D&D 2E Which is the better fantasy rpg and why: D&D 5e or Pathfinder 2e?

[Ruin Explorer]

I think that 5E's popularity is a combination of multiple factors, not merely diversity in art and rules.

The simplified and streamlined ruleset (too simplistic for my tastes, sometimes) was probably one of the greatest selling points.

I think the fact that the generation that grew up playing 2E is now in charge of the media, and that streaming has made a lot of people who were maybe "RPG curious" far less afraid of the concept, and even excited by it, thanks to things like Critical Role, is pretty significant, more significant than anything specific about 5E. Though I will say 5E was the right game at the right time - it's more accessible and immediate than 4E, for example, easier to get into, which really helps with new players. That had to be the case for it to take off like it did.

Random aside - a teacher I know told me he tried to be "down with the kids" by talking about Fortnite recently, only to have teenage eyes rolled at him and be told "Fortnite is dead" or words to that effect, and when he asked what they were playing now instead, was told it was this thing he wouldn't understand - Dungeons and Dragons (and they definitely meant the pen and paper version).

 

[Inchoroi]

Not really, Paizos good at adventures and Golarion rocks. I'm using part of the Mummy's Mask in 5E.

My set of upcoming campaigns is, in order of appearance: Skull & Shackles, Rise of the Runelords, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Shattered Star, and Return of the Runelords. Mummy's Mask will be in there somewhere to break up the "western european fantasy."

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think that 5E's popularity is a combination of multiple factors, not merely diversity in art and rules.

Oh, I agree, in fact, I'd expect most of those factors are cultural, and ByronD has pointed out, and market-timing, nothing much to do with the content of the current edition of D&D, at all.

The simplified and streamlined ruleset (too simplistic for my tastes, sometimes) was probably one of the greatest selling points.

Yeah. No. 5e may be wonderfully familiar-feeling to us old timers, which makes it seem simple or streamlined, and it's all new players have to go on, so they can hardly complain that it's more complicated than this or that simpler RPG they've never heard of.

 

[generic]

I think the fact that the generation that grew up playing 2E is now in charge of the media, and that streaming has made a lot of people who were maybe "RPG curious" far less afraid of the concept, and even excited by it, thanks to things like Critical Role, is pretty significant, more significant than anything specific about 5E. Though I will say 5E was the right game at the right time - it's more accessible and immediate than 4E, for example, easier to get into, which really helps with new players. That had to be the case for it to take off like it did.

Random aside - a teacher I know told me he tried to be "down with the kids" by talking about Fortnite recently, only to have teenage eyes rolled at him and be told "Fortnite is dead" or words to that effect, and when he asked what they were playing now instead, was told it was this thing he wouldn't understand - Dungeons and Dragons (and they definitely meant the pen and paper version).

This is probably correct. Much of the cultural influence of D&D has seeped into popular culture, and 5E was positioned to collect all of those new players, thanks to its simple ruleset.

What upsets me is the lack of added complexity, and the fact that WotC seems to be unwilling to add anything like a new ruleset, a system for building PC races, or really any narrow-focus systems or sourcebooks to the game.

I'm fairly sure that everyone who played 3E knew that they didn't need to buy every Occult sourcebook to play, why is there a conception, now, that books which not everyone will buy should not be released?

 

[generic]

Oh, I agree, in fact, I'd expect most of those factors are cultural, and ByronD has pointed out, and market-timing, nothing much to do with the content of the current edition of D&D, at all.

Yeah. No. 5e may be wonderfully familiar-feeling to us old timers, which makes it seem simple or streamlined, and it's all new players have to go on, so they can hardly complain that it's more complicated than this or that simpler RPG they've never heard of.

I agree. What I meant by 'selling point' (I should have been more clear) was accessibility. If newcomers to the game had encountered a 3E-era level of complexity in the game, I expect that it would have done worse in the market.

 

[jayoungr]

I remember being a new player very well. That period continues for, oooh, maybe 12 months? 24 at the outside.

Sounds about right.

And even within that period there are products that don't appeal to you.

Yes. But for a new player, breaking with tradition vs not breaking with tradition isn't even a blip on the radar when it comes to reasons things do or don't appeal.

So this idea that it's fine to do a poor job with new material because new players are uncritical and wide-eyed seems to me a rather facile and short-term-ist one.

You're switching the subject here. Your original post, which I responded to, said that Pathfinder 2 was fresh and exciting while 5E was too mired in tradition. Now you're saying 5E is just objectively badly designed, which is a new claim. (You may believe that "hidebound" and "objectively bad" are the same thing, but they're not.)

Someone who was "brand-new" 3-5 years ago (remember, 5E has been out since 2014) is definitely not the uncritical stars-in-the-eyes person you think they are.

And you're also putting words in my mouth. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't do that. What I said is that new player isn't going to care whether a game is "hidebound" (i.e., overly reliant on tradition) or not.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Your original post, which I responded to, said that Pathfinder 2 was fresh and exciting while 5E was too mired in tradition.

I absolutely did not say that. Quote or didn't happen.

Now you're saying 5E is just objectively badly designed, which is a new claim.

No, I'm not. That's an terrible and almost unbelievable misreading of my post. I'm saying some of the new material is of relatively low quality. That doesn't mean "5E is objectively badly designed", which would imply the entire game is. That's like saying because I thought The Complete Paladin was trash (it was), I thought all of 2E was trash.

And you're also putting words in my mouth. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't do that.

Woooooowwwwww. Daaaaaamn. That is AMAZING. Just amazing. You did that to me twice in one post, then get on your high horse, and complain about it being done to you? Wow. Just wow.

 

[generic]

@jayoungr, @Ruin Explorer is correct. I'm not going to award XP for interpersonal arguments, but you should really look back at the original post.

 

[jayoungr]

I absolutely did not say that. Quote or didn't happen.

WotC ... have proven to be rather shockingly hidebound

Paizo ... know that the only way they're really going to sell PF2E is if it offers something exciting and distinctive, so are directing their effort more towards that.

"Shockingly hidebound"= Too mired in tradition.

"Offers something exciting and distinctive" = Fresh and exciting.

No, I'm not. That's an terrible and almost unbelievable misreading of my post. I'm saying some of the new material is of relatively low quality.

I accept the slight correction, but it's still a new claim from overly reliant on tradition ("shockingly hidebound").

 

[Tony Vargas]

I agree. What I meant by 'selling point' (I should have been more clear) was accessibility. If newcomers to the game had encountered a 3E-era level of complexity in the game, I expect that it would have done worse in the market.

I'm not so sure. If 3e had been between the covers of D&D in 2014 instead of 5e, I think it'd've had much the same results. If the pace of publication had been the same for the last 5 years, as well.