billd91
Pathfinder subscriber
COPPER SUBSCRIBER

That reading, billd91, does not seem fair to any of the parties involved, whether in their favor or against them.

To me that just suggests bad mechanics! I don't see how. Ah yes. The Mother-May-I One-True Wayist manifesto. I'm not the one ascribing another style with a pejorative but hey we all see what we want to. Can a player use any skill check/ability to get the shard back? If not, why not? I have bolded the bits which, to me, suggest that the player's success in persuading the giant to return the shard was conditional on the GM's opinion about what makes for good or bad fiction (here expressed in terms of reasonable cause of action for the frost giant). You're suggesting it is better that the GM cannot roleplay the NPCs he/she introduces into the game world, and when I mean roleplay, I mean free of any mechanics (i.e. die rolls). I admit I find that odd. Could the FG in your game talk the PC out of wanting the shard returned i.e. the FG makes a diplomacy/persuade roll? Also like @billd91 mentioned in the other thread, isn't the DM ascribing a lower or higher DC to a roll reflecting his/her opinion on what makes good or bad fiction? EDIT: MMI kicks in if there is 0% or less chance of success on the player's action declaration, but 1% possible success or higher is ok? I think that is the sort of thing the OP is trying to avoid when using the phrase "without forcing players to play the "Mother may I" game". Ah, you mean without forcing players to provide further details for their action declarations so as DMs we can adjudicate the likely chance of success. Such Bad DMs. :) Eric: I try get my shard back from the Frost Giant without starting a fight. DM: How do you go about that, she has already placed it back in her hair? Eric: I use diplomacy, I'm proficient. DM: Cool, what do you say to her? Eric: Well, I ask nicely, smile a lot and bow often? DM: Is there something specific that you say? Eric: Nah, I have a +7 on my Diplomacy roll. My character is rea...

I’ve learned the hard way that good friends don’t always make for good people to game with. I put up with a lot of nonsense from friends at the gaming table, until I didn’t. But I suppose it depends on how much you’re willing to manage the potential difficulties. A lot of what you described could in theory be easily resolved. Stuff like, if he tries to steal from other PCS, “I’m sorry, but PCs aren’t allowed to steal from the party and other PCs in my games;” and, for the spotlight hogging “Okay, we’ll get to you when your turn comes around, but PC#2 is currently doing something.” It is a gamble, but as billd91 said, we all had to start somewhere as players, probably somewhere near the bottom. (and good friend)

I have found the opposite to be true, actually. Rerolling initiative every round has generally been to the party's benefit, despite some "exciting" moments. It creates unpredictability, which the player characters (being more versatile) can take advantage of better than typical NPCs. This has been true of a party level 5 - 7, and a party 11 - 13. I might be the case that rerolling init made the lowest levels more difficult, I haven't tried that. As billd91 said, anything that increases randomness benefits the DM's side of the equation. The players have to get lucky every time. The monsters only have to get lucky once. Sure, it might benefit the PC's and it likely will. But, when it helps the other side, which should also happen fairly frequently, it can radically up the difficulty of an encounter. As far as realism goes, well, that's not a consideration for me. I accept that D&D combat is largely abstract, so, trying to make it more realistic is, to me, just not something I really want to deal with. If I did, I'd wind up rewriting the entire combat section to the point where I might as well play a game that actually has realistic combat. :D

...than a +1. If you need a 2 you have a 95% to succeed normally, and 95% + 5% * 95% = 99.75%, agains slightly less than +1. This is the minimum. If you need an 11, you have a 50% normally, and a 50% + 50% * 50% = 75% with advantage. That's the equivalent of +5. This is the maximum. Your +/-6 to +/-7 is outside the range of what is possible. That mean it is likely not the average. You may want to double check you math. One common mistake I've seen is working out to roll 2d20 and subtract the higher fromt he lower. That's really comparing advantage (best for 2d20) with disadvantage (worst of 2d20). It's clear if you work it out as percentages what it can be for every target. Man, these arguments hurt me because there's this weird thing where everyone tries to map a normal distribution onto a flat distribution via +/-. It's wrong in a technical way. But, I'm an engineer, so that's probably just my bag. That said, the above is the right wrong way to do it Retreater, billd91. The "bonus" that advantage applies differs depending on what the target number on the d20 is for success. It's greatest in the middle, where it increases the chance of success by 25%, and weaker on the ends where it's bit less than a 5% bump. If you need to roll a 20, advantage helps by almost doubling your chances from 1/20 to 19/400, but if you need an 11, advantage increases your chances from 10/20 to 15/20. If you need a 2, advantage bumps you from a 19/20 to 399/400.

