Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[kenada]

I absolutely think games don't exist in vacuum bubbles.

And I'm not too hot about the phrase "PF2 does well what it set out to do". I've seen it before, and I can't help to think it is sometimes used as a self-fulfilling prophecy: if the game aimed for exactly what it ended up doing, then it must be a great success! Right?

There’s a difference between “this game does what it does very well” and “this is a game people will want to buy”. Sometimes those are the same things. Sometimes they’re not. I’m taking issue with the premise that failing to do the latter impugns the former.

Actually, no, that is not logical. I don't believe for a second the complexity of subsystems like Recall Knowledge, for instance, or the way Crafting goes to great lengths to hide the fact you can't actually make any money, is a good goal to strive towards. I find it much more likely a writer just got over-excited, and that there was noone to rein him or her back in.

Recall Knowledge isn’t complex. It just doesn’t do what people want it to do in combat (monster identification with specifics). The issue you cite with Crafting is almost certainly working as intended. Crafting in PF1 could be used to break the wealth by level guidelines. Now it can’t.

Which leads me back to my point. I strongly believe PF2 would have done what "it set out to do" better if it had looked at what WotC accomplished with 5E. That is, by evaluating each proposed subsystem for clutter that could be removed with no real loss in functionality. 5th Edition comes across as a game with brutally effective management. Almost every darling D&D has ever seen has been examined, and ruthlessly eliminated if deemed non-critical. (Sure that game isn't perfect either. It dropped utility-based magic item pricing and it still has d20 levels of clutter in interaction between hands, objects and components, for instance.)

I don’t think putting together a rules light system was ever in the cards. If someone never intends to do something, they criticizing them for not doing it is like shouting at the clouds. It might feel cathartic, but it annoys the neighbors and doesn’t really do any good.

But Paizo sure could have benefited from strong project governance on the level of the 5E team. Oh, so many pages of obsolete or needless clutter that could have been removed with negligible loss in play fun...!

If Paizo took out the “clutter” you describe, then the game would be a different game. I can only speak for my group, but we wouldn’t consider that a worthwhile tradeoff. That it feels like PF1 but more streamlined and coherent is something we like, not a problem to be fixed.

 

[dave2008]

If you picked up the 600+ page rulebook already... the number of feats isn't the barrier.

I disagree. First I must explain I didn't play 3e or PF1. I played 1e, then 4e, and now 5e. I decided to give PF2e a try. I purchased the CRB, Bestiary, and later the GMG. The number of pages doesn't bother me, but the idea of making a character with all of those feat choices does put me off, to the point I have stopped reading the class sections of the book. To further clarify, I am not into character building. When I don't DM (99% of the time), I want to play, not build, and I want to play casually. PF2e has me concerned on few accounts:

1. The shear number of options at character creation and each level has me a bit stressed. I don't want to make that many choices.
2. The shear number of choices during play has me a bit stressed. I don't want to let my group down. Everything I am reading about deadly fights and all the tactical choices that should be made have me concerned.
3. I like to play casually, with a lot of improv. I am not used to have a plethora of different rules and rule interactions I have to know. I don't know how this will go over with PF2e and PF2e players & DMs.
4. I can't play with people I know as none of them are willing to play PF2e. I have to go outside my gaming group and play with strangers. I haven't done that in 30 yrs. That has me a bit stressed too.

 

[kenada]

After taking a break for lunch (and to troubleshoot network issues …), I thought I’d circle back and try to contribute something more in the spirit of constructive discourse. To be honest, I’m not actually sure what the topic of this thread is other than something something complexity.

First question: is Pathfinder 2e a complex game? Yes, definitely. It’s very obviously not rules light, and it’s not trying to be. I should hope that’s patently obvious and not controversial. Yes, I’ve argued that the core is simple and streamlined, but the subsystems built on top of that create complexity.

Second question: is it worth it? Yes. For the most part, the complexity creates interesting choices and works in the game’s favor. Without all the feats, character building would be less interesting. Without the dependency on team play, combat would be boring. Exploration Mode seems to be the rough point, with some of the activities not always working well depending on your game.

Third question: is it without problems? Oh, certainly not. We’ve discussed some of them here already. I’d also add that while moving system mastery from character building to combat is probably more accessible, it’s rough on players coming from other systems with different assumptions. I also think Exploration Mode needs an iteration or two to get it really working as well as encounter mode does.

Relatedly, but not specifically a systemic issue, the CRB could also do more to help players learn the game. There are parts where it’s just not doing enough to help players form a decent mental model. I also think it could do more to teach players how to run a game. Just don’t assume they know how to run a dungeon! (Not that this is a problem unique to PF2.) The Beginner Box may help here, but then that means it should have been available at launch (like 5e did).

