Quote from: sureshot;1100187Seconded as well as Book of the Damned and the Inner Sea World Guide. After th APG was when the trend of making piss poor feats and archetypes began. Remove a major class ability to give two +1 bonuses instead. Allow one to Craft oozes with a feat just don't expect to control them boyo.

Inner Sea World Guide was what pulled me into PF1 for a few years before the weight of the system forced me out. I really wish to see a well-developed world guide from WotC for 5e, but so far SCAG was a huge disappointment and Ravnica just isn't my thing (and it's not really all that well done either). I don't like Eberron, but I have some mild hopes that they might do OK with the new book coming out later this year.

I've only read through the Playtest document about a year ago, so I'm not sure what made the cut for the finalized published version but I wasn't all that impressed. I'll be sticking with 5th Edition over PF 2nd edition. Couple of reasons like requiring an action to raise your shield. I get that sometimes you forget but continually saying every round "I raise my shield" would make me lose my mind. Also, there's still a ton of dumb penalties to attacks. They're all over the place and it's really damn annoying. Also, your decisions are final and there's apparently no variation of choices once they're made. For example, a Ranger gets to choose his Ranger "feat" (a la Ranger power like 4e) but if you want to change that because you realize it's not very good, nope you're stuck with it. Same with things like the Paladin's mount. You'd think that the Special Mount ability would just be a spell by now? Nope, it's a class feature you choose and can never change.

overall just reading it I realized it wasn't my cup of tea.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1100017Waaaaait a minute! I was being told everyone plays only Savage Worlds (or FATE) these days because GURPS was too complicated for the following generations.
Huh.

For certain people, that may just be how they've developed their tastes over the years. Or, perhaps the people harboring these sentiments are the same types who see anything heavier than Apocalypse World or Fate Accelerated as "too much" for new/young players, or recommend 1-page "RPGs" for anyone under 13. Then there are those people like me, who broke into this hobby starting with GURPS at ~10 years old and GM'ing it by ~14, not playing any incarnation of D&D until I was at least 16 or so...

Discussion of, and disagreements over, the modern zeitgeist in the RPG world seem primarily relegated to niche web forums to me. I think most kids are smart enough to learn/grasp anything that interests them enough to bother trying. Especially if it lets them commit some form of Fantasy Violence and go on Big Adventures in the process. It really seems to come down to personal taste to me, whether you're young or old; I don't notice appreciably less love for crunchy games than rules-lite ones these days, but rather just more love for rules-lite games (there are a lot of them, and they get pumped out really fucking fast, and a significant number are designed specifically to be run in a lazy/immediate reward sort of way).

Looking at what is selling on the game shelves in terms of non-D&D rpgs, I would say that the emphasis on rules-lite rpgs has waned somewhat.

Lots of other rpgs out there tend to have setting/genre as the main selling point. Some are backed up with rules-lite mechanics, but others seem to be happily humming with medium-crunch mechanics.

I don't see a huge market for heavy-crunch mechanics, but there does seem to be a return to more meat-on-the-bone with moderately crunchy rpgs selling alongside rules-lite ones.

I think that game designers are no longer making rpgs with game mechanics in isolation of genre/setting. There is much more awareness of the detail, tone, and pace of the game and how they want it to run, and how closely they see this working well with the genre/setting.

Playing rules-lite comes at a price: you're weakening the game aspect in RPGs, as you have fewer hard constraints to operate in. That's also a drawback to "rulings not rules".
I will readily agree though that there have been excesses in the late 80s and 90. I think we're going to see a movement towards more pinpoint accuracy rules in the 2020s. Optimization of what you can get out of the hobby (for example regarding emulation) within a given rules complexity budget.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1100353Optimization of what you can get out of the hobby (for example regarding emulation) within a given rules complexity budget.

You sound like a Savage Worlds fan.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1100363You sound like a Savage Worlds fan.

And? Nothing wrong with being a Savage Worlds fan.

Quote from: sureshot;1100364And? Nothing wrong with being a Savage Worlds fan.

Yes, I was just pointing out the system in-case he hasn't looked at it yet.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1100367Yes, I was just pointing out the system in-case he hasn't looked at it yet.

My mistake. I apology for my post unecessairly rude.

Neither for me...

I've played a few sessions of pathfinder 2, and numerous of 5th edition over the years.

5th Edition
A much cleaner system as compared to PF2 and will provide a smoother gaming experience overall. This to me is due to Bounded Accuracy (which I prefer as a design fundamental) and the simplification of modifiers by including the Advantage\Disadvantage mechanic (not used enough imo). Even so, when I'm a 5th edition player I feel like character creation and level advancement options rarely support a predetermined character concept and instead I'm just along for a predestined ride. I just remember many times trying to use the mechanics to make a simple character concept and not being able to manage it, or having to change the concept along the way. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but I've found the mechanics with regards to class features rarely go hand in hand with the heroes journey. Also, while classes are aesthetically different, far too much consideration has gone towards balancing them. This only ends up making each characters feel the same... Every class expects to have a competent degree of AC, damage output, and value in any given situation. It gets a bit boring.

