Pathfinder 2E PF2: Second Attempt Post Mortem

[willrali]

I think Paizo realizes that more people buy their adventures to read them than actually play them, and on the same token, more characters are made for the char-gen mini game than are ever taken to an actual table. This dichotomy ensures there are two factions to the Pathfinder fan-base (the players and the theory-crafters), and the two actively work against each other.

What?

Anyway, it's unfortunate that PF2 didn't work out for you guys. My group of complete newbie players love the system and the stories we're telling with it. Just so much of it is inspirational, the skills and options provide a huge framework for creativity, and the encounters play fast and fun. We just finished Abomination Vaults (I did some tweaking as I do with every module), and everyone had a ball.

YM obviously MV

 

[payn]

I think newbs have an advantage of not having decades of previous system experience that carries preconceived notions and preferences.

 

[prosfilaes]

All legitimate questions, Retreater, but you have to turn it around too: other people run successful XYZ campaigns, and have had time to do so repeatedly now. So if the problem is with the game, how do they do so?

You can say that about almost any XYZ, AD&D 1, AD&D 2, D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5, D&D 4, Pathfinder 1E, Rifts, Palladium Fantasy, etc. The problem is always between the game and the players, but that doesn't mean the game works well for certain, many or most people.

I'm running the Agents of Edgewatch now, and it's not working for me.

On the good side, I like the three action economy. I haven't really built PCs with the system, but I like, at least in theory, the generalizing of feats.

On the bad side, some of it may be my particular group of PCs, but battles are long and grindy and boring. There's more than enough healing for the PCs to outrun any battle; maybe because the earlier levels were occasionally deadly, the PCs have adapted to turtle at level 12.

NPCs aren't built like PCs any more, but that doesn't necessarily help; instead of knowing what a rogue can do, each enemy has bespoke powers. Last night's adventure even had stupid ones; it's a 12th level adventure, why do the NPCs have powers that only work against 11th level or lower characters? I wanted easier to run monsters, but PF2 is not delivering.

The removal of most of the must have magic items, like attribute boosts, doesn't seem have to made magic item choices any more interesting.

It's a somewhat minor thing, but the attribute part of character creation is grossly complex, for what value? If you're worried about minimaxing, give me a stat array, or a choice of a couple stat arrays, and go on.

For the ugly, maybe I haven't learned it well enough, but I feel I've taken a overly complex, crunchy game system I knew, and traded it for a overly complex, crunchy game system I don't know, a jump quite a bit bigger than D&D 3 to Pathfinder, and for little gain. For example, the XP system was changed; why? The book doesn't really help you learn it, from anew or just the differences; the skills section started on page 243. Yes, PF1 was like that, but it was close enough to 3.5 and by now I know PF1.

I've talked with a couple players, and we may jump ship, probably back to PF1, or maybe try out Starfinder for a while.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think newbs have an advantage of not having decades of previous system experience that carries preconceived notions and preferences.

That's bound to be true, but its not the whole picture; in the group I mentioned, three were previously PF1e players pretty regularly, and while I and my wife hadn't done it in a number of years, we'd been involved in a D&D 3e campaign at one time.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You can say that about almost any XYZ, AD&D 1, AD&D 2, D&D 3.0, D&D 3.5, D&D 4, Pathfinder 1E, Rifts, Palladium Fantasy, etc. The problem is always between the game and the players, but that doesn't mean the game works well for certain, many or most people.

Which, if you read what else I wrote to him, was my point. Though the latter part of your sentence can be nothing but speculation without ability to poll people in a fashion that simply doesn't exist.

 

[dave2008]

Thank you for letting us know how things went for you and sorry it doesn't seem to fit you and/or your group. Every system is not for everyone. Good luck with your future gaming!

 

[prosfilaes]

Which, if you read what else I wrote to him, was my point. Though the latter part of your sentence can be nothing but speculation without ability to poll people in a fashion that simply doesn't exist.

"The problem is always between the game and the players, but that doesn't mean the game works well for certain, many or most people." That sentence? No, you don't need polls to figure that out. That's obvious.

Polls would help to figure out how many people the game doesn't work well for, but you're overstating your claim; it's far from impossible to get a gauge on sales figures, usage of online platforms, what's being run at tournaments, etc. It's not the data we might want, but it certainly is data, and rejecting it in order to deny what it might reveal is absurd.

 

[Thomas Shey]

"The problem is always between the game and the players, but that doesn't mean the game works well for certain, many or most people." That sentence? No, you don't need polls to figure that out. That's obvious.

I think at the least the "most" is doing some serious heavy lifting in that sentence that needs more support for it to be taken as a given.

Polls would help to figure out how many people the game doesn't work well for, but you're overstating your claim; it's far from impossible to get a gauge on sales figures, usage of online platforms, what's being run at tournaments, etc. It's not the data we might want, but it certainly is data, and rejecting it in order to deny what it might reveal is absurd.

Accepting it when there are a bunch of factors in most of those that distort it is also absurd. For example, sales figures will end up ignoring that Paizo has its own storefront where a lot of its sales go, so sales from other sources (where a company does not do its own sales) will be distorted. So unless you're willing to go in and account for such things, no, I don't think most available numbers are particularly useful.

(And that's not even getting into the question of what is being compared to: if its 5e or PF1e, that tells you not much of anything since the former drowns the whole rest of the hobby, and the latter was able to take advantage of a particular period and situation that never will occur again to a non-WOTC company most likely).

 

[prosfilaes]

I think at the least the "most" is doing some serious heavy lifting in that sentence that needs more support for it to be taken as a given.

No; if you don't know, you don't know. It could be anywhere from virtually none to virtually all.

Accepting it when there are a bunch of factors in most of those that distort it is also absurd. For example, sales figures will end up ignoring that Paizo has its own storefront where a lot of its sales go, so sales from other sources (where a company does not do its own sales) will be distorted. So unless you're willing to go in and account for such things, no, I don't think most available numbers are particularly useful.

(And that's not even getting into the question of what is being compared to: if its 5e or PF1e, that tells you not much of anything since the former drowns the whole rest of the hobby, and the latter was able to take advantage of a particular period and situation that never will occur again to a non-WOTC company most likely).

This is the most frustrating type of numbers denial, where it doesn't mean anything, but somehow you're already explaining how the numbers are wrong.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No; if you don't know, you don't know. It could be anywhere from virtually none to virtually all.

Correct. Which means if you're going to claim something toward one end or the other, you need to support it or its just a blind claim.

This is the most frustrating type of numbers denial, where it doesn't mean anything, but somehow you're already explaining how the numbers are wrong.

If you select from things that are potentially producing garbage results because you're ignoring context, I don't feel a need to call them anything but potentially producing garbage. If that's frustrating to you, so be it.