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

[Ruin Explorer]

Interesting. I never played HERO, but I played Games Workshop's Golden Heroes in the mid 80s. That game was completely whacky - randomised powers and ability scores with no attempt to balance characters, "frames" instead of turns, and so on.

IMO It did a really good job in emulating comic book heroics.

Generally that sort of game, which takes a more wild-and-wacky or powers-based (rather than effects-based) approach makes for games that actually play like superhero comics. Marvel FASERIP and Marvel SHAG both did good jobs here, among many others.

 

[JeffB]

I’m gonna put my head on a chopping block but man... I think Essentials, even though I didn’t get to play it, pretty darn good. It cleaned up the problems of 4e, released the tokens with the Monster Vault so new people didn’t feel like they had to invest a ton of money in miniatures and made an excellent system more accessible. It has that old school vibe but a complexity of options. Had they revised the player book option to one book instead of two largely repetitive books instead then they could have had a legitimate hit. The big flaw to Essentials was presentation and I like it better than PF2.

Presentation- period- was 4e's downfall, It was never presented well at all. In the way they split the info up, the aesthetic, the marketing, and most importantly, it's presentation as combat as sole focus in rulebooks and adventures. This was an issue for core and Essentials,

I'm with you though- I love Essentials- and it' s my favorite WOTC version of the D&D game (I grudgingly give 5E the "best" iteration- as it is not terribly polarizing, is a smooth running game at the table without too many kinks and can accommodate casual players well).

 

[Aldarc]

Definitely agree that this is the biggest issue with D&D. I feel like in some alternate universe, 3E, instead of trading on nostalgia and going with weird ideas like trap feats, built a really strong basic game-chassis for a certain kind of fantasy RPG (whether modern or ancient), without the extreme-ness of D&D, and let D&D be merely "one take" on what it could be. Certainly 3E made some attempts in this direction, but these extremely linear nature of levels and HP and bonuses and so on meant that it doesn't work for most stuff (and this lead to a lot of d20-era RPGs being super-clunky, I'm looking at you d20 Modern and Spycraft).

Weirdly enough though, the super-clunky d20 Modern system was probably one of the most innovative systems from the early d20 era, and it indirectly led to probably my favorite system from this era: Blue Rose / True20 (though these games also had Mutants & Masterminds as an intermediary step). The nice thing about True20 was that (1) it reduced basic classes to Adept, Expert, and Warrior, but using the Talent/Feat system of d20 Modern; (2) spells were thematically-packaged powers that were like skill checks made against exhaustion; (3) the class design and math was transparent, with discussion about how to make new classes. All of which made True20 incredibly modular when it came to homebrewing Medieval Fantasy, Antiquity Fantasy, Science Fantasy, Science Fiction, etc. sigh I wish that True20 was updated for either the 5e Engine or there was a worthy follow-up successor. I don't think that Green Ronin's AGE System quite cuts it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

it's presentation as combat as sole focus in rulebooks

I mean, let's not re-write history. That was not really much more true for 4E than it was for previous editions, in terms of general rules and how they were presented (I'm not sure it was more true than 3.XE at all). It's not even much more true than 5E (though it is).

However I agree re: early official adventures. They were certainly pretty combat-centric even by adventure standards. I also agree that presentation was 4E's great downfall, from the initial "Not ur daddy's D&D!!!" idiocy to the way information was conveyed generally, to the visual design and layout (also issues in 3.XE and 5E, admittedly, but less severe ones).

I wish that True20 was updated for either the 5e Engine or there was a worthy follow-up successor. I don't think that Green Ronin's AGE System quite cuts it.

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'd much sooner run some sort of gritty low-fantasy campaign with True20 than I would actual Romantic Fantasy. I'm not very keen on AGE either, despite thinking maybe that would be cool.

* = 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.

 

[dave2008]

Presentation- period- was 4e's downfall, It was never presented well at all. In the way they split the info up, the aesthetic, the marketing, and most importantly, it's presentation as combat as sole focus in rulebooks and adventures. This was an issue for core and Essentials,

I don't think we are necessarily talking about the same thing, but it was 4e's presentation (or graphic design) that brought me back to D&D. I couldn't stand the look of the 3e books and most of the core 2e style books. 4e brought me back with a presentation style that range true to my design roots.