...is is insistent on the point doesn't answer the point. The idea of the DL-style game is that at least the players provide a bit of colour and a few minor decision points. But if the GM is also establishing the most important bits of PC colour, telling me what decisions are and are not appropriate for a worshipper of XYZ, etc - well, what's left for the player to do? ut no one's offered a reason why a player playing a cleric or warlock whose god/patron is happy with what s/he does, or playing a motorcycle-riding vampire, would wreck the game.I was under the impression the god/patron was not happy (being played by the DM).But that's exactly my point. If the player's preference that the whole god/patron thing be "backgrounded" was respected then the god/patron would be happy. But for whatever reason the GM is inserting his/her own preference to decide that the god/patron is not happy. For what reason? If the GM thinks the player is just a wrecker - which eg was the implication of billd91's reference upthread to "murder-hoboing" - then as Aldarc has said, that's a social problem that can be resolved by a sensible conversation among participants. It's not an aspect of game play at all. But if the issue is not that the PC is wrecking things - eg if the PC was playing a wizard or a fighter or whatever no one would have any issues - then why is the GM needing to insert his/her conception of what the patron/god wants in favour of the player's conception of the same? How is that improving the experience? Telling me that we're not talking about story-now play doesn't help - even within the follow-the-GM's-trail paradigm, I dont understand what this is supposed to be adding to the play experience. In fact when the PC played a warlock in my game and chose a darker patron, I asked him what he wanted me to explore, how much had he developed the patron and how much input he wanted from me.That seems to imply that you are interested in identifying and respecting the player's ...

But, who's forcing the DM to do anything here? If anything, I'm giving less work for the DM. The DM no longer has to worry about what to do, if anything, with this patron. The player is not interested in playing that out. Why would you, as a DM, knowing that the player isn't interested, bring it into the game? Again, who is it for? It's not for the player. It's not for the other players. So, the only person it's for is you, the DM. You want to bring it into the game purely for your own enjoyment, knowing that the player doesn't want it. Are you deliberately misunderstanding billd91, or do you genuinely not understand that if the DM wants a game where he controls the NPCs, he's forced to play a game he doesn't want to play if players can force him not to play the patron? We're talking about one small change to one character that isn't going to affect ANYTHING. If it's not going to affect anything, the player shouldn't have a problem with the DM playing the patron.

...t of play) and those orc children escaped. And, after the third, fourth, tenth time, most groups are just going to take it as read anyway. This is the point I keep coming back to. We already Background tons of stuff in play because it's not terribly interesting. How many groups actually, consistently, track spell components? How many groups worry about paying the monthly living expenses? So on and so forth. Sure, you might do it from time to time, but, realistically, it just fades back and becomes a non-issue. Do you seriously destroy a wizard's spell book every time he falls in water? Or gets fireballed or whatnot? Naw, you just take it as read and move on because it's too much of a PITA. Here, we have examples that only really affect one player and the DM. The rest of the group couldn't likely give a toss about it. Do you seriously care how we hide the Druid's animal companion every single time? The funny thing about this conversation is that some posters, like billd91 and 5ekyu are framing it as a powergaming thing. But, look at that warlock's patron. There's two sides to that. Sure, if you have an active patron, then the patron might ask the PC to do something. But, it also works the other way. There's times when the PC can and should be able to call upon his or her patron for help - be it information, or contacting other NPC's or whatnot. By backgrounding, the player loses that side of things as well. Sure, the DM can't force behavior from the player, but, by the same token, the player cannot expect to get anything as well.

