Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[Thomas Shey]

I don't understand what you're basing it on, though.

The fact that the scenario designers had spent years working on PF1e adventures and likely thoroughly internalized what those required? Given the same thing happened to one degree or another with both the first few D&D3e and D&D4e advantures (people writing adventures for the assumptions of the prior game, even people who'd been involved in writing the current game) why should I assume the same syndrome isn't present here?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Really!? I've played D&D for 30+ years (1e, 4e, and 5e) and I've never had magic items be a big factor. My 5e group is lvl 15 now and they have very few magic items, like attunement is not an issue at all for my group.

That's very fine for them, but we're still talking about the game system that from the start notoriously dropped so many magic swords people were handing them out to henchmen as better ones came along. "Low magic item" has never described the game; the only difference in later incarnations is that D&D4e and Pathfinder2e actually took the implications of that seriously.

 

[kenada]

I wonder if PF2 might be unusual in that GM variance is more extreme than in other editions -- perhaps other editions are more constraining on GMs, so that experiences there are more uniform? Anyone any thoughts as to why PF2 seems to have more divergent experiences than other editions?

I’m not sure how much it’s GM variance or style variance, but I think there is some truth to this. The groups that seem to have the most trouble are the ones running things the most “by the book”.

Is it a fair assumption that your group isn’t just kicking in the door and fighting what’s on the other side? That is, you’re engaging in exploration mode holistically, and the encounters that happen are influenced by and follow from those activities?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I wonder if PF2 might be unusual in that GM variance is more extreme than in other editions -- perhaps other editions are more constraining on GMs, so that experiences there are more uniform? Anyone any thoughts as to why PF2 seems to have more divergent experiences than other editions?

Wouldn't have a clue. I'm a fair bit into AoA, and while there have definitely been some dangerous points, nothing like the slaughterhouse some people have painted it as.

I'm kind of more prone to suspecting the difference is in players, not GMs, but both are possible.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Is it a fair assumption that your group isn’t just kicking in the door and fighting what’s on the other side? That is, you’re engaging in exploration mode holistically, and the encounters that happen are influenced by and follow from those activities?

There's probably something to this, too; the last combat we had in Age of Ashes would likely have been a lot harder had we not scouted things well first and went in with a cake baked.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I wonder if PF2 might be unusual in that GM variance is more extreme than in other editions -- perhaps other editions are more constraining on GMs, so that experiences there are more uniform? Anyone any thoughts as to why PF2 seems to have more divergent experiences than other editions?

I offered a suggestion a while back that because the math is so tight in PF2 (by design), small differences in the interpretation of the rules (which every DM does and will do forever) tend to have large effects.

The specific example I gave was open rolling (or VTT rolling) vs. hidden rolling for saves. When we played, the DM would only tell me if my spells failed, succeeded or crit succeeded, and Recall Knowledge would only tell me which save was the lowest, not the exact save. So I never knew whether my spells were failing to hit because the monster had good saves or my die rolls were unlucky.

Another example given has been GMs that have combined encounters vs GMs that do not as something that can massively change the difficulty of the game.

 

[CapnZapp]

I was just trying to acknowledge that it’s possible the math isn’t as robust as it’s been postulated.

And I'm just trying to postulate the math itself is robust, except miscalibrated for the low levels.

 

[CapnZapp]

Really!? I've played D&D for 30+ years (1e, 4e, and 5e) and I've never had magic items be a big factor. My 5e group is lvl 15 now and they have very few magic items, like attunement is not an issue at all for my group.

I'm sure Mr Shey shares the rather more default view of D&D as the premiere tabletop game of loot.

 

[CapnZapp]

The fact that the scenario designers had spent years working on PF1e adventures and likely thoroughly internalized what those required? Given the same thing happened to one degree or another with both the first few D&D3e and D&D4e advantures (people writing adventures for the assumptions of the prior game, even people who'd been involved in writing the current game) why should I assume the same syndrome isn't present here?

To me PF2 adventure paths come across as incredibly consistent, as if their writers have had a clear vision/mandate of what they wanted to accomplish. I have zero indication the writers aren't accurately following the written guidelines in the CRB.

My point is not to deny the risk of designers internalizing the wrong thing. My point is instead I find it much more likely that if any mistakes were made they were made once by the encounter guidelines writers (the CRB devs) and not repeatedly by individual AP installment writers.

 

[CapnZapp]

The groups that seem to have the most trouble are the ones running things the most “by the book”.

That, of course, is never a good look for a game...