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

[Lanefan]

2: What exactly does it do to empower the DM? As a DM I find 5e gives me very little - if I want empowerment I go to 4e or something Powered By The Apocalypse. Because they actively help me.

5e gives the DM far more power than 3e or 4e simply via its overtly stated philosophy of 'rulings not rules'. That's empowerment.

 

[Lanefan]

There is a pretty simple test on the hypothesis of "did the PF2 creators design with intent toward capturing the play paradigm, and therefore the advocates of, 4e D&D?"

Unfortunately, even if your evidence presented below holds true throughout the greater gaming community...

Do the major advocates of 4e, the folks that played it and advocated for it stem to stern and who are not simultaneously fans of PF, play PF2?

Well, if the ENWorld forums signal carries any weight, the answer is trivially "no". Campbell is a PF2 fan and plays it. Outside of that, I personally know about 50 big time fans of 4e, including myself...none of them play PF2. I'm sure there are more than just the people I know...but that it is pretty robust evidence that the people who are most discerning/dedicated when it comes to 4e, and who simultaneously weren't advocates of PF, aren't playing PF2.

Overwhelmingly, the folks that I know who loved 4e have been playing indie games or hacks (of which Strike! is basically an indie hack of 4e) for the last half decade.

... it still doesn't really answer the bolded question.

All it tells us is that one of the following is true:

1. The PF2 designers did not design with this intent.
2. The PF2 designers did in fact design with this intent but have (thus far) failed in their intention.
3. Both 1 and 2 are partly true but the parts of 2 that are true have (thus far) failed in their intention.

 

[Eric V]

2: What exactly does it do to empower the DM? As a DM I find 5e gives me very little - if I want empowerment I go to 4e or something Powered By The Apocalypse. Because they actively help me.

I can however tell you a few things it does to give me makework. Some people claim that having to oversee everything empowers the DM. I consider these people wrong.

I have DM'd every edition of D&D and I literally do not understand what 5e is giving me to make me so empowered as compared to the other editions. EVERY edition had some form of Rule 0, so what more "empowerment" do I need? I don't get it.

As you mention, though, it does make me work more...and not "fun" work, either.

 

[Eric V]

On a side note: I think it would be fun to make a dual wielding fighter that uses his first attack to prone and then the following attack and bonus attack to attack.

Used to be able to do that with the feat relating to Shields, but they unnecessarily nerfed that. :/

 

[CapnZapp]

I have read the original post. I've also eviscerated the original post. The parts you see as commonalities are because 4e and Pathfinder have a common ancestor in 3.5 - and that common ancestor is the one that actively e.g. distrusts DMs. (4e actively trusts and empowers them more than most other games in my experience, especially 5e).

So no I entirely reject the assertion that Pathfinder 2e has any ambition to be like 4e. Instead it shares a common ancestor and it is that you are seeing. Nothing about 4e that makes it good and distinguishes it from D&D 3.5 in a positive way appears to be present in Pathfinder 2e. Meanwhile ways Pathfinder distinguished itself from 4e seem doubled down on. It's trying to be the most Pathfinder that it can be - a game made in reaction against 4e.

This sounds fairly reasonable...

...until you remember 5e also shares the exact same legacy. Literally nothing available to the PF2 devs weren't also available to the 5e devs... except one teensy weensy nugget of information: the knowledge designing your game like 5e brings immeasurable popularity.

Then your argument falls apart entirely - since no, there's no inevitability in "having 3.5 as common ancestor" (not to speak of your nonsense that 4e trusted the DM more than 3.5) leading to "locked down ruleset".

...and so the question remains unanswered: What do you think are the reasons for Paizo following in the footsteps of the clearly least successful edition of D&D, even though they had a blindingly obvious model for success right in front of their eyes?

At best, your argument can make us rephrase the question to:

What did the 5E devs realize that the PF2 devs didn't?

It should also make us appreciate 5E for what it is and for what it did. Despite this doom of having 3.5 as your "common ancestor" they still managed to finally fix LFQW, all without locking down the game or infesting it with a thousand little feats.

 

[CapnZapp]

As for all the other recent posts, let me just thank you all for the inspired discussion lately.

I believe this thread to be a success insofar it feels like we're out of the initial hole where my premise wasn't taken seriously (even if you disagree with it). Maybe it was just a novel thought for some of you to look at PF2 this way.

Anyway, I feel I've managed to really come across to several posters, which, in the end, is all we can hope for here in just one out of over 670,000 threads on a discussion forum, so thank you

 

[Fanaelialae]

What did the 5E devs realize that the PF2 devs didn't?

It should also make us appreciate 5E for what it is and for what it did. Despite this doom of having 3.5 as your "common ancestor" they still managed to finally fix LFQW, all without locking down the game or infesting it with a thousand little feats.

3.5 came first, but after a decade of working with it the WotC team realized that it had some issues, such as LFQW.

With 4e, they set out to fix those issues (and they did) but (for some people) the game was too restrictive and/or didn't have the right feel.

So then they took what they had learned from each edition and created 5e, which landed them in the Goldilocks Zone. (Obviously not perfect for EVERYONE, but a good enough compromise between the various editions' strengths and weaknesses that it ended up appealing to many.)

