Pathfinder 2E I think I am giving up on PF2ER

[Velderan]

It occurs to me there is another option: hack up PF2ER and SF2E and glue the pieces back together to get what I want.

So bringing things back to the thread topic, what is it you really like about the PF2e rules? Your complaint seems to be there's just too many rules to remember, which is fair, but I'm curious what stands out to you as making PF2e different from other games.

I know there have been threads before about what would need to be included in a slimmed down version of the game and some basics I've seen are things like 3 action economy, 4 degrees of success, and a crit fail/success being on a roll 10 under/over the target. I'm just curious what someone who seems to like the system, but finds it a bit overwhelming, enjoys about it.

 

[Reynard]

So bringing things back to the thread topic, what is it you really like about the PF2e rules? Your complaint seems to be there's just too many rules to remember, which is fair, but I'm curious what stands out to you as making PF2e different from other games.

I know there have been threads before about what would need to be included in a slimmed down version of the game and some basics I've seen are things like 3 action economy, 4 degrees of success, and a crit fail/success being on a roll 10 under/over the target. I'm just curious what someone who seems to like the system, but finds it a bit overwhelming, enjoys about it.

I like all the things you list. Plus I like that the players have all these options for building the character they want. I like that there are benchmark DCs for skill checks (which help me improvise). I like that there ARE rules for things; what I don't like is that I have to learn all those rules to run the game effectively. I don't like having to learn the game -- or, rather, I don't so far feel like the game is that much better than other games I know that it will be worth learning it for the style of game I tend to run.

And "hacking PF2E and SF2E apart and gluing the bits back together" is not realistic. That means knowing the game well enough to know what you can get rid of.

Mostly, I am just sort of sad to realize that as much as I like the idea of playing PF2E/SF2E and supporting Paizo, they probably aren't actually the game(s) for me.

 

[Staffan]

It is interesting that if we look at WotC's output during 5E, the majority of it has been in the form of adventures. Something changed, it seems.

I think it was a combination of Paizo/Pathfinder showing that adventures can sell well if you make them something to build your campaign around, and the desire to be conservative with new rules options.

The problem with classical modules is that each one is a very niche product – moreso in a level-based game like D&D. For example, Fires of Dis is a Planescape adventure for levels 5 to 9, where you need to be up for pursuing a stolen holy avenger through multiple layers of Baator in order to return it to its proper owner. That's a lot of qualifiers. By comparison, with a full-campaign adventure you start the campaign with the intention of running that adventure to the end, so you get buy-in right away, and each part of the adventure will lead into the next. An adventure where a group of 8th level PCs need to shepherd apprentice wizards and druids put in their care through helping with rebuilding a village after raiding while also exploring the nearby ruins probably wouldn't sell all that well on its own, but it's probably doing fine as part of the Strength of Thousands adventure path.

 

[Reynard]

I think it was a combination of Paizo/Pathfinder showing that adventures can sell well if you make them something to build your campaign around, and the desire to be conservative with new rules options.

The problem with classical modules is that each one is a very niche product – moreso in a level-based game like D&D. For example, Fires of Dis is a Planescape adventure for levels 5 to 9, where you need to be up for pursuing a stolen holy avenger through multiple layers of Baator in order to return it to its proper owner. That's a lot of qualifiers. By comparison, with a full-campaign adventure you start the campaign with the intention of running that adventure to the end, so you get buy-in right away, and each part of the adventure will lead into the next. An adventure where a group of 8th level PCs need to shepherd apprentice wizards and druids put in their care through helping with rebuilding a village after raiding while also exploring the nearby ruins probably wouldn't sell all that well on its own, but it's probably doing fine as part of the Strength of Thousands adventure path.

I had not thought about it before, but it also kind of reflects changes in fantasy and sci-fi fiction in recent decades. There are a couple left, but most of the short fiction markets are gone and anyone can and does write novels that are usually parts of long series. Maybe people just want extended, complete stories. Even episodic TV is much rarer than serial TV these days.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think it was a combination of Paizo/Pathfinder showing that adventures can sell well if you make them something to build your campaign around, and the desire to be conservative with new rules options.

The problem with classical modules is that each one is a very niche product – moreso in a level-based game like D&D. For example, Fires of Dis is a Planescape adventure for levels 5 to 9, where you need to be up for pursuing a stolen holy avenger through multiple layers of Baator in order to return it to its proper owner. That's a lot of qualifiers. By comparison, with a full-campaign adventure you start the campaign with the intention of running that adventure to the end, so you get buy-in right away, and each part of the adventure will lead into the next. An adventure where a group of 8th level PCs need to shepherd apprentice wizards and druids put in their care through helping with rebuilding a village after raiding while also exploring the nearby ruins probably wouldn't sell all that well on its own, but it's probably doing fine as part of the Strength of Thousands adventure path.

Yeah, for all the theoretical plug-and-play capability of classic short-run adventures, they usually require a situational thing that can require some set up and at the end, recovery because of their specificity. There are some exceptions, but making them generically useful also tends to make them pretty bland, so there's only so many of those you can convince people to buy.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I had not thought about it before, but it also kind of reflects changes in fantasy and sci-fi fiction in recent decades. There are a couple left, but most of the short fiction markets are gone and anyone can and does write novels that are usually parts of long series. Maybe people just want extended, complete stories. Even episodic TV is much rarer than serial TV these days.

Even episodic shows tend to generally operate within certain constraints. The only situation a lot of old isolated adventures worked for (and this even excluded some of the odder ones) was widely roving adventurers since they required certain kinds of locales and situations that weren't going to necessarily be compatible with the areas the prior set of locales and situations were. You really needed a Wagon Train/Star Trek set-up where the PCs were in a different place all the time.

 

[payn]

I had not thought about it before, but it also kind of reflects changes in fantasy and sci-fi fiction in recent decades. There are a couple left, but most of the short fiction markets are gone and anyone can and does write novels that are usually parts of long series. Maybe people just want extended, complete stories. Even episodic TV is much rarer than serial TV these days.

I think a lot of it comes down to availability and tech. Television and short fiction were produced around schedules and how folks were available to consume them. Now, you can find stores everywhere including online with the internet. Its easier to run long term serial and capture audiences that can consume at their own pace.

 

[Reynard]

You really needed a Wagon Train/Star Trek set-up where the PCs were in a different place all the time.

Or just the straight up Conan conceit where the adventure starts with the PCs arriving in the new land/city/region/whatever.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Or just the straight up Conan conceit where the adventure starts with the PCs arriving in the new land/city/region/whatever.

Once you step back a bit, those are basically the same thing; the framing is just more overt in the former case.

 

[MerricB]

Yeah, for all the theoretical plug-and-play capability of classic short-run adventures, they usually require a situational thing that can require some set up and at the end, recovery because of their specificity. There are some exceptions, but making them generically useful also tends to make them pretty bland, so there's only so many of those you can convince people to buy.

I've been looking for 13th level 5E adventures to place in a more sandbox environment of my ongoing campaign, and it's really hard. "Oh, this one requires a glacier... pity we're far south", etc.

Most adventures are actually rather specific, even the ones that present sandbox environments. The environment itself may not make sense!

The default European ideal made it easier; the more exotic the setting, the harder it gets.

Cheers,
Merric