Pathfinder 2E You Have One Last Chance - Do You Try PF2?

[Retreater]

You really should explain more on why you think your campaign-starts have petered out?

Is it because the players don't have enough free time? Or because they aren't interested in learning new rules? Maybe they don't have time or energy, with life and all?

I'm asking because Savage Worlds, AFAIK, is a rather inviting simple game. Warhammer Fantasy 1E and 2E are too. You wouldn't expect such a game to flounder on basis of rules complexity.

(If you attempted to run WFRP4, on the other hand, you have my sympathies - that game is in my opinion a trainwreck of epic proportions. I even think PF2 is easier to learn and teach, which really is saying something)

Of course, there might be other reasons. Chiefly what DWChancellor says - if you don't like a system as a Games Master, nothing will help. But of course, there might be other issues - such as creating characters that doesn't gel with the story, or the chosen campaign story not engaging the players, etc.

Anyway, you asked about Pathfinder 2. I would say it sets a very high bar for beginners. It is very complex to master, and not a suitable intro game at all.

If you just want to play the game casual, well, you can't. Unless you engage with the myriad (very) small things, I would assume the game loses most of its raison d'etre.

Everything is codified and given specific parameters in this game. As a GM, any time you try to be generous and "just say yes" you will likely have wrecked a feat that gives a character the power you just handed out for free. Basically, your players need to love finding +1 bonuses. I would guess most 5E players would be intensely turned off by the idea their characters should make an effort just to gain a "measly" +1 bonus here or there, but that's considered very valuable and attractive by PF2.

On one hand, PF2 should attract gamers dissatisfied with the relative dearth of build option (crunch) in 5th Edition. On the other, the game unfortunately went in a locked-down direction which does share a certain resemblance to D&D 4. This can be very frustrating for players accustomed to the wonderful freedom of D&D 3 and Pathfinder 1. (A freedom that also led to fantastically broken combos, of course).

There are multiple reasons why campaigns have fizzled over the years, but let's look at the most recent few months so I can focus on more specific issues.

Two players were very interested in going back to 4e D&D for nostalgic reasons. The other players weren't against trying it. So I decided to run it with a focus on roleplaying, story, politics, and investigation to show that 4e isn't all combat. At first, I had the buy-in from all the players and had quite a large group. Then gradually people left. One player left because of his work schedule. Another left for child care reasons. Another just flaked out and stopped coming (even though she promised she still wanted to play and was "very interested in the story.")

By that point, we were down to 3 regular players (and the occasional 4th and 5th sometimes flaked out). Then I shifted the game to Savage Worlds (at the suggestion of "the regular player who likes to switch systems"). Since we didn't have regular attendance, we thought playing a classless system would be better than 4e that had very defined roles - and some sessions we could be missing a defender or striker - or both. We converted the setting and characters into Savage Worlds.

And then I had the issue of not really knowing how to convert to Savage Worlds. We had a couple rough sessions, and maybe people were getting frustrated that the plot wasn't moving quickly enough. One of the regular players said he was leaving to find a "regular 5th edition game."

I begged the players to come to one last session to wrap up the campaign, built a huge 3D castle, spent days on everything. 2 players came. Because of the bad attendance the campaign ended in a TPK. I guess I was happy to be done with it.

I had been running Savage Rifts on another night. Two players "got too busy" to play and stopped coming. Since the core group wasn't around, we decided to try out the Enemy Within campaign for Warhammer 4e with the remaining players. Then, after one session, one of those players had to move to a different city for work. The 3 remaining players decided it wasn't worth continuing.

 

[pcrotteau]

There are as many reasons to drop out of a campaign or set of regular sessions as there are character builds. Real life is always a valid reason.

The most successful run I've had with groups was with Pathfinder Society play over the course of 4 to 5 years. Many of the players would change out and we had new GM'S surface, but we had a once weekly session that sometimes got up to 3 tables (7 people at each) for stretches.

Any 5e games that we had would swap out players more frequently and never got that huge.

Using the organized play format allows for sporadic attendance while rewarding consistent play. Plus the adventure prep is mostly complete, freeing the GM up to concentrate on producing a quality session for the players.
Most of the players appreciate that format because they don't need permission to play certain options, the overarching format shows what is available.

 

[cmad1977]

Maybe a ‘long campaign’ isn’t in the cards. You can convert to simply ‘game night’ and run shorter arcs. Play board games if people arent feeling an RPG that night.

PF2 would not be my choice for the situation you’re describing

 

[Retreater]

Maybe a ‘long campaign’ isn’t in the cards. You can convert to simply ‘game night’ and run shorter arcs. Play board games if people arent feeling an RPG that night.