 

[Einlanzer0]

I think WotC was burned with 4e so they are proving to be too conservative with 5e. Other than that, I actually like the rules-light approach of 5e. I also grew up with the FR so that makes it hard to be into any other system/world.

It just needs more willingness to add modular subsystems for people they appeal to.

 

[Tony Vargas]

it's presentation as combat as sole focus in rulebooks and adventures. This was an issue for core and Essentials,

It's funny, basically the same thing was said about Hero, above, as well, and neither is the case anymore than it is for virtually any other RPG - certain no more true than it is of 5e & PF2, to sorta at least nod to the actual thread topic. It's exact same the kind of superficial misperception that the mainstream tends to have of D&D (and the broader hobby, which isn't much viewed separately from D&D), and, you're right, it probably does have something to do with presentation.

Maybe it harkens all the way back to TTRPGs breaking out from TT Wargaming? Just some of the organization/presentation/expectations have never shifted entirely away from that?
Maybe it's lack of familiarity - when you're looking at a TTRPG from the outside, it seems like it's all about combat, as it has a lot of rules, stats, & page-count devoted to it.

And, while no d20 game has been effects-based to a degree remotely comparable to Hero, 4e is perhaps not as far over in the alternate list-based domain as most, while it resorts to long lists of powers, they're mechanically organized and presented like they might be had the system let players build them up from effects, themselves, and, further, have the 'fluff' segregated and, as in an effects-based system, mutable to meet the players' concepts.

I don't think we are necessarily talking about the same thing, but it was 4e's presentation (or graphic design) that brought me back to D&D. 4e brought me back with a presentation style that range true to my design roots.

I guess "presentation" can encompass a number of things, graphic design and page layout and fonts and the like could be part of it. So can organization and tone. For instance, games that use 'you' all the time create a conversational tone. Games that are organized into lists, concept-first, read differently and feel different from games that are organized around mechanics and at most give examples of concepts. Games can be written to flow and even entertain, when read cover-to-cover, or to be efficient reference books or manuals.
It's a matter of preference which works best for a given gamer, but it seems to color opinions rather strongly. And, an unfavored presentation style can mean a given gamer never groks the game, at all, and forms a more superficial opinion of it, as downright outsiders tend to.

 

[teitan]

I think WotC was burned with 4e so they are proving to be too conservative with 5e.

So I can see where you might get that, untimely demise and all but the thing is 4e sold well. It outsold Pathfinder or was neck and neck with Pathfinder which is considered a success. 4e didn’t fail as an rpg product. It failed to hit Hasbro’s benchmarks in the timeframe they were given for the line to hit their goals for the budget they were given. WOTC was hampered with 4e because they weren’t allowed to include the novels and licensed material in the bottom line either unlike Transformers, My Little Pony and Star Wars. Thus the line was scuppered. For any other RPG company 4e would have been a massive success and still getting published today with the numbers they were hitting. When the deadline hit it was scuttled and fifth began development with a much smaller department and budget.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

For any other RPG company 4e would have been a massive success and still getting published today with the numbers they were hitting. When the deadline hit it was scuttled and fifth began development with a much smaller department and budget.

Yeah, 4E wasn't a bomb. But you seem not to be too happy with the decision-making process that Hasbro used to flip the edition switch, and that doesn't make sense to me. There were internal expectations that 4E wasn't meeting, okay: somebody at Hasbro thought the brand could be more profitable than it was. That's not a bad thing, especially if, as it turns out, they were right. Hasbro's return on 5E has clearly been a massive improvement over 4E. "Any other company" deciding to keep publishing 4E would, from a business standpoint, have been making the wrong call.

 

[teitan]

Yeah, 4E wasn't a bomb. But you seem not to be too happy with the decision-making process that Hasbro used to flip the edition switch, and that doesn't make sense to me. There were internal expectations that 4E wasn't meeting, okay: somebody at Hasbro thought the brand could be more profitable than it was. That's not a bad thing, especially if, as it turns out, they were right. Hasbro's return on 5E has clearly been a massive improvement over 4E. "Any other company" deciding to keep publishing 4E would, from a business standpoint, have been making the wrong call.

no I have no problems with Hasbro’s decision at all. I am quite happy with 5e. It’s a superior product. Let’s just not pretend it was a failure while Pathfinder was a rousing success when they both hit the same marks basically.