At this point its pretty obvious you just want to keep inventing things to claim others have said... as i have never said anything that the GM can "force" your character to take certain actions. this was explained in great detail one or more times since you keep mixing and mashing the Gm and the patron. Nor have i said anything about forcing the paladin to take certain actions. That you choose to keep trying to portray it that way is very highly illustrative - so, thanks. wow, you agree with billd91 in the post before this, but, tell me I'm inventing things. :erm: What exactly, then, do you mean that I must accept the consequences of choosing a class if you aren't going to force anything?

It's much more than 10 outcomes! Say there are 5 people, we need a contest between each, first, and then... the pain begins... Say this is what happens A beats B A beats C A loses to D A loses to E Seems like A is in the middle of the pack, but... D loses to C E loses to B No idea where this is going, but now we need to resolve... everyone against everyone...I think the assumption that billd91 has made is probably the same as the one that Hriston has made explicit: each participant makes only one check, which is compared vs the check of all the other participants. So if A beats B but loses to E, that means that E beats B, which precludes the contradictory situation you are concerned about. The thing I don't get in this discussion is: how do you and Maxperson handle an attempt by three people to be the first to grab the ring? You couldn't do it the way you've described (independent binary checks) because of the risk of contradiction. So presumably you'd do it . . . just the same as initiative is done! (Except for having some differerent approach to handlling ties.)

Lanefan, billd91 - Tony Vargas's reply makes the point that needs to be made aboout "realism" in a hit point paradigm. As far as narration of hp loss and zero hp is concerned - if you're narrating hp loss, and dropping to zero hp, in surgical detail, and then having your suspension of disbelief disrupted by the recovery that the game rules provide for, well, I would suggest changing your narration! As I posted upthread, as a former RM player/GM, and someone who was pretty familiar with the drfit from AD&D to RM, RQ etc in the 80s/early 90s, it remains very strange to see posters arguing for AC-&-hp combat on "realism" grounds, and to be distinguishing AD&D or 3E from 4e on that basis. Also, someone upthread (maybe Sadras) mentioned tinkering - the most trivial tinkering possible to a RPG is to change the short and extended rest durations in 4e or 5e. (I don't know how common it is with 5e; based on dicsussions on teese boards it was extremely common with 4e.)

(1) It's not "more reallistic". It's different, but it's not realistic. billd91 already covered this one, so...what he said. (2) What makes you think a 4e PC who swoons in combat, and then recovers to fight on, has "had the livin' tar beaten out of him/her"? Maybe you're into nonsense narration, but I'm not. Even in the most gamist and-or disconnected versions of what hit points represent in any edition that I've seen posted in those arguments, a common theme is that going to (or below, pre-4e) 0 h.p. means you've taken enough of a beating that if left untended you're quite possibly going to die. The rules of all editions also have it that going to or below 0 is auto-death (0e), is auto-death* if not treated or cured quite soon (1e-2e-3e), or presents a significant risk of death if not treated or cured quite soon (4e-5e). These deaths aren't being caused by fainting. So to suggest someone repeatedly going to or below 0 within a short time "has had the livin' tar beaten out of him/her" is "nonsense narration" falls well below your usual standard, sir; and...

I don't think its the minis themselves so much as a heavy rule dependence on the spatial reality of the game. The early edition rules about space and positioning were easily handwaved. Not so much with 3e or 4e.That's what I said! But the biggest thing requiring almost pinpoint positioning of melee combatants was weapon reach - could you reach your intended foe or not? Not everyone cared too much about this, but in 1e RAW it's a thing.Rounds in AD&D are 1 minute, movement rates as 10s of feet per minute, and there are no rules for actually positioning in melee - only for getting cut down when you try to disengage from it! So while weapon reach can matter (eg in establishing first strike in a charging situation; for establishing how many soldiers can work together or fight one another in a confined space; etc) I don't actually see how you need minis/tokesn to track the ways in which it matters. (And I see that billd91 has made much the same point.)