PF2 would not be my choice for the situation you’re describing

Yeah. I feel like I'm in a no-win situation. I have players who dropped out (I'm thinking) because there wasn't enough consistency in the games, and my fiancée (one of the regular players) desperately wants to play a longer term campaign (as opposed to an episodic campaign or board games). But then I don't have enough regular players to keep a campaign together.
I'm hoping that "if I build it, they will come." If I start a solid campaign, I can add players as I continue. But that's why so much is riding on this campaign to work.

 

[cmad1977]

Yeah. I feel like I'm in a no-win situation. I have players who dropped out (I'm thinking) because there wasn't enough consistency in the games, and my fiancée (one of the regular players) desperately wants to play a longer term campaign (as opposed to an episodic campaign or board games). But then I don't have enough regular players to keep a campaign together.
I'm hoping that "if I build it, they will come." If I start a solid campaign, I can add players as I continue. But that's why so much is riding on this campaign to work.

Putting too much pressure on yourself man. It’s going to negatively affect whatever you do.
Put together a game, keep it short.. with the understanding that it can continue if people want.
Don’t let the campaigns ‘success or failure’ weigh on you.

 

[pogre]

TLDR: Focus on making a great campaign experience for your fiancee and do not worry about numbers.

Yeah. I feel like I'm in a no-win situation. I have players who dropped out (I'm thinking) because there wasn't enough consistency in the games, and my fiancée (one of the regular players) desperately wants to play a longer term campaign (as opposed to an episodic campaign or board games). But then I don't have enough regular players to keep a campaign together.
I'm hoping that "if I build it, they will come." If I start a solid campaign, I can add players as I continue. But that's why so much is riding on this campaign to work.

When I started my current 5e campaign a couple of years ago it was really to run for my sons. My two remaining children at home had not really experienced a long term campaign that I used to always run. My teenage sons were very excited about playing.

I decided I was going to run weekly at the same time every week barring an Act of God event.

I invited a couple of local guys to play and then I invited five guys from my old game group. I did not expect any of my old game group to play - they had moved to various parts of the state. Once they refused I had another pool of players set to invite.

I made it clear that I was running every week at the same time and if they could make it great, but if not, I understood. I figured I would always have my boys at the table. So, I invited nine people to play - two of which I knew would make every session.

The remarkable thing was all nine said they wanted to play. Even a couple of players who live a few hours away.

In the past couple of year I have only had one session with just three players and the average attendance is six. Amazingly, the guy that lives the furthest away makes it pretty much every week except when we have snow storms.

Over the last year plus we have had 60+ four hours plus gaming sessions.

I tailor my encounters for variable encounters where the number of players = X. So the PCs might face X orcs or X/2 Hook Horrors. I set up treasure in a similar way. It's not perfect, but it has worked pretty well.

My suggestion is run the campaign your fiancee wants. If it is just the two of you at a session - run anyway. Invite more people as necessary and keep the campaign going. Focus on giving your fiancee a great campaign and the rest will work out.

 

[JeffB]

Why does it have to be a long campaign?

I would simply run some 1/2/3-shots and see if the system/s you want to check out clicks with you and your group. Pick up a starter kit/fastplay with some pre-gens and have at it. Many are free and/or minimally priced or have a SRD.

 

[Retreater]

Why does it have to be a long campaign?

I would simply run some 1/2/3-shots and see if the system/s you want to check out clicks with you and your group. Pick up a starter kit/fastplay with some pre-gens and have at it. Many are free and/or minimally priced or have a SRD.

We've been doing that for the past few months, and the few consistent players left are getting tired of it. I think that the switching from system to system has, in part, contributed to the drop off in attendance.
We haven't had a long term kind of campaign in about 2 years.

 

[DWChancellor]

This sounds like way too much change way too often. I wonder if some of the players don't like playing with each other and are being too lame to actually tell you (see: all the ghosting).

Here's something to think about: if you're worrying so much about creating different "lengths" of games you're not letting the games and groups organically come together (or not). Long-campaigns work because players get invested, not because they were planned as long campaigns. No shame in ditching something people aren't in tune with.

Your description of what your players have been telling you sounds pretty dang suspicious to me. I sense you're letting your players tell you what to do too often too. Just my six cents here.

 

[JeffB]

We've been doing that for the past few months, and the few consistent players left are getting tired of it. I think that the switching from system to system has, in part, contributed to the drop off in attendance.
We haven't had a long term kind of campaign in about 2 years.

Ok. Understood. Ignore my advice