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

[CapnZapp]

And at a glance, PF2 appears to follow that same design goal. They want you to fail, on a regular basis. There's nothing you can do about it. Don't worry about trying to be good at anything; just roll the dice, and try to not be too disappointed when you fail. It's depressing.

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.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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

When I'm only doing one thing on my turn, and failure means that I contribute nothing to the game for the next ten minutes of realtime, the one die roll I make in a round is significant. When I'm spending significant amounts of cash, as well as a healing surge, to try and open a lock; failure is significant.

I guess PF2 might be less bad about that, with its three-action economy, but the chance of whiffing on all three attacks (after accounting for the relevant penalties) is still significant. And failing multiple times in a single round is even more depressing than the 4E model.

 

[CapnZapp]

I see lots of 4E discussion here. That in itself is not surprising given I mentioned the game. What never ceases to amaze me however is that there's still something to say about that game.

Anyway...

I didn't actually start this thread because I wanted to discuss a failed old edition of D&D. I started it because I wanted to discuss the recent release of a brand new game called Pathfinder 2.

Why on earth did Paizo replicate the ingredient for failure from 4E (as discussed in my OP)? How could they fail to learn the lessons of 5E?

After all, 5E was released all the way back in 2014. I simply cannot understand, much less excuse, the release of a game five whole years later that so utterly fails to follow the trends of the mega success of the 21st century in ttrpgs.

And not only that. Failing to steal learn from the rousing success edition of D&D is one thing. But they went ahead and actively chose the edition that failed miserably as their role-model for their fundamental philosophy!

How did that happen?!? Or, in the refined language of Waldorf and Statler;

 

[CapnZapp]

snip

Can I suggest a game without dice if failure depresses you?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Can I suggest a game without dice if failure depresses you?

I'd rather play a dice game that doesn't present failure as inevitable. There are plenty of those out there.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why on earth did Paizo replicate the ingredient for failure from 4E (as discussed in my OP)?

That seems obvious enough. Both 4E and PF2 were designed in direct response to the (perceived) failings of 3.x, so it's natural that they'd hit on the same sorts of solutions to those problems.

 

[Charlaquin]

When I'm only doing one thing on my turn, and failure means that I contribute nothing to the game for the next ten minutes of realtime,

Does one round take 10 minutes at your table? That seems really long to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

I see lots of 4E discussion here. That in itself is not surprising given I mentioned the game. What never ceases to amaze me however is that there's still something to say about that game.

Anyway...

I didn't actually start this thread because I wanted to discuss a failed old edition of D&D. I started it because I wanted to discuss the recent release of a brand new game called Pathfinder 2.

Why on earth did Paizo replicate the ingredient for failure from 4E (as discussed in my OP)? How could they fail to learn the lessons of 5E?

After all, 5E was released all the way back in 2014. I simply cannot understand, much less excuse, the release of a game five whole years later that so utterly fails to follow the trends of the mega success of the 21st century in ttrpgs.

And not only that. Failing to steal learn from the rousing success edition of D&D is one thing. But they went ahead and actively chose the edition that failed miserably as their role-model for their fundamental philosophy!

How did that happen?!? Or, in the refined language of Waldorf and Statler;

They’re angling to fill a different niche rather than directly compete. And frankly, I’d say it’s a very smart move. 5e is very successful, but it very much leaves the folks who love their crunch out in the cold. Paizo’s core audience is those folks 5e isn’t crunchy enough for. But PF1 is built on the back of a system that is really showing its age. They wanted to serve that crunch-loving base, while expanding their appeal beyond just the crowd that doesn’t want to move on from their twenty year old system. And, having a fair number of folks who worked on 4e among their staff, it’s unsurprising that some of 4e’s better ideas made it in.

They almost won me over from 5e. It’s too bad (for me) they weren’t willing to let go of all the fiddly little modifiers to every roll and embrace more streamlined math.

 

[atanakar]

Because of 13th AGE? Over time PF1 became caught between 5e (a semi-retro-clone of itself) and 13th Age (a post-4e-d20). Not much room left to maneuver.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'd rather play a dice game that doesn't present failure as inevitable.

Failure is not inevitable in PF2.