While some of the designers of PF2 were from WotC, Jason Bulmahn (the lead designer) was not. He was well steeped in the flaws of PF (which were largely the same as those of 3.x), having worked on that game for at least a decade. However, I see no evidence that he was more than passingly familiar with 4e. Ten or so years ago, Paizo made a decision to not work on 4e and to go their own direction instead (which was Pathfinder). As a result, the Paizo team did not learn the lessons the WotC team did from 4e.

It is my belief that this is why PF2 has a closer superficial resemblance to 4e than to 5e. Yes, games cannot evolve in the literal sense (at least not in the sense that involves DNA). However, the ideas of designers can evolve (figuratively speaking) as they learn what worked and what didn't from their prior creations, which in turn informs and influences the games they later create. The 5e team learned from 4e (as well as earlier editions). I believe that the PF2 team did not, as their lead designer had no significant experience working with 4e. Rather, his design philosophy was influenced by working on PF, much like the 4e team was influenced by working on 3.x. Which explains the similar underlying design philosophy of 4e and PF2, despite that the implementations of those games are quite different.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This sounds fairly reasonable...

...until you remember 5e also shares the exact same legacy. Literally nothing available to the PF2 devs weren't also available to the 5e devs... except one teensy weensy nugget of information: the knowledge designing your game like 5e brings immeasurable popularity.

Then your argument falls apart entirely - since no, there's no inevitability in "having 3.5 as common ancestor" (not to speak of your nonsense that 4e trusted the DM more than 3.5) leading to "locked down ruleset".

...and so the question remains unanswered: What do you think are the reasons for Paizo following in the footsteps of the clearly least successful edition of D&D, even though they had a blindingly obvious model for success right in front of their eyes?

At best, your argument can make us rephrase the question to:

What did the 5E devs realize that the PF2 devs didn't?

It should also make us appreciate 5E for what it is and for what it did. Despite this doom of having 3.5 as your "common ancestor" they still managed to finally fix LFQW, all without locking down the game or infesting it with a thousand little feats.

3.5 -> Pathfinder (3.75?) -> Pathfinder 2

3.5 -> 4e -> Essentials -> 5e

So, even if we accept your premise that Paizo should have learned from 4e, you should be able to see why the designs might have gone in similar directions.

I also want to go ahead and, yet again, point out that "except one teensy weensy nugget of information: the knowledge designing your game like 5e brings immeasurable popularity." is a false idea.

This is asking why Minecraft didn't copy Mario or Halo copy Call of Duty. A company with a successful model and identity isn't going to simply copy what another highly successful game is doing.

So, you have a game that might superficially look like 4e, but that 4e fans are saying isn't like 4e in the execution. Developed as an evolution of a game very similar to 3.5. Without all of the market research, planning, and ideas that went in 5e since this is a different design team, with a different company, doing different research.

So, what did WoTC know that PAizo didn't? Everything that went into the development of 5e, all of the playtest data, feedback, everything. And, even if they did, Paizo has nothing to gain from making a cheap knock-off of 5e, because they have a fan base asking for certain design directions and there team is trying to follow that data from their own fans.

 

[FrogReaver]

Used to be able to do that with the feat relating to Shields, but they unnecessarily nerfed that. :/

Imo. They fixed a bad initial ruling.

The part that aggravated me with that is they made the bad ruling to begin with and then changed it out of the blue without a good justifiable reason for doing so.

I’d rather they left it alone after so many years.

 

[FrogReaver]

3.5 came first, but after a decade of working with it the WotC team realized that it had some issues, such as LFQW.

With 4e, they set out to fix those issues (and they did) but (for some people) the game was too restrictive and/or didn't have the right feel.

So then they took what they had learned from each edition and created 5e, which landed them in the Goldilocks Zone. (Obviously not perfect for EVERYONE, but a good enough compromise between the various editions' strengths and weaknesses that it ended up appealing to many.)

While some of the designers of PF2 were from WotC, Jason Bulmahn (the lead designer) was not. He was well steeped in the flaws of PF (which were largely the same as those of 3.x), having worked on that game for at least a decade. However, I see no evidence that he was more than passingly familiar with 4e. Ten or so years ago, Paizo made a decision to not work on 4e and to go their own direction instead (which was Pathfinder). As a result, the Paizo team did not learn the lessons the WotC team did from 4e.

It is my belief that this is why PF2 has a closer superficial resemblance to 4e than to 5e. Yes, games cannot evolve in the literal sense (at least not in the sense that involves DNA). However, the ideas of designers can evolve (figuratively speaking) as they learn what worked and what didn't from their prior creations, which in turn informs and influences the games they later create. The 5e team learned from 4e (as well as earlier editions). I believe that the PF2 team did not, as their lead designer had no significant experience working with 4e. Rather, his design philosophy was influenced by working on PF, much like the 4e team was influenced by working on 3.x. Which explains the similar underlying design philosophy of 4e and PF2, despite that the implementations of those games are quite different.

I don’t think that adaquately explains why the PF2 designers ignored lessons learned about 4e. I don’t think it explains why so little is similar to 5e.