If we are also using the dice to make the decisions, then why are we bothering to include players?Casting lots to resolve a disagreement among a group is not a thing that I or my group (or Luke Crane) invented. And using dice to establish parameters for choice, as part of playing a game, is not a new thing either. And in the context of RPGing, it's actually pretty standard. I know you're not talking only about this particular aspect of social mechanics, but that was the context in which Hussar made his post that you responded to. it looks like windmills and not real positions you're tilting againstYou must have missed billd91's 5-point reiteration of his reasons for agreeing with Lanefan that the technique I described is "worse than awful". And Lanefan's reiteration of his contention about the technique I described, although on different grounds from billd91's.

I think you're arguing against something no one is claiming, though. Is there a specific post or poster you had in mind? I may have missed it.Yes there is. I posted some examples - reported by others (Luke Crane) and reported by me, from the play of my own campaigns - where social resolution mechanics were used to settle disputes between players (and thus PCs) about what to do next. Lanefan and billd91 posted saying that what I described was awful - Lanefan doesn't like using mechanics to settle an argument at the table; and billd91 claimed it was a signficant abridgement of player agency. My view is that players agreeing to toss a coin doesn't abridge their agency; and that - by pretty strict analogy - players agreeing to be bound by the outcome of a resolution process doesn't either. The difference is that one requires specific roleplaying, the other does not. I can react to an in-game coin flip however I choose. (Anger, reneging on the agreement, relief, etc.) But apparently there are restrictions on how I am supposed to react to somebody else's Persuade roll. "You can react however you want, as long as you are persuaded."I'm not 100% sure what you have in mind here. I was replying to a post by billd91, which was in turn a response to a particular post of mine, about using a mechanical system to resolve an argument between players about what to do next. Here is a re...

...at bias, they just should be do so judiciously or rarely.) On both sides, this really is irrelevant as to who's rolling - the player or the NPC. However, for Camp 1, NPCs rolling checks against PCs tends to be viewed as irrelevant or unwanted. This is because the player can still do whatever they want, so the die roll is largely meaningless in regards to player decisions. Therefore, Camp 1 tends to adopt playstyles where NPCs don't initiate rolls against players but instead use their skills as challenge difficult benchmarks against player declared actions. Camp 2, however, seeing the information imparted by the rolls as binding, sees NPC initiated rolls as just another method for rolls to bind players and so doesn't draw a distinction between NPC initiated or player initiated rolls. But, the real core difference here isn't if NPCs checks can bind PCs, but how the results of a check are viewed -- is the result of a check informational or binding? Clearly, myself and iserith, billd91, and other are in Camp 1 -- checks are informational. Tony's and others are Camp 2. One camp or the other aren't better, but this explains the core philosophical issue that divides this discussion (I believe, at least). So, looking to other areas of the game beside social checks, does this continue to play out? Well, we'll have to divide checks into two categories: informational checks (which I'm discussing above) and those checks used to accomplish a task (like lockpicking). As for what constitutes the difference between a task resolution and an informational check, I going with whether or not you'd describe the result as something the PC knows or thinks is informational, if you instead describe a change to something outside of the PC that's task resolution. Firstly, for task resolution checks, I think both Camps engage the game the same way -- a success means the task is accomplished. There are other considerations for failed checks that I'm not going to go into in this po...

I'd like to stress that when playing a 'grittier' RPG system, you have less freedom, in a way: Since combat is lethal, it's something that must be avoided at all cost. Players _must_ come up with ways to overcome their opposition by means other than open combat, otherwise your campaign is going to be short-lived.For me, this illustrates the point I've been making upthread, to Saelorn, Shasarak and billd91. In a genuinely grim & gritty RPG, ambushing someone with a sword, or a crossbow, should be (more-or-less) as dangerous as dropping a rock on them. It's purely an artefact of D&D's mechanics, which rates a sword at d8 or d10 but leaves the rating of a boulder to the GM, that results in a fighter being unable to kill someone in a weapon ambush but able- at least at the tables of those GMs mentioned - to kill someone with a boulder ambush. Which once again relates back to Aenghus's point, that the effectiveness of the boulder vs the sword turns primarily on end-running around the damage rules. It's entirely an artefact of mechanics, not of "narrative first". In a "narrative first" game involving people of "flesh and bone" (to quote Saelorn), an ambush with a sword or bow should be capable of lethality. (And in games like RuneQuest, Rolemaster, Burning Wheel, etc - ie with broadly simulationist action resolution mechanics - it is.) But D&D chooses to subordinate lethality and gri...

