase, and not meant literally. That said, when people use that particular Incredibles quote in reference to why they didn't like 4e, in my experience they are generally alluding to non-casters having discrete ability packages with limited daily/encounter uses.

I disagree. When I have seen that quote used, they generally mean that there should be more variance in abilities. It's not generally about caster vs. mundane in cases that I have seen. If you are going to generally hear what you expect to hear regardless of whether it's there or not, you are going to generally respond to their statements with, "Baby bubble bumper buggy," which isn't going to be helpful.

 

[Garthanos]

I disagree. When I have seen that quote used, they generally mean that there should be more variance in abilities. It's not generally about caster vs. mundane in cases that I have seen.

Really then all the massive spell list sharing with explicit exactly the same abilities in the latest game ought to be seen as actually horrid but that isn't criticized (or atleast rarely)

 

[Garthanos]

It's not generally about caster vs. mundane in cases that I have seen.

Honestly its almost always combined with everyone is casters assertions

 

[Maxperson]

Sounds like an attack on the arguer instead of the argument

Actually, what is sounded like was flipping the other guy's attack on him, rather than the argument back at him in order to show how it was an attack on the argument. @CapnZapp didn't come across as serious with that comment.

 

[Maxperson]

Really then all the massive spell list sharing with explicit exactly the same abilities in the latest game ought to be seen as actually horrid but that isn't criticized (or atleast rarely)

Are you talking about 5e? If so, I've heard it mentioned and it has been talked about at my table. We like 5e, but it's far from perfect. Not enough feats, subclasses, unique spells, etc. We would like to see more nice things across the board to allow for more mechanical variance in characters. It would be nice not to see the same small handful of feats and spells taken over and over again.

 

[Garthanos]

Actually, what is sounded like was flipping the other guy's attack on his argument back at him in order to show how it was an attack on the argument.

Its unrelated to his argument entirely being flipping them off with an edition war snideness.

Not sure how that parses honestly as addressing am argument and given other statements about 4e designers being Trojan Horses? nyeh that sounds entirely like his favorite method of arguing.

 

[Maxperson]

Its unrelated to his argument entirely being flipping them off with an edition war snideness.

Not sure how that parses honestly as addressing am argument and given other statements about 4e designers being Trojan Horses? nyeh that sounds entirely like his favorite method of arguing.

Edition warring is, "My favorite edition is great, and yours sucks! Neener neener!" A genuine criticism of design is not edition warring, and if the designers who came up with the flawed design get taken in by another company and continue that design, it can be likened to the Trojan Horse as an analogy.