Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="!DWolf" data-source="post: 8105323" data-attributes="member: 7026314">I was responding to your problems to this specific example. If you don’t have problems with the specific example then why did you post your problems with the specific example? [spoiler][/spoiler] Of course I see you struggling! That’s is why I wrote multiple massive posts identifying the problem you are having and offering advice. That’s why I list tons of examples that take ages to type out. Have you not read my posts? Let me recap: I wrote a massive post explaining why gms are struggling. I offered advice that would reduce the struggle. I was asked how to do a stealth mission. I offered advice on how to do that (and clarified when I was misunderstood) and even provided a lengthy example of how a sentry removal mission works.Scroll up a bit (or page back a bit), I wrote a massive post explaining just that. I even pointed the last point out explicitly in another post. I understand this. It is in fact my entire point. Let me reiterate: pf2 is a different game than dnd 5e. People don’t realize that and try to run it using the same playstyle which leads to exactly the problems you are complaining about. Lets us an analogy. Suppose there is a group of shadowrun players (as an example, it could be any appropriate system - it’s an analogy). These players are approaching every run as a bust into the lobby matrix-style and have a massive firefight. As a result most die in every run and so the players go online and ask for advice. A poster points out that maybe they should consider playing the game as the heist/stealth game it was intended to be and it would run a little better. Another poster responds that it is clearly a straight combat game and the poster who offered advice is doing it wrong - then they complain that the rules are broken and it’s a bad game.Why should we listen to that second poster who insists that it is a straight combat game? The game is not working for them - they even state it outright. If what they are doing is not working, why should the group copy them and not look at groups that it is working for?You are assuming that my style is alternative while yours is the intended. Why should we assume that? Let’s post some quotes (from the first part of hellknight hill): [spoiler][/spoiler]Hopefully, it is very clear that my playstyle is well supported by the modules. Thats not all btw - I can keep going. And your argument is bizarre: you are arguing that because a game punishes a specific style that the system is therefore incentivize running  in that style. That is backwards. PF2 players (and players of other asymmetrical-combat style systems), because of the deadliness of combat, are highly motivated to avoid/trivialize encounters.You are posting that, due to how you play, you find stealth and skill use is ineffective. I am arguing that a different way of playing (one fully supported by the rules and modules - see the above quotes where the module literally rewards people for playing this way) would not make them ineffective. To support this I refer you to the example I posted above (which you even agreed with!).You are not forced to play like you are and neither is anyone else. The game doesn’t expect it and neither do the modules - see the above quotes where rewards are literally handed out for playing it with a different style.You are arguing that because it takes a long time to heal, and you find it annoying/contradictory to the module/narrative, that people shouldn’t make a playstyle change (not a mechanics change) where combat is easier (as you yourself pointed out) and the players take less damage and thus healing times are shorter? There is a serious error in that logic.Let’s look at a scenario to illustrate this: suppose the party is dealing with a severe encounter consisting of several goblin-dogs. We will examine what can happen from two different play-styles: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Style 1 (in which the non-combat mechanics are perceived to not work and the only option is combat): the party fights the dogs. They are severely injured and have to take time to recover.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Style 2: the party offers food to the dogs and talks them into being friendly. They then have to do no healing. And they get goblin dogs to help them tackle the dungeon!</li> </ul>Note that by changing the playstyle the problems with the healing rules are negated! You might argue that the odds are too low (and I would disagree with you), but even if you only succeed on average half the time (to use your numbers for convenience) you will still negate the combat half the time and thus have to spend only half the time healing.Edit: towards the end there I was mixing different types of ‘you’ and rereading it made it seem like I was trying to get CapnZapp to adjust their playstyle. That was not what I intended, I wanted to illustrate that the problem they had with the rules was do to their instance on a very strict dnd 5e style play in a system that was not built for it, and I edited it to hopefully make that more clear.</blockquote>

Verification