billd91 do not get me wrong, i do not want to downvalue Cha to the 1st/2nd ed uselessness. I like how 5e gives every stat a purpose, but otoh i would have sometimes prefered the 3 saving throws of 3e because these add much more to believabilty and causality and make powerbuilds more interesting (E.g. resilience feat to get a powerbuild which is strong in all saves). If you view it the way -- oh a very charismatic Person (political leader / beautiful Lady e.g.) and you want to charm them, you canthink that they are eventually very used to people trying to get their favor, so even with to magical attempt they are more resistant -- and all makes sense again.

I was going to write something pithy, but, there's not much point. Go back and reread what Majoru Oakheart and billd91 just wrote and you're golden.

Thanks @billd91. Something to watch out for then if and when I implement the change. Just regarding the two abilities you spoke of: Our table plays with encumbrance, so carrying capacity/movement is something the players do consider. We currently have travel movement and combat movement on the character sheets. Combat movement is only used when they drop their backpack with items. The party consists of a Sorcerer, Cleric, 2 x Wizard and a Fighter/Wizard. 4 out of the 5 classes have low STR. With regards to Leadership - I would also add the 5e Attunement rule. PCs would be deciding against number of attuned items vs bonuses to their social skills.

This has the potential to be a fairly potent ability, I'd stick a feat on it if you want it to really be a significant part of the character and consistently effective (plus, I think maybe +1 to Charisma as a second benefit of the feat). Consider modeling it on the antagonize feat from Pathfinder (link to antagonize). Yeah, I’d definitely keep the skill version simple, and require an Action. A feat would make it a bonus action, and give that +1 Cha. Maybe the skill version only effects their next turn, while the feat version makes it an effect that lasts until they save. I’ll check out that feat later. Thank you!

I'm not going to push them on that - figuring out that the pedestal is the focus is enough for me. Anything more than that gets into the technical element of the trap that neither of us is qualified to deal with and I'm not going to require them to try. That's where the PC's expertise takes over. That’s cool! We just prefer different levels of detail in those situations. I should also clarify that I am taking into account the fact that neither I nor the players really have been he necessary techno expertise here. I have no idea how a trap like that would actually work, beyond the basics that if there isn’t enough weight on the pedestal it sinks in and the boulder drops. It might as well work by magic for all I know. As such, I’m going to be generous with my adjudication. Does pushing on the pedestal work? Hell if I know, but my limited understanding is that the pedestal can sink in and the trap is sprung when there isn’t enough weight on the pedestal, so that seems like a reasonable approach ...

And for some situations, the presence of the skeleton might make sense. But what about other situations as when an area gets more maintenance or nobody has gotten that far? What telegraphed the pedestal trap Indy attempted (but failed) to disarm? Nothing other than his own suspicions. A DM telegraphing that strikes me less as giving them the Indiana Jones experience than leading them around by the nose. I agree! That’s why not all telegraphing is skeletons. Something like that is a great tool to introduce the players to a certain type of trap for the first time. Now you know to be on the lookout for shafts of light. After that, I can start using more subtle context cues. Maybe the next trap of the same kind doesn’t have a skeleton, but the shafts of light are still clearly visible. Maybe the next one doesn’t have visible shafts, but it’s in the same kind of hallway as the previous two (and with high enough passive Perception you might spot the seams in the walls that the blades swing out from...

if I telegraphed most traps, what would have been the point of hiding them in the first place? It rewards players who pay attention to the DM's description of the environment, draw reasonable conclusions, and engage with it accordingly. It cuts down on players searching everything methodically as they try to avoid random traps. It avoids the perception of the trap being a "gotcha." Even if the PCs don't pick up on the clues and wander right into it (which happens sometimes no matter how obvious it is), they can at least look back and go, "Oh, right, we should have picked up on that." Picking up on the possibility that there's a trap in the environment is just the beginning of the exploration challenge. It sets up the game, but does not give it away. The PCs still have to find it, figure out how it works, and then avoid or disarm it. Anywhere in that interaction, things can still go wrong.

