Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[Retreater]

Please don't confuse "I don't like it" for "it's giving Paizo problems".

Their AP format likely isn't a problem at all. In fact, it has been, and I suspect it continues to be, a solution, in that it has drawn gamers to Paizo especially in the 4E era where WotC adventure writing were at its nadir.

APs might be good sellers (especially to existing fans), but I think they are creating a problem for new GMs of PF2. Here (and elsewhere) I am reading about a variety of GMs having substantial issues with them, the encounters not fitting with the design paradigms of PF2. If they do not do an accurate job of promoting the style of play in PF2, then it's a problem for Paizo moving forward with their current system.
PF1 was in the place where it was able to build upon the 3.x years of development, playtesting, adventures, and a very active 3PP community. PF2 has none of that, and if it's going to reach anywhere close to the widespread adoption of PF1, it must do more than their standard APs.
This could mean producing more "short" APs (like they're doing next year). It might mean that they need to provide more tactics in the adventures to help guide GMs.

 

[CapnZapp]

Extrapolation. Its been a problem that has been observed in edition changeover in the D&D sphere twice running, then dropping away, and the same pattern seems present in the PF2e APs. You're not required to find it compelling, but it seems at least as good an explanation as the one you're suggesting.

Given the cause of the problems previously is not exactly a state secret, suggesting its a common pattern and could be a cause now does not seem exactly a massive reach, since in each case we're talking editions of a game where the game play changed in some serious ways while still showing a continuity of system. This has been true in the transition from AD&D2 to D&D3e, D&D3e to D&D4e, and PF1e to PF2e to a degree that is rarely the case in game edition changeovers (and when it is is often on games that don't do much adventure support anyway).

No it isn't. It's unscientific guesswork.

One theory is based on the particulars of the edition, one isn't.

Except, as I noted, your analysis does not seem to be matching the data from the field.

No, you don't get to characterize anecdotes as "data in the field".

It's a huge stretch to interpret people's experiences as "moderate encounters are noticeably easier on the players in AoE than in AoA or EC", which is what you are effectively saying.

It could just as well be that you're listening to a particular voice which went into the first AP as naive beginners but into the third AP as hardened veterans. That's just more useless speculation of course, but my point that such a "data point" would be irrelevant to assess the veracity of my main claim "a 5E player new to PF2 will have a quite rude awakening, and that this is probably caused by the inflexible CRB guidelines".

So far you haven't taken a single step closer to actually discussing the specifics of Pathfinder 2. It appears just as likely you have actually analyzed the game as just putting your finger up in the air.

Not the reports back I've heard on the subject. Every time I've seen someone talk about problems with APs for PF2e, they've made a clear distinction between the difficulty of Age of Ashes and Extinction Curse and the later APs.

I see no distinct difference in the way encounters are built.

I could ask you to show what you're basing this on, but since I know you are just grasping random voices from the wind, I won't.

See above. A rather large number of people seem to disagree with you in practice. So what's your explanation there?

I'll discuss that with them, not you, thank you very much.

Again, because you're operating on a premise I am not convinced of. I've explained above and previously why.

No you haven't. You keep repeating you have explained, but I keep seeing nothing but hopes and guesses.

If you want to explain why the trendline is people having trouble with the first two APs and not the later ones, I'll listen, but until you do you're making a claim (the one I respond to above) I do not accept.

I certainly don't need your acceptance.

I have provided observations regarding the fundamental nature of the encounter guidelines, specifically how they do not make any special provisions for high or low levels at all despite everything suggesting that the relative power balance between heroes and monsters not staying the same.

If you want to stop responding to my posts, you can do so at any time. I'm not obliged to do so simply because you find my responses annoying.

Annoying? Should your efforts only be a simple attempt to troll me, then please do say so, and I'll gladly give you the last word! At the moment I am assuming your continued participation is an indication that you remain willing to be convinced.

 

[CapnZapp]

APs might be good sellers (especially to existing fans), but I think they are creating a problem for new GMs of PF2. Here (and elsewhere) I am reading about a variety of GMs having substantial issues with them, the encounters not fitting with the design paradigms of PF2. If they do not do an accurate job of promoting the style of play in PF2, then it's a problem for Paizo moving forward with their current system.
PF1 was in the place where it was able to build upon the 3.x years of development, playtesting, adventures, and a very active 3PP community. PF2 has none of that, and if it's going to reach anywhere close to the widespread adoption of PF1, it must do more than their standard APs.
This could mean producing more "short" APs (like they're doing next year). It might mean that they need to provide more tactics in the adventures to help guide GMs.

Paizo is certainly taking their audience for granted. But it's hard to blame them - their entrenched AP format is what sustain them.

I think a much more relevant problem is that WotC has upped the competition considerably since the 4E days. Not only is 5E vastly easier and friendlier to new players. This also means PF2 comes across as significantly more complex and difficult, an assessment the game would not have had if 4E was the competitor. But also how 5E adventures are vastly superior to 4E adventures.

Just saying this to explain why I engaged in this sub-thread. I think a statement such as "I think that Paizo's AP formula will hurt them" is too simplistic and focuses on the one thing that arguably is Paizo's greatest strength. More relevant, I think, is to ask ourselves if that's enough in today's competitive landscape?

(My answer is no, not really. Sure PF2 features exciting combat, but the drawbacks of the edition are considerable and boil down to a huge throwback to an earlier era where complexity was much less unacceptable)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Annoying? Should your efforts only be a simple attempt to troll me, then please do say so, and I'll gladly give you the last word! At the moment I am assuming your continued participation is an indication that you remain willing to be convinced.

Yes. But you seem unwilling to take even the most basic steps to do so.

I'll try again:

If moderate encounters are more dangerous than they appear to be intended to be, why are not a big percentage of people reporting that?

