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

[ZickZak]

What do you mean by 'beat'?

In an arena match 1v1 swords only, obviously.

 

[teitan]

PF2 might eventually beat 5e, but only when there is more material for it. Currently, the options at every level to pick is lame vs boring.

I won’t say “beat”. I think it will be a slow burn hit. Overtime it will start to eat some market share as players of D&D5 want something more in depth for character options and DM’s want stronger monster design. The core books are really good for P2 and I think some people are waiting to see what Paizo does with what they have. 3.5 was a tried and true set and when they launched PF it was after the 3.5 books were OOP whereas Paizo is still doing their pocket editions of P1. They’re essentially Splitting their market by supporting the first edition, no it’s not new material but it is less expensive versions of hardcovers people may not have bought for use in their games. Not a well thought out idea.

 

[Aldarc]

True20/Blue Rose is a system I want to love, but don't. Blue Rose is one of the very few modern RPGs where I actually own the physical book as well as the PDF (including the most recent edition), but I feel like mechanically it is in this really awkward place where the system is a bit more of a "gritty fantasy" game than it wants to be, and it's also somewhat complex mechanically and puts a lot of weight on players to understand the system to build and play their PCs, when I feel like maybe maybe a lighter, more narrative touch was warranted for the subject matter. I strongly suspect that if it was post-Apocalypse World/Dungeon World, they'd have used that as the basis instead of d20, given the choice.*

* = I think what that illustrates though is that a lot of games are just using "the new hotness", rather than the best tool for the job. Not really a criticism, more a fact of life. Tons of AW/DW games might be better off with different systems too.

Blue Rose probably is more gritty than it wants to be, but I don't think that this is a weakness in itself of True20, which is more generic of a system than Blue Rose. True20 does not try to be Romantic Fantasy. This is not to say that True20 is without weaknesses, because it does have plenty of issues.

IMHO, I don't think that Green Ronin would have designed Blue Rose with the PbtA Engine (or Fate)* because I see Green Ronin as a company that is (almost too) heavily rooted in its d20 past. It can't quite escape that cord. Even AGE feels like a d20 game that is instead played with 3d6. And you don't really see Green Ronin designing much in the realm of PbtA and Fate either. There is the standard Fate conversion for their Free Port setting, but not much else.

* I believe that one can find a fan conversion of Blue Rose for Fate, though I don't think that one exists for Powered by the Apocalypse.

I'd much sooner run some sort of gritty low-fantasy campaign with True20 than I would actual Romantic Fantasy.

I have frequently used True20 for Sword & Sorcery, Psionic Fantasy (Dreamscarred Press's Third Dawn), Science Fantasy, and a number of other genres. My main problem nowadays with True20 is that it retains a lot of the weaknesses and fiddly bits of 3.0/3.5 style feats, talents, and skills, which permitted its existence under the d20 OGL. So it almost feels like a relic that needs updated to a sleeker, modern game design.

I'm not very keen on AGE either, despite thinking maybe that would be cool.

IMHO, the AGE System could use a Second Edition. The Dragon Age RPG, which served as the basis for Fantasy AGE, was designed and balanced piecemeal in small chunks, which means that it fares better in early levels than later levels, and it has a number of glaring weaknesses in its system that have been caught even by its ardent fans on the Green Ronin forums. But I don't see a good revision of AGE happening anytime soon, particularly after Modern AGE and The Expanse for AGE. Furthermore, the AGE system is nowhere nearly as generic as its arguable True20 predecessor.

 

[ad_hoc]

I won’t say “beat”. I think it will be a slow burn hit. Overtime it will start to eat some market share as players of D&D5 want something more in depth for character options and DM’s want stronger monster design. The core books are really good for P2 and I think some people are waiting to see what Paizo does with what they have. 3.5 was a tried and true set and when they launched PF it was after the 3.5 books were OOP whereas Paizo is still doing their pocket editions of P1. They’re essentially Splitting their market by supporting the first edition, no it’s not new material but it is less expensive versions of hardcovers people may not have bought for use in their games. Not a well thought out idea.

I don't think any RPG can impact D&D's market share in any meaningful way.

The 5e PHB has been in the #50-100 rank on Amazon for the last 5 years (and the rate of sales of 5e continue to climb year over year).

The Pathfinder 2e core book is already down to #5000.

 

[Zardnaar]

Pathfinder is not Fast and the Furious.

This is where your comparison is flawed.

It's successful, yes. But then a $100 million movie which makes $110 million is also successful. That $10 million is a big result for the budget and the people making the movie would be very happy with it. Comparing such a movie to the MCU though would be silly.

That movie would lose money. The studio would only get around 60 million of that 110.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't think any RPG can impact D&D's market share in any meaningful way.

The 5e PHB has been in the #50-100 rank on Amazon for the last 5 years (and the rate of sales of 5e continue to climb year over year).

The Pathfinder 2e core book is already down to #5000.

This. PF2 will have it's hardcore fans. At best you might get a few 5E people to admit PF2 is better once they have a bit more material.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think any RPG can impact D&D's market share in any meaningful way.

Except D&D, of course. D&D can seriously impact it's own market share. I know, you meant any other RPG, I'm just being pedantic, for the cheap laugh.

A lot of RPGs enter the same general segment (D&D-ish fantasy, really) as D&D, thinking that a much better system, or rules or setting or whatever will beat D&D, or at least eke out enough of a niche to survive. It won't, because D&D's success has long since become wedded to it's failings as well as any strengths outside of name recognition that it might be argued to have. A game would have to be as bad as D&D, in all the ways it's traditionally bad, to have any chance of challenging it, and, even then, D&D, itself, would have to commit market suicide by trying to be even a little bit good.

Of course, that's all hypothetical.

 

[ad_hoc]

That movie would lose money. The studio would only get around 60 million of that 110.

I didn't say that was the box office gross.

I just said that it made $110 million and that it cost $100 million total.

Box office grosses, advertising costs, and the cut the cinema takes has absolutely nothing to do with what we're actually talking about here.

 

[teitan]

I don't think any RPG can impact D&D's market share in any meaningful way.

The 5e PHB has been in the #50-100 rank on Amazon for the last 5 years (and the rate of sales of 5e continue to climb year over year).

The Pathfinder 2e core book is already down to #5000.

except it’s happened 2x already, Vampire and the World of Darkness and then Pathfinder have both overtaken what was thought to be the 900 lbs gorilla that no one could take down. Vampire was a slow burn hit. I reiterate my thoughts on P2, it will be a slow burn hit and eventually make an impact. I love 5e but it’s dominance won’t last forever. People coming into the hobby WILL look for something new and Paizo with P2 and Starfinder are primed to scoop them up.

 

[jayoungr]

Overtime it will start to eat some market share as players of D&D5 want something more in depth for character options

The question is, how big is the subset of players who will not find 5E's character options sufficient, particularly when factoring in third-party products? We have no way of measuring that.

and DM’s want stronger monster design.

Similarly, there are several very good third-party monster manuals for 5E (Tome of Beasts, for example). We have no way of knowing in advance how many DMs will feel like they have to switch to a different system to get what they want in the way of monsters.

I do think there are players and DMs for whom Pathfinder is going to be the choice that fits their playstyle best; I just don't expect there to be as many of them as Teitan seems to.