Pathfinder 2
There are some things I like and some I hate. Compared to 5th Edition, character creation is versatile with so many options allowing a player to make unique characters. With no bounded accuracy, massive modifiers and DCs as you level are the norm (as they were in PF1), which to me just means the game doesn't get much different at later levels. At level 1 it may be a +3 against a DC 13 and at later levels it's +32 against a DC 42. The three action economy makes the game feel more cinematic - I actually like it. The game feels heroic, but steps too close to super-heroic for my liking. High hit points at level 1 and how dying seems to work suggest that character death is rarer than seen in 5th edition (which I usually house-rule to death), though I haven't read all the later level feats and spells yet. From what I've experienced thus far the game has a more 4th edition feel with how dynamic and complex combat can be.

I can't help but feel that Paizo has replaced PF1's hyper-specificity in situational rules for hyper-specificity in feat rules instead. The relatively simple system gains its burdensome complexity with numerous 'ifs'... If you have this feat, and you critical this check, then this also happens. If you have this feat, and you use this action, then this also happens... Good luck keeping track of your 50-100 situational abilities\feats at those higher levels, though this is each individual player's responsibility...

As a GM I feel like there is little leeway in the rules to make actual rulings. The philosophy written in the game suggests that changes to rules should always be agreed upon, which I can only imagine will cause a good amount of rules-lawyering to occur if the GM decides to insert some creative adversity in order to challenge the players. In 5th edition, a GM can give advantage or disadvantage at a whim if the situation warrants it, but in pathfinder 2, I see no way for a GM to insert their own flare other than how they design or run an adventure and the encounters within. Once the game hits the table it feels like PF2 has given all the power to the players and the role of the GM is just to dangle things in front of them so that players can use all their cool abilities and feel good about it.


So...

If I had to pick it'd be GM 5th Edition, play PF2.

5e.  I'm more into rules-light systems, or at least semi-light, and 5e is about as cruncy/complex as I want to go.    Basic 5e is my favorite 5e.  So Pathfinder isn't even on my radar.

All Pathfinder is garbage.

I have no intention of playing or running PF2, although I wouldn't necessarily say no to a game invite if one came along.  I picked up a copy of PF1 years ago and... meh.  If I were really into D&D 3 or 3.5 I could see the appeal.  I still have the book somewhere, but I can't imagine a world where I would run a game of PF as opposed to LotFP, Lion & Dragon, Crypts and Things, Swords and Wizardry, or just plain old BX or AD&D.  This, to me, is the big problem with PF2.  With the rise of 5E and the OSR, does PF2 help to generate a superior or even distinct play experience? I don't particularly care for the direction the company has taken, so I don't see myself picking up a copy anytime soon.  if, however, it turns out to be some huge success I'll give it another look.

I have played in some D&D 5E games, and own the PH.  They were... okay.  Others have called 5E "everyone's second favorite edition".  I think that's pretty apt. There's no real reason to hate 5E and, on paper at least, there are many things to like about it.  The rules are clear, simple and easy to follow.  It isn't loaded up with junk.  It has almost all of the classic D&D "bits and bobs".  Advantage/Disadvantage is, as Pundit has pointed out, D&Ds "killer app"  I'll probably steal it for other games.  Yet in play there has been something profoundly lacking in 5E play compared to my AD&D / 2nd edition glory days, or my more recent OSR games.  I've always had this sense of it feeling more like 4E; like I'm moving chess pieces around a board rather than living AS a person in an imaginary world.  I've struggled to articulate what exactly there is about 5E that produces this play style.  I think Graytung hit it on the head.

Quote from: Graytung;11005225th Edition
Even so, when I'm a 5th edition player I feel like character creation and level advancement options rarely support a predetermined character concept and instead I'm just along for a predestined ride. I just remember many times trying to use the mechanics to make a simple character concept and not being able to manage it, or having to change the concept along the way. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but I've found the mechanics with regards to class features rarely go hand in hand with the heroes journey. Also, while classes are aesthetically different, far too much consideration has gone towards balancing them. This only ends up making each characters feel the same... Every class expects to have a competent degree of AC, damage output, and value in any given situation. It gets a bit boring.

Older styles of D&D didn't have that much to differentiate a character mechanically, so each one became unique mostly as a personality and as the result of choices made in game.  D&D 3X introduced the whole meta-game of build customization, which meant well but got out of control.  It was neat to be able to build your hero to be whatever you wanted, in theory.  In practice, it turned into this giant abilities bloat and took away from immersion.  The height of this thinking lead to the 4E disaster of D&D "Battletech".  It could be fun, but it wasn't D&D.  5E has tried to reign that in, but in doing so its become a little bit like a generic Chinese restaurant: you get one from column A, one from column B, and some form of starch.  Pretty much every class gets special effects at the same mile-stones.  Characters get customization options, but these tend to be more mechanical / tactical than anything.  Sure, your Barbarian pick a "totem" but what did that really mean beyond a bonus in certain situations? And everyone gets their same special bonus types at the same per-determined level, and all classes level at the same rate.  There's no real "end game" to distinguish high level play from low level play, and even mid level characters don't feel that different from low level characters.  I still like the 5E core rules and think it could be customized to fit what I want.  Just out of the box it feels too generic and corporate.  It's like going to fantasy Disneyland. It's fun with friends but lacks a certain depth of experience.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1101591All Pathfinder is garbage.

Stop being so vague, Pundit.  Open up and tell us how you really feel....  Bwahaha!!!!!!!!!

Quote from: RPGPundit;1101591All Pathfinder is garbage.

You mean they did not ask you to consult for them?