Until you can answer that question, the core of your argument appears to be based on sand and water.

 

[Retreater]

Yes. But you seem unwilling to take even the most basic steps to do so.

I'll try again:

If moderate encounters are more dangerous than they appear to be intended to be, why are not a big percentage of people reporting that?

Until you can answer that question, the core of your argument appears to be based on sand and water.

Can't answer for CapN, but I can say that by the definitions used in the Core Rulebook (and at least in my experience), all encounters seem one step down the line. So that means Moderate-Threat Encounters seem like Severe. For example, if I pushed a Moderate-Threat encounter just a bit, or if some lucky roll didn't happen, etc., the party would have some deaths.
I would also say that there hasn't been a public survey sent out to compile and publish the experiences of PF2 players. So literally the only thing we can go on are our own experiences and those of others who post online. I can say that even on the pro-PF2 Paizo messageboards, it is nearly universally accepted that PF2 is a dangerous system, and without extremely sound tactics groups will be hurt more than they were in 3.x/PF1 or 5e. This is the closest thing we can make as a fact.
If your individual experience differs - it is just that - your individual experience.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Can't answer for CapN, but I can say that by the definitions used in the Core Rulebook (and at least in my experience), all encounters seem one step down the line. So that means Moderate-Threat Encounters seem like Severe. For example, if I pushed a Moderate-Threat encounter just a bit, or if some lucky roll didn't happen, etc., the party would have some deaths.
I would also say that there hasn't been a public survey sent out to compile and publish the experiences of PF2 players. So literally the only thing we can go on are our own experiences and those of others who post online. I can say that even on the pro-PF2 Paizo messageboards, it is nearly universally accepted that PF2 is a dangerous system, and without extremely sound tactics groups will be hurt more than they were in 3.x/PF1 or 5e. This is the closest thing we can make as a fact.
If your individual experience differs - it is just that - your individual experience.

But that's the point; its not just mine. Its been a fairly common response to issues like yours that other people are puzzled by the problem, and in pretty large numbers.

Now, its possible that there's selection bias on where I've seen that, but given I've seen the same kind of preportions on here, Paizo's forum, RPG.net and the RPGPUB, at some point I have to assume a trendline there, since there's no obvious reason to expect that if your problem was the common case you'd see even more of it (since on the whole, people are more likely to post about things that are problems for them than things that are working well).

(I'm not talking here about people for whom a system doesn't suit them for stylistic reasons, since a larger number of those will pre-screen themselves out of the discussion in the first place, but people for whom it theoretically is a good match but hasn't been working because of active problems).

 

[Retreater]

But that's the point; its not just mine. Its been a fairly common response to issues like yours that other people are puzzled by the problem, and in pretty large numbers.

Now, its possible that there's selection bias on where I've seen that, but given I've seen the same kind of preportions on here, Paizo's forum, RPG.net and the RPGPUB, at some point I have to assume a trendline there, since there's no obvious reason to expect that if your problem was the common case you'd see even more of it (since on the whole, people are more likely to post about things that are problems for them than things that are working well).

(I'm not talking here about people for whom a system doesn't suit them for stylistic reasons, since a larger number of those will pre-screen themselves out of the discussion in the first place, but people for whom it theoretically is a good match but hasn't been working because of active problems).

I believe the most common piece of feedback I've seen is that it's a deadly system. If a GM tips the balance by not rolling separate Initiative for all creatures, adds an extra hazard or combatant to a fight, and if the party doesn't play tactically pretty perfect, you're going to all die. And that's been my experience. That's been the experience of many others on the Paizo boards. That was the experience of Cody from Taking20. It's a high lethality system. If you search for threads about Age of Ashes, you'll come across a TPK encounter in book 1 - that is pretty universal. Another common one in book 2.
I personally doubt my ability to run PF2 without getting a TPK in the first session - unless I massively fudge die rolls, run the monsters like idiots, or purposefully design trivial encounters.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You do realize some of those are not the discussion at hand, Retreater? If you've got an encounter balance system, of course things like adding extra hazards and opponents will make an encounter harder. I haven't seen anyone suggest otherwise. And I don't think anyone has argued that there aren't problem areas in Age of Ashes. But some of the others don't seem supported by the general trend (and frankly, having seen discussion on the Taking20 thing, I don't think that says a thing useful).

There are absolutely things that can produce bad outcomes; low engagement players or a sequence of bad enough die rolls (or even worse, both) can create situations where you get that, as can adding in extra opponents and/or hazards without accounting for that. As I've noted before, the latter two are true with most games with encounter calculations that actually mean anything. You can also run into aberrational cases of particular (but unusual) party compositions that will require careful handling.

But there's a big difference between that and "the moderate encounter is too deadly for the average user"; I don't think that's been demonstrated at all, nor have the responses I've seen at any of those four places suggested its the general concensus.

 

[CapnZapp]

To add to what Retreater I'd saying, it's specifically the fact the encounter building guidelines not taking level into account (it's advice is the same for level 1 as for level 18) I pinpoint as the source of this deadliness.

 

[MerricB]

Just saying this to explain why I engaged in this sub-thread. I think a statement such as "I think that Paizo's AP formula will hurt them" is too simplistic and focuses on the one thing that arguably is Paizo's greatest strength. More relevant, I think, is to ask ourselves if that's enough in today's competitive landscape?

The trouble with the idea that the APs are Paizo's greatest strength is that this was the case at the start of Paizo's run with PF. We are a lot of years past that, and Wizards are experimenting with other ways of presenting adventures which are not limited by the six-issue-subscription format.

Wizards have been experimenting with structure significantly, and dividing a campaign adventure into six parts necessarily limits it.

Of course, a significant part of the D&D community does not rely on the adventures published by Wizards (or Paizo).