If someone asked me if they should try PF2, I’d say yes, but I’d qualify that by saying they should play with someone who already knows the game well. That will help them focus on what they need as a player to get going. Also, if they’ve played other games (particularly PF1), you definitely need to point out where PF2 does something different. That’s a problem I still encounter with my group 20+ sessions into our campaign.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I disagree. First I must explain I didn't play 3e or PF1. I played 1e, then 4e, and now 5e. I decided to give PF2e a try. I purchased the CRB, Bestiary, and later the GMG. The number of pages doesn't bother me, but the idea of making a character with all of those feat choices does put me off, to the point I have stopped reading the class sections of the book. To further clarify, I am not into character building. When I don't DM (99% of the time), I want to play, not build, and I want to play casually. PF2e has me concerned on few accounts:

1. The shear number of options at character creation and each level has me a bit stressed. I don't want to make that many choices.
2. The shear number of choices during play has me a bit stressed. I don't want to let my group down. Everything I am reading about deadly fights and all the tactical choices that should be made have me concerned.
3. I like to play casually, with a lot of improv. I am not used to have a plethora of different rules and rule interactions I have to know. I don't know how this will go over with PF2e and PF2e players & DMs.
4. I can't play with people I know as none of them are willing to play PF2e. I have to go outside my gaming group and play with strangers. I haven't done that in 30 yrs. That has me a bit stressed too.

For points 1 + 2: Did these issues bother you when you played 4e? Because there's not a huge difference in number of choices there, and the same tools are available to help you with them beyond trying to absorb three books by yourself. What's different this time?

Also, when you crunch the numbers - everything works. There's a very small difference between the best and worst option.

For point 3: Some of that is PF2 being a tightly constrained game. The whole point of all those rules is you don't need to guess how stuff will work (or, more to the point - how your dm will think it should work); it's already spelled out. You can still improv (if your group is in to that), it just requires less. To me, that's the upside to more rules.

If your group wants a more casual game, it's easy enough for the gm to use easier encounters. Then all the choices have lowered stakes.

(The surprise people are having is that if you're coming from 5e - it's actually challenging. 5e is very hard to keep challenging as opposed to just swingy, unless you have a lot of encounters between rests.)

On 4: Yeah, that's a problem we all have, I think. It's a lot harder to get any game going that isn't 5e these days. The method I've used in the past is to offer to run games until I've assembled a core group, then let someone else take over gming. I haven't gotten that far yet (I'm waiting to see if another temp group will solidify) but I'm in three long-running DnD groups formed by this method.

 

[FrozenNorth]

[QUOTE="kenada, post: 8100832, member: 70468]
If Paizo took out the “clutter” you describe, then the game would be a different game. I can only speak for my group, but we wouldn’t consider that a worthwhile tradeoff. That it feels like PF1 but more streamlined and coherent is something we like, not a problem to be fixed.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t disagree with a lot of your points in the last couple of posts, but I do wonder about this last one.

Suppose PF2 had kept the in-depth (and customizable) character creation and the interesting and complex tactical combat. Would this has scratched the itch of those players who enjoy that level of complexity?

That would have eliminated a lot of the subsystems that Zapp is complaining about: the Recall Knowledge subsystem, the Healing subsystem, possibly Skill Feats.

I suspect that there is definitely an audience that loves character customization and tactical depth but also prefers a more freeform approach to the social and the exploration pillars.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I suspect that there is definitely an audience that loves character customization and tactical depth but also prefers a more freeform approach to the social and the exploration pillars.

While there certainly is such an audience there's also one that likes the game rules to guide the game in all aspects of play - including exploration and social encounters.

Paizo, presumably, knows this and chose to favor one over the other. Whether that was the right call is another question, though I for one am happy with their choice.

 

[kenada]

The shear number of options at character creation and each level has me a bit stressed. I don't want to make that many choices.

The way it works in practice once you’ve picked your ABCs is that you only have a few options available at a time. If you’re not into optimization, you can just pick something that looks cool and not have to worry about the other options nor that you accidentally picked the wrong choice.

The shear number of choices during play has me a bit stressed. I don't want to let my group down. Everything I am reading about deadly fights and all the tactical choices that should be made have me concerned.

PF2 expects the party to fight like a team. There are some rules of thumb you can develop over time (imposing flat-footed is good, take advantage of movement to force opponents to waste actions, etc). The big thing is talking to and coordinating with the other party members. However, yours is definitely a valid concern.

I like to play casually, with a lot of improv. I am not used to have a plethora of different rules and rule interactions I have to know. I don't know how this will go over with PF2e and PF2e players & DMs.

PF2 provides a very solid framework for adjudicating improvised actions. I’ve had my players do some weird stuff (like trying to talking in a funny voice with a ghoul’s corpse to trick other ghouls in another room. Where it gets in your way is if you think you can get a bonus or benefit just by making a check. I’d argue that’s a problem in other games too, but it definitely steps on the toes of PF2’s niche protection.

My advice for other GMs is to look at the VP subsystem. It’s very easy to improvise a challenge to accomplish a goal, and it also gets everyone involved. One of my PCs wanted to convince the group’s expedition to follow her and move to a new location. I could have said she couldn’t do it because she didn’t have Group Impression and enough Diplomacy proficiency to convince that many people, but I ran it as an influence challenge instead.