Definitely not my style. I'll telegraph certain things, like when PCs are heading for an area that's particularly dangerous (like the lair of a powerful monster they aren't powerful enough to survive), but if I telegraphed most traps, what would have been the point of hiding them in the first place? That said, I don't usually toss them about randomly like a deranged Grimtooth - they sit in likely-enough places. I also definitely don't tell them most DCs or consequences unless the consequences are obvious (falling off a cliff, for example). I will tell them if the task looks easy or hard (or even impossible given their current state) and I'll tell them if steps they take to mitigate risks are improving their odds, but I'm content to leave their understanding of exactly what their odds are obscure. In my view, the point of hiding traps in dungeons and then telegraphing their presence is to give players something cool to interact with. To me, the primary appeal of D&D is getting to make decision...

An appropriately insightful read of the speaker would enable the PC to realize that the shifty guy actually seems to be sincere in this case. Insight helps a PC read someone's intentions, mood, and so on. And that should be able to see sincerity through an insincere reputation or veneer as much as it can see insincerity on a liar. Again, sounds like the result of the roll can affect the outcome, then. That has not been my experience. My players scrutinize NPCs or search for traps regardless of whether I tell them the results with or without a die roll. I may not have communicated my point effectively here. I don’t mean to say that players stop searching rooms when I tell them what they do or don’t find without a roll. I mean to say that when I give players as much information as possible - telegraphing traps, telling them DCs and consequences of failure, not asking them to make rolls when the result won’t change anything, etc., I find that the tendency to ask to make skill checks disappears....

Because there may still be other information they can glean from the situation other than just whether or not the speaker seems sincere. Seems like if that were the case, the result of the roll would affect the outcome... Plus, there may be some people who never seem sincere even when they are. Sure, but then I’d think the result would be that they seem insincere regardless of the result of the roll and we’re back to the question of why call for the roll unless its result can affect the outcome? And from the player perspective, that using their skills to analyze someone's mood, truthfulness, etc is pretty much always uncertain. This, I think, is one of our fundamental differences. I don’t want my players to feel uncertain about the outcomes of their actions. This, in my experience, is what leads players to actually want to make checks. They see the numbers on their sheet as more reliable than their own mental picture of the fictional world, so they would rather push the “check for ...

Arguments over things like this usually underscore, to me, exactly how much players don't know about the technical aspects of searching thoroughly and finding traps. In order to do a thorough search, you're damn well going to have to touch things! I always assume a visual inspection would precede really digging in. And if your searching check was good enough to find any traps that would have been triggered by touching them, you're golden - I'll take that into account. If it's not, then too bad. You'd have never gotten to the point of finding a more deeply laid trap or the goodies protected by the trap without a bit of touching anyway.To me these examples simply highlight lack of communication and common framework between gm and players. If a gm has as a rule in his game that investigation requires touching, why wasnt it given that way yo the players. BTW I do not expect my players to actually be informed about the technical aspects of trap finding. They are not in real life active burglars.

Arguments over things like this usually underscore, to me, exactly how much players don't know about the technical aspects of searching thoroughly and finding traps. In order to do a thorough search, you're damn well going to have to touch things! I always assume a visual inspection would precede really digging in. And if your searching check was good enough to find any traps that would have been triggered by touching them, you're golden - I'll take that into account. If it's not, then too bad. You'd have never gotten to the point of finding a more deeply laid trap or the goodies protected by the trap without a bit of touching anyway. If that’s the understanding up front, that works too.

I agree with you, generally. I think it's a bit ridiculous for a DM to expect a player to have the expertise their PC has, particularly with respect to something technical like trap finding and disarming. However, I would like players to interact with the room more than, "We search the room for traps." Let me know where you're searching, what order you're searching in, how thoroughly you're digging in - taking your time or being hasty because of the risk of someone else coming in the chamber - that sort of thing. Yes, and as DM, I want to limit the amount of assumptions I'm making about what the character is actually doing. For one, it's not my role as DM to say what the character does and, for another, I don't want to create a situation where the player may object to what I establish (e.g. "I didn't say I was moving toward the dragon statue..."). If a player states a clear goal and approach that takes into account the environment the DM just described, we neatly avoid any of these issues. ...

