Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E's reception?

[BryonD]

How exactly were you set aside in PF2? Or is this just you dramatically posturing yourself as some sort of victim? I'm honestly puzzled by your attitude.

Victim? I don't know about victim here. I have plenty of great games to play.

And, truthfully, the "set aside" does apply far more strongly to the "history" wherein there were multiple statements to the effect that dissatisfied fans were simply "not needed".

But, that said, I first do completely agree with Tony that we are seeing a second round of 3X core mechanic overreaction. I will agree that there are real issues with 3X. But the two biggest problems is has faced in the past several years are: 3X is still a game based on circa 2000 design and 5E is a game that has impressively evolved based on lots of great ideas (and failed experiments) which have happened since 3.0 hit the market.
If you just look at the mechanics and remove game age and new generation competition, you have a game that is a massive success (both under the WotC and Paizo banners). From Day One the complaints about certain flaws in 3X were there, but the overall "reception" (to firmly tie to the thread topic) was the so called "second golden age of gaming". But after that massive success, both team designed sequels which appear to ignore the reasons that the game was huge and completely focus on the complaints which were heard over and over despite the amount of great games going on all around. This is a true example of "vocal minority".

So, specific to me since you asked, both games resulted in mechanics which disregard concepts which I find mandatory in favor of creating a strictly math controlled experience.
And, as former fans, we find supporters telling us that our opinions can not possibly exist and can only result from things like fear of change or closed minded behavior. And when 4E came around, people like Tony made it clear that we could take our complaints and pound sand. But when 5E was announced those same people starting blaming non-adopters. (Which you still see here in this thread).

I see PF2E fans expressing the same sentiments that any consideration of the complaints of the dissatisfied should be shunned. And I predict that in the future the same reversal will happen again.

WotC did drop the PR ball a couple times and let out some comments openly disregarding detractors and openly siding with the pro-4E side. I have absolutely NOT seen this from Paizo, and to the contrary, there is at least one instance of Jason saying he is bothered by PF fans who don't see PF2E supporting them. So, at the company level I claim no equivalence there at all.

Ultimately I have been "set aside", because they went from the kind of game I like to this math constrained balance based game. But that is completely cool. I have zero expectation that Paizo owes me anything.
My comment was purely in terms of seeing the fan behavior cycle repeat. And I do see that happening and still predict that the cycle will fully complete. But I did not intend for it to sound more broad than that.

 

[Zardnaar]

I may have been in the market for a fixed 3.5 game. Remove the broken stuff, overhaul the classes, smaller numbers etc.

Not really in the market for whatever PF2 is trying to do.

 

[Philip Benz]

I may have been in the market for a fixed 3.5 game. Remove the broken stuff, overhaul the classes, smaller numbers etc.

Actually, that's not too far off.
When you crack open PF2 for the first time, the first impression is one of déjà-vu. Humans, elves, dwarves, hobbits; Fighters, clerics, magic-users, thieves; Spells, skills, feats; d20s.

But they fixed the d20 mod bloat. Fixed the linear fighter and the quadratic wizard. Fixed the action economy twister game. Fixed the AC vs hit bonus arms race. And while they were at it, they fixed a lot of the underlying game mechanisms.

Now, sure, it's no longer recognizably of the same d20 family as DD3.5. It has become a whole different game. Despite some vocal complainers (here and elsewhere) there are more and more people who have taken the time to give PF2 an honest shot, and it really plays very well. Yes, combat can be "swingy", especially if you don't play very carefully, tactically and prudently. Yes, adversaries that are above your level can be very deadly indeed, and sometimes need to be simply avoided. Yes, some aspects of the magic system feel a little wonky at times. But all in all, PF2 gives a very satisfying and fun game experience.

I won't say it's "better" than other RPGs. Lots of people have great games with PF1, DD5, DD3.5, Runequest, Shadowrun, Warhammer Fantasy, OD&D and many other game systems. But don't write off PF2 out of hand. Find a good DM who's running a game, and sit in long enough to give it an honest go.

 

[Zardnaar]

Actually, that's not too far off.
When you crack open PF2 for the first time, the first impression is one of déjà-vu. Humans, elves, dwarves, hobbits; Fighters, clerics, magic-users, thieves; Spells, skills, feats; d20s.

But they fixed the d20 mod bloat. Fixed the linear fighter and the quadratic wizard. Fixed the action economy twister game. Fixed the AC vs hit bonus arms race. And while they were at it, they fixed a lot of the underlying game mechanisms.

Now, sure, it's no longer recognizably of the same d20 family as DD3.5. It has become a whole different game. Despite some vocal complainers (here and elsewhere) there are more and more people who have taken the time to give PF2 an honest shot, and it really plays very well. Yes, combat can be "swingy", especially if you don't play very carefully, tactically and prudently. Yes, adversaries that are above your level can be very deadly indeed, and sometimes need to be simply avoided. Yes, some aspects of the magic system feel a little wonky at times. But all in all, PF2 gives a very satisfying and fun game experience.

I won't say it's "better" than other RPGs. Lots of people have great games with PF1, DD5, DD3.5, Runequest, Shadowrun, Warhammer Fantasy, OD&D and many other game systems. But don't write off PF2 out of hand. Find a good DM who's running a game, and sit in long enough to give it an honest go.

Yeah I bought the PDF. Wasn't impressed. I would play it not run it

Good luck finding a GM though.

