Pathfinder 2E Simplified PF2e?

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Though, I'm now of the opinion that PF2 cant really be stripped down to an OSR like game with its soul intact.

Well that is the question. So what do you consider the soul of PF2?

I think my perception is clouded from thinking of PF as an extension of D&D, so by association, OSR style gaming is also the history of PF. So that is part of its soul. However, maybe it is more realistic to see PF starting only from 3e, and it’s soul will always be more complex than D&D.

That may be the case. If so, I am still interested in a simplified PF2 that maintains some core traits of the system.

 

[payn]

Well that is the question. So what do you consider the soul of PF2?

I think my perception is clouded from thinking of PF as an extension of D&D, so by association, OSR style gaming is also the history of PF. So that is part of its soul. However, maybe it is more realistic to see PF starting only from 3e, and it’s soul will always be more complex than D&D.

That may be the case. If so, I am still interested in a simplified PF2 that maintains some core traits of the system.

PF2 is more like 4E, a bit of right turn from D&D, but similarities remain. OSR might seem like its just about simplicity, but I think thats only half of it. I think its also about general rulesets that leave a lot of room for the players and GM to negotiate. PF2 is about specifics and specializations that leave more of a roadmap for folks to follow. The complexity and nuance provide an experience that is the soul of PF2. Strip it out, and there is nothing left that makes it PF2.

5E design was supposed to be a bridge. One foot in each camp. The result is a game thats very popular, but not really satisfying for folks of OSR or modern design persuasion. A bit too fiddly for some, not quite complex enough for others. A goldilocks game for folks in the middle.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

PF2 is about specifics and specializations that leave more of a roadmap for folks to follow. The complexity and nuance provide an experience that is the soul of PF2. Strip it out, and there is nothing left that makes it PF2.

I’m your opinion of course.

I personally believe there is more to the essence of PF2 than nuance and complexity. I mean, arbors are also a big part of PF1/3e too, but PF2 is a different game.

Also, it doesn’t have to be all or nothing on those too. Can have less complexity and less nuance with kicking them out completely. Would it still be PF2 with se degree less nuance and complexity? I think it is possible, but I not 100% sure

 

[payn]

I’m your opinion of course.

I personally believe there is more to the essence of PF2 than nuance and complexity. I mean, arbors are also a big part of PF1/3e too, but PF2 is a different game.

Im not sure exactly what an arbor is? Though, I especially don't think 3E/PF1 could be made into an OSR version.

Also, it doesn’t have to all or nothing on those too. Can have less complexity and less nuance with kicking them out completely.

Absolutely my opinion, but once you start stripping away the deeper complexities, the essence goes with it. I dont know what else exactly is the soul of PF2. Im all ears though.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Im not sure exactly what an arbor is?

I’m on my phone. It was supposed to be “are a part of”

Though, I especially don't think 3E/PF1 could be made into an OSR version.

Absolutely my opinion, but once you start stripping away the deeper complexities, the essence goes with it. I dont know what else exactly is the soul of PF2. Im all ears though.

I have some ideas, but on a plane and need to go to airplane mode.

 

[Justice and Rule]

PF2 is more like 4E, a bit of right turn from D&D, but similarities remain. OSR might seem like its just about simplicity, but I think thats only half of it. I think its also about general rulesets that leave a lot of room for the players and GM to negotiate. PF2 is about specifics and specializations that leave more of a roadmap for folks to follow. The complexity and nuance provide an experience that is the soul of PF2. Strip it out, and there is nothing left that makes it PF2.

5E design was supposed to be a bridge. One foot in each camp. The result is a game thats very popular, but not really satisfying for folks of OSR or modern design persuasion. A bit too fiddly for some, not quite complex enough for others. A goldilocks game for folks in the middle.

The best description I've heard is that it's everyone's second-favorite edition, thus the easiest one to get everyone playing.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

The best description I've heard is that it's everyone's second-favorite edition, thus the easiest one to get everyone playing.

I think that is a pretty good description. It happens to be my groups favorite edition, but we have some house rules that really make it our own.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Though I should note that's probably only true with people who are really into the core D&D line in the first place. Admittedly, when it comes to D&D proper, I'd have to accurately say I'd be hard pressed to characterize even a favorite edition, let alone a second favorite.

 

[Velderan]

The best description I've heard is that it's everyone's second-favorite edition, thus the easiest one to get everyone playing.

The compromise edition™.

@Uni-the-Unicorn! Sorry if you've already answered and I just missing it skimming the topic, but what part(s) of PF2e appeals to you that would make a simplified version appeal?

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

The compromise edition™.

@Uni-the-Unicorn! Sorry if you've already answered and I just missing it skimming the topic, but what part(s) of PF2e appeals to you that would make a simplified version appeal?

I don't have a complete list, this was more of a thought exercise than a specific desire. However, I would say:

• 3 action economy
• degrees of success
• balance
• tactical options (but could be simplified)
• char build options (but could be simplified)