I set the timeframe to before, during, and after dinner. That gave them three turns to make their case. During this time, some of them used Diplomacy to try to persuade them, but some of the other characters took other tacks. The fighter gave a combat demonstration. I think another one tried cooking something for the expedition (and failed). In the end, they succeeded, and it was a lot more fun than just a couple of Diplomacy checks (to Make an Impression and then a Request).

I can't play with people I know as none of them are willing to play PF2e. I have to go outside my gaming group and play with strangers. I haven't done that in 30 yrs. That has me a bit stressed too.

Yeah, that sucks. It’s also disheartening to hear that FLGSes are dropping PF2 groups. Maybe things will get better as PF1 games wrap up. I don’t know. I’m lucky that my group was willing to switch, and we’ve been able to continue playing online.

 

[Retreater]

As much as I loved PF2 early on, I think its balance is an illusion. Much like 4E, if you stray from the design assumptions, it's gonna be bad.
While I may be "running it wrong," I feel that I don't have a choice as GM. I am running an AP "by the book" for a group of players who want the authentic experience from a playtesting mindset.
We do full HP recharges with Medicine after every combat, full shield repair after every combat. Every character has a "get out of dead free card" in the form of a Hero Point - making it impossible to kill a character without a TPK. So the only balance it can claim is in the encounter, like 4e before it. This makes all pillars of the game with the exception of combat feel like a mini-game that just isn't a part of the primary function - combat. Roleplaying and exploration do not overly matter because they do not impact combat. We've done downtime days to earn extra gold while playing the stronghold mini-game. They can buy magic items to influence their combats.
They have a full reset after each encounter, with the exception of a couple spell slots. But they have plenty to do probably 6-8 encounters in a day. There is no danger for any of the characters because they can be insta-healed like 50+ hp within a turn. And even if things go south, there's that "get out of dead free card."

 

[FrozenNorth]

For points 1 + 2: Did these issues bother you when you played 4e? Because there's not a huge difference in number of choices there, and the same tools are available to help you with them beyond trying to absorb three books by yourself. What's different this time?

I don’t want to answer for dave, but I wanted to give my perspective on this question (because it is a good question).

I started with Rules Cyclopaedia D&D in middle school, moved to 2e in high school, stopped playing in uni and at the beginning of my professional career, then returned with 4e and have been playing 4e and 5e (with occasional detours into other systems) ever since.

To respond to your question, the difference is that it’s been 14 years. 14 years ago, I was in my mid-twenties and I didn’t have kids and nearly as many responsibilities.

The person I was when 4e came out could take the time to absorb complex rules and sort through tons of feats to identify what I wanted.

Nowadays, I want to spend the most time possible at the table on the good stuff, and simply passing on anything that slows the game down.

On the slightly more positive side, I also have more self-confidence, so it’s also less important to me to spend time on the character creation game so I can project onto my tabletop avatar.

 

[dave2008]

For points 1 + 2: Did these issues bother you when you played 4e? Because there's not a huge difference in number of choices there, and the same tools are available to help you with them beyond trying to absorb three books by yourself. What's different this time?

I only DM'd 4e, I never played a PC. I don't usually like online tools (we don't use them at the table and I don't play on line), but I have getting a little crush for DnDBeyond now during the pandemic. We didn't need on line tools for 4e, so I would hope I wouldn't need them for PF2.

Also, when you crunch the numbers - everything works. There's a very small difference between the best and worst option.

I am less concerned about that, than I am about how I use the various options I will have. Numbers balance doesn't bother me, unless it bothers my teammates.

For point 3: Some of that is PF2 being a tightly constrained game. The whole point of all those rules is you don't need to guess how stuff will work (or, more to the point - how your dm will think it should work); it's already spelled out. You can still improv (if your group is in to that), it just requires less. To me, that's the upside to more rules.

This type of ruleset is not my preference, but I am willing to give it a try. My concern is having to know all the different feats I have and what they. My guess, I just won't do it. It is not how I play. Will that frustrate the other players - who knows. Basically I want to have fun, not engage in synergistic tactics where i have to use my character the most effectively or we are in a TPK.

If your group wants a more casual game, it's easy enough for the gm to use easier encounters. Then all the choices have lowered stakes.

It is not up to me, I have to find a group. My group will not play it.

(The surprise people are having is that if you're coming from 5e - it's actually challenging. 5e is very hard to keep challenging as opposed to just swingy, unless you have a lot of encounters between rests.)

I only DM 5e, but I have no problem challenging my players. I really don't understand where this idea comes from; however, I have accepted that people play the game differently and they don't use our house rules (which I would have to convert to PF2 if I were to DM that game for my group).

On 4: Yeah, that's a problem we all have, I think. It's a lot harder to get any game going that isn't 5e these days. The method I've used in the past is to offer to run games until I've assembled a core group, then let someone else take over gming. I haven't gotten that far yet (I'm waiting to see if another temp group will solidify) but I'm in three long-running DnD groups formed by this method.

I am not ready to DM a PF2 game with people I don't know. I asked my group to give it a try, but they refused. Now we are on hiatus because of covid-19 (we only play in person).