Thanks for injecting your personal experience... but I think it's fair for the game to go for genre over reality and let a good insight-type skill do a little more heavy lifting than you see in the reality you experience. But I do agree with much of your approach to the skill. I also take it less as a direct lie detector and more as a person-reading skill, whether they're evasive, hiding something, giving off a tell, being sincere, or anything else. Fair enough. The text of the game: “Insight. Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.” My reading is definitely not the only interpretation. There is a reading of that text that does enable truth/lie detection and there probably ought to be space enough for genre considerations.

Deleted

Hopefully you'll get a chance to give it a good test. It is, by far, the most 2e-ish D&D since 2e and we've been able to settle back into our 2e-style of play with it fairly easily. Maybe one day. I'd be open to it. But I am VERY skeptical about it being like 2e. The reason is I have tried 4 different people now who play 5e to try and convert my 2e adventures to 5e. All gave up...one said it was 'impossible'. So if it's impossible to convert an adventure, not sure how it would still feel the same.

He left Paizo almost 2 years ago... correction: the slow migration ;-)

Maybe? But why would they? They may be helping to drive the D&D wave, but they're also riding it. Publishing their own RPG strikes me as a risk of the golden-goose-killing potential if it were successful enough to undermine that wave. Sure. New ventures entail risk. An RPG rulebook isn’t *that* much of a risk, though. Especially if it was a Kickstarter stretch goal. Much easier to produce than an animated show!

he's substantially more complicated than your statistical estimation of himThis is true of nearly everyone. which suggests, to me, that his goal in writing an alternative mythology based on northern european culture wasn't in pursuit of racist goalsAnd no one has suggested otherwise in this thread. I certainly have not said anything about JRRT's intentions except that I'm indifferent to them. I did conjecture some beliefs/attitudes that JRRT likely held, given his social, historical, cultural etc context. I didn't and don't conjecture that these shaped his intentions in writing his book. I did and continue to conjecture that these are likely to help explain his use of racist tropes to help present orcs, southerners etc as evil.

It may be a fairly popular opinion around the fanbase of 5e, but I doubt it's a popular opinion around Paizo. The last time they were too closely aligned with D&D, WotC almost killed them with the 4e project (not renewing the magazine licenses and then releasing a fairly hostile 3pp license). I don't think Lisa is going to put the company in the same position again if she can help it. While this is certainly true, a lot of other gaming companies were also closely aligned with D&D - though not to the extent of managing affiliated magazine responsibilities, managed to weather the storm of transitioning editions, and are doing fine in 5e. Paizo managed to market the best and were able to find their market gold. In the current market however, and with Pathfinder 2.0 being met with only cautious optimism at best, Paizo really need to consider an alternative model, especially if Pathfinder 2.0 proves to fall out of popularity quickly and/or initially finds a really lukewarm reception. Time will...

It may be a fairly popular opinion around the fanbase of 5e, but I doubt it's a popular opinion around Paizo. The last time they were too closely aligned with D&D, WotC almost killed them with the 4e project (not renewing the magazine licenses and then releasing a fairly hostile 3pp license). I don't think Lisa is going to put the company in the same position again if she can help it. They could probably do both though or use kickstarter. Inner Sea World Guide requires very little conversion.

his strident opposition to the NazisAustralia went to war against the Nazis while fiercely maintaing the White Australia Policy. Churchill went to war against the Nazis while resolutely desiring to maintain the British Empire. Opposed/fought the Nazis doesn't show that someone, or some political outlook, isn't racist.

Whether or not he will be dissatisfied should factor into the decision made. Indeed it should! If a path which satisfies both sides of the table is readily available, then that's a good path. If not, then it's time to negotiate. It might well be time to go meta - "of course your characters want to maximize their chances of victory; but do you, the players, want a situation which makes that easy?" If not, then maybe tell them that the hags ARE part of the endgame, and that they've already crossed a Point of No Return. And *then* tell them the in-game situation: that door is closed.