Pathfinder 2E I think I am giving up on PF2ER

[Justice and Rule]

I've found that people who play Pathfinder are MUCH more likely to be AP-people than homebrew people. Perhaps that's wrong? Even what I've seen from PFS is largely written this way.

I would not use PFS as an example for the reasons @billd91 describes. But I'm sure, compared to other D20 systems, a lot more PF people are AP people because one of Paizo's big strengths is supposed to be their adventures. Hell, I remember running a decent portion of one (Wraith of the Righteous) back when I was running 5E because I didn't like 5E adventures at all. I modified it a bunch, but I'm one of those guys who isn't normally an pre-made adventure guy.

I'm not sure the evolution of a game system put out by a company that is, in many ways, as known for their adventures as their actual RPGs is as separated out as I think you imply here.

Sure, but I also think that modifying AP format and such is something that has been evolving at a slower pace. It's been only recently that they've played around with how many chapters/books their APs are. That aspect of their business is something they are clearly more worried about modifying than the rules, but they are slowing getting there.

 

[Retreater]

So you want to go from level 1-20 with about 20 total combats and 30 non-combat activities?

I don't define a campaign as levels 1-20. The campaign is as long as it takes to finish the story and character arcs.
Let's say 10 levels ... yeah that can be an entire campaign with 50 meaningful events and throw in a couple mindless combats for fun. Sure, that works.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, but I also think that modifying AP format and such is something that has been evolving at a slower pace. It's been only recently that they've played around with how many chapters/books their APs are. That aspect of their business is something they are clearly more worried about modifying than the rules, but they are slowing getting there.

I was suggesting that after a certain point (when they get past the fighting-the-last-war element of early adventure design) that its not unlikely the rules tend to be written to support the AP style as much as the other way around.

 

[Velderan]

I find APs for most systems (but especially D20) are designed in a very specific way for a very specific audience that wants stuff now rather than later. I'm not sure that it talks about how the game necessarily should be played, but rather the sort of people who are more likely to buy pre-made adventures.

It definitely presents a streamlined approach to how to play the game and despite the fact I use Paizo's APs, I don't run them exactly as described. I try to add in some extra descriptions where appropriate to give the players clues on what they're about to run into. There's a bit less room to do that in the current dungeoncrawl I'm running, but I try to describe things the players might hear, see, or smell to give them clues about what else is down in the dungeon.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I was suggesting that after a certain point (when they get past the fighting-the-last-war element of early adventure design) that its not unlikely the rules tend to be written to support the AP style as much as the other way around.

And we do see that in the stuff like the crafting rules and such, as well as the proliferation of healing abilities all around. Paizo is very much big into being able to run their PFS games RAW. Not saying that it works any different, but I think in part the APs are simply much more direct because they are meant to be for people who likely don't have the time investment to create their own dungeons and adventures. I don't think APs are meant to be the style of the game as much as a style of the game, one which it is significantly easier to print adventures for.

 

[payn]

PF1 era I know PFS worked around the 3E legacy items alot. Only going to 12th level, skipping some items, no evil alignment, etc... APs never really went all the way to 20 because of how much space the block eventually took and what you need to challenge a high level party. So, it doesnt surprise me if organized play and APs lead into a lot of deign decisions in PF2. I remember a selling point being that going to level 20 wouldnt be a chore anymore.

 

[Thomas Shey]

PF1 era I know PFS worked around the 3E legacy items alot. Only going to 12th level, skipping some items, no evil alignment, etc... APs never really went all the way to 20 because of how much space the block eventually took and what you need to challenge a high level party. So, it doesnt surprise me if organized play and APs lead into a lot of deign decisions in PF2. I remember a selling point being that going to level 20 wouldnt be a chore anymore.

I will say that after playing two PF2e APs to 20, its clearly less of a horror show to run in the upper third than D&D3e was.

 

[payn]

I will say that after playing to PF2e APs to 20, its clearly less of a horror show to run in the upper third than D&D3e was.

Yeah PF1 remains my favorite, but I dont play it past 12th anymore. I would edit many of the PF1 era APs to end around 12-14.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah PF1 remains my favorite, but I dont play it past 12th anymore. I would edit many of the PF1 era APs to end around 12-14.

Sounds right. My D&D3e game broke down at 14th level because I just couldn't keep all the balls in the air.

 

[Incenjucar]

I don't define a campaign as levels 1-20. The campaign is as long as it takes to finish the story and character arcs.
Let's say 10 levels ... yeah that can be an entire campaign with 50 meaningful events and throw in a couple mindless combats for fun. Sure, that works.

Just divide by 20 then, multiply by however many levels you want to reach.

Do you want a campaign to consist of 1*levels combat and 1.5*levels other activities?

So a four-level campaign is 4 combats and 6 other activities like tracks and wounds?