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

[Tony Vargas]

Agreed. The product release pace is a vital element.

And the lack of errata (no matter how badly 'needed' it might seem in a technical sense). A stable presentation matters in defining & building a brand. People can fairly quickly find out what D&D is, now, in a way they couldn't have in, really, any prior period. There's no 'two pronged approach' like in the fad years, there's not a zillion settings like in 2e, there's not a ton of supplements like in 3e & 4e. And, of course, there's being able to view streaming examples of play - you could do that with 4e, too, but you'd also find irate grognards condemning the whole thing and videos of book burning, as well.

In one sense, the success of 5e is amazing.
In another, it's just competent brand management.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Okay, so how is that different from being overly reliant on tradition in their design?

How is Ricky & Morty or Stranger Things "traditional"? But they are low-risk. Loads of the new stuff has been non-traditional. But it has been, imho, cautious and hidebound in what they put in. Every time they do as UA and anything interesting or risky or daring (in a design sense, not a D&D sense) is in, they abandon it when it goes live for sad low-risk stuff. This is again not traditional! They've let traditional stuff like Psionics not be part of the game. They've put out non-traditional settings and ignored traditional ones. So it isn't a tradition issue at all. Hidebound mostly refers to the attitude to rules content though.

 

[generic]

How is Ricky & Morty or Stranger Things "traditional"? Loads of the new stuff has been non-traditional. But it has been, imho, cautious and hidebound in what they put in. Every time they do as UA and anything interesting or risky or daring (in a design sense, not a D&D sense) is in, they abandon it when it goes live for sad low-risk stuff. This is again not traditional! They've let traditional stuff like Psionics not be part of the game. They've put out non-traditional settings and ignored traditional ones. So it isn't a tradition issue at all.

Agreed.

For example, consider the sourcebooks which have been released in the past five years. We have had 'cash grab' cross-overs between Stranger Things and D&D, and Rick and Morty and D&D. But, in those five years, and I am not exaggerating, the closest thing we have received that is analogous to a new subsystem or modifier for play, increasing complexity and fun, is the section on Ship rules in GoS.

That is the only new system we've been given, and we were just, just now, given our first new major player option, the Artificer.

 

[jayoungr]

Later releases are a mix. Most are high quality, some are disappointing. All are kinda limited and safe in design, and the choice of what to release has been even safer.

There's two separate ideas here, though:

1. Quality of release
2. "Safeness" of release

You accused me of having the idea that "it's fine to do a poor job with new material because new players are uncritical and wide-eyed." In other words, you said that I think new players will not notice poor quality. Which is never what I said. I said new players will not notice "safeness," because safeness is only noticeable when you have the whole history of D&D to compare it to. And I still stand by that statement.

How is Ricky & Morty or Stranger Things "traditional"?

That's nothing to do with the game itself, just a bit of window dressing. Which you seem to agree with because you go on in the next breath to say "it has been, imho, cautious and hidebound in what they put in" and "Every time they do as UA and anything interesting or risky or daring (in a design sense, not a D&D sense) is in, they abandon it when it goes live for sad low-risk stuff." Isn't that yet another way of saying that the design of 5E is (in your opinion) overly reliant on tradition?

 

[generic]

That's nothing to do with the game itself, just a bit of window dressing. Which you seem to agree with because you go on in the next breath to say "Every time they do as UA and anything interesting or risky or daring (in a design sense, not a D&D sense) is in, they abandon it when it goes live for sad low-risk stuff." Isn't that yet another way of saying that the design of 5E is (in your opinion) overly reliant on tradition?

IMO, it's less a problem of tradition, and more a problem of what has been released in the context of 5E. In fact, many systems in 5E are not really very 'traditional', but later 5E releases have done very little (almost nothing) to expand the ruleset.

 

[jayoungr]

So if I understand this right, are you saying that "traditional" and "safe" are not the same thing?

 

[generic]

So if I understand this right, are you saying that "traditional" and "safe" are not the same thing?

Not in my opinion. Ruin Explorer can speak for themselves.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Which you seem to agree with because you go on in the next breath to say "Every time they do as UA and anything interesting or risky or daring (in a design sense, not a D&D sense) is in, they abandon it when it goes live for sad low-risk stuff." Isn't that yet another way of saying that the design of 5E is (in your opinion) overly reliant on tradition?

I have explained, at some length, that it is not. There is absolutely NO tradition of "sad low-risk stuff" in the entire history of D&D from the 1970s to the end of 4E. It is a totally brand-new 5E thing and it's not even down to Jeremy Crawford because he's been whacked in the face with it before. They set this "tradition" at the start of 5E - that's the "hidebound" bit, because they decided on this, and they've stuck to it come hell or high water, and it's resulted in a lot of stuff that hasn't been very cool. Hasn't been as cool as the actual PHB, even. If I were new, I would have see all the UAs with cool stuff in them (even my most casual players seem to somehow know about UA!), and how they all got deleted or not implemented or nerfed into the ground, and I would be disappointed.

Traditional and safe are absolutely not the same thing.

Lots of safe stuff can be non-traditional (example: Rick & Morty).

Lots of traditional stuff can be totally unsafe by 5E design standards (example: Psionicist as a class - even though they did a great job with Mystic).

 

[jayoungr]

Not in my opinion.

So in your opinion (letting Ruin Explorer respond separately if desired), what is the difference between them?

 

[generic]

So in your opinion (letting Ruin Explorer respond separately if desired), what is the difference between them?

Well... it's rather simple.

Traditional Design: Copying other editions in terms of style and releases. 5E has advantage/disadvantage and a bunch of other things that make this less the case.

Safe Design: Not trying anything new, or releasing anything that expands upon the core rules.