 

[CapnZapp]

I would say 5E fixed 3E, and did a better job of fixing it than PF2.

PF2 is incredibly locked down, very cluttery, hostile to GM improvisation, and includes certain 4E design elements: mainly an overabundance of small useless options, and weak boring magic items.


PS. I'm not completely against PF2, and some things are better than 5E, but the recent blind praise compelled me into righting the picture. DS

 

[FrogReaver]

Funny how the usual suspects are telling others that this isn't a personal opinion thread its a general community thread... and then proceeding to give their personal opinion.

Its why I rarely come to ENworld anymore for pathfinder discussion. I just don't get the desire to play moderator and tell people they aren't posting like you want them to.

Isn't that what this post is doing

 

[FrogReaver]

Opposing gatekeeping behavior is not, itself, gatekeeping.

Statements like this allow us are just some mental gymnastic justifications that allow us to do the very thing we complain about.

It's just a neat way of saying - "but when I do that it's justified".

 

[FrogReaver]

PF2 may be a better game than D&D, even a much better game. Relative popularity won't be an indicator.

If I'm designing a game then relative popularity is the metric I'm judging my game on.

If I'm trying to find a group to play with then relative popularity is definitely interlinked with the game.

Maybe this is the best way to say it -
"The best game with no players playing it is still worse than the worst game with players"

In short no matter how good the PF2 system is (assuming it is good) - that doesn't amount to a hill of beans if I can't find a group to play it with.

 

[Philip Benz]

In short no matter how good the PF2 system is (assuming it is good) - that doesn't amount to a hill of beans if I can't find a group to play it with.

That's absolutely the bottom line - finding a table, finding a table with an enjoyable group of players and a good DM, these things matter immensely more than the choice of a game system to use.

I'm convinced that the final call has to go to the DM. He's the one who has to put in the hours preparing cool stuff to frame the game. You can play an RPG if one of the players doesn't show. But without a DM - or someone willing to step into the DM's shoes even for a night - no RPGing will be taking place.

This said, (can you tell?) I really like PF2 and my players are having a great time.

 

[BryonD]

Actually, that's not too far off.
When you crack open PF2 for the first time, the first impression is one of déjà-vu. Humans, elves, dwarves, hobbits; Fighters, clerics, magic-users, thieves; Spells, skills, feats; d20s.

Do you realize that you jumped here from saying it is not too far off from a mechanical fix to listing things that have pretty much nothing to do with mechanics? Feats and D20s touch it in the most tangential way, but just ever so slightly.

But they fixed the d20 mod bloat. Fixed the linear fighter and the quadratic wizard. Fixed the action economy twister game. Fixed the AC vs hit bonus arms race. And while they were at it, they fixed a lot of the underlying game mechanisms.

Yes, this is mechanics.
But just saying that you think things doesn't make it a truth for everyone else. And the post reads (to me) as if you are observing something in a way that you think is equally observable for anyone else.

And I really want to stress that I have no dispute in the slightest with your table experience. PF2E is perfect for some people and it is well designed for delivering that. Full stop. You may very well have found the game that you personally will be enjoying 25 years from now and that is awesome.

But, for me, you can pick the "AC vs hit bonus" bit as one place where they completely destroyed the fun of the game. To me it is not about what the numbers are but simply whether they seem to accurately describe the character within the game system. I had a L15 PF game with PC ACs ranging from 18 to 28. And (as just one singular data point amongst many) those number FELT RIGHT. Would it have been noticed if the 18 was a 20? No. But it would have hurt everything if the system stepped in and said: "this is a problem, no L15 character should be losing this AC arms race, for no reason that has anything to do with the description of that character I'm going to change that low AC to 23". To me that would suck the fun out of the experience and miss the point of why I sat down at the table in the first place.

To me RPGs are not about balanced tactical combat. They are about creating a reasonable self consistent world and then creating character ideas within that world and playing out (through a combination of role-play and dice mechanics) how those characters get along in various exciting situations.

To me what PF2E did is like taking a traditional romance novel and having Jason Voorhees kill the leading man in the prolog. It might be an awesome horror novel, but it was not what I was looking for. The plus level thing might be a great tactical game and those who love it can roleplay to their hearts content with it. But the opportunity to model individual characters without the system telling me I need an arms race fixed has been destroyed before the game even starts.

And I am NOT saying this matters a hill of beans to you (or ANYONE). I am not saying or suggesting that I have enlightened anyone in anyway that is automatically relevant to their own experience. I am talking about me and me alone.

But I also think that one of the big problems that you get in these conversations is the presumption that others do or should see things the same way. There are completely reasonable justifications for seeing what you love about PF2E and choosing another game for some segment of those exact reasons.

So, for the question of "PF2E's reception", the question becomes "how many people see it which way" (again not to suggest there are two ways to see it here, but there are two end results: adopter and non-adopter).

And, I think, it is fair to take the perspectives of detractors into consideration and ask what could Paizo have done to increase their breadth of appeal and is there anything they can still do to modify that going forward?

I won't say it's "better" than other RPGs. Lots of people have great games with PF1, DD5, DD3.5, Runequest, Shadowrun, Warhammer Fantasy, OD&D and many other game systems. But don't write off PF2 out of hand. Find a good DM who's running a game, and sit in long enough to give it an honest go.

Totally agree.