Avernus 5e or Age of Ashes P2?

[Moravave]

I haven't run a TTRPG in over a year and I'm thinking of recruiting a new group to run a new campaign.

The last one I ran lasted over a year, combining Phandelver + Storm Kings Thunder until it fizzled out around the middle part of SKT.

I prefer to run a pre-made module - it gives me something to read and explore as well as the players - but I DID have my issues with SKT, especially the middle part. It required a LOT of work on my part, and the book was kind of a pain to navigate. I also felt like it was hard to make the Forgotten Realms interesting, as so much of it felt generic. I hated that many of the names were hard to pronounce, and I especially hated the volcano being named Mount Hotenow.

I have not played PF1 (or 2) but I've always eyed it from afar. Golarian also seems generic but possibly more...fun?

I have also heard that Paizo's adventures are on a whole easier to run? The WOTC ones all seem to have some key element missing to make the whole thing come together.

As for systems, 5e was very easy to run...sometimes too easy? I wouldn't mind a little more crunch as long as its not brain burning math (I'm old enough to remember Rolemaster!)

Sorry if this post is all over the place, just putting it out there to hear peoples thoughts.

 

[aramis erak]

I haven't run a TTRPG in over a year and I'm thinking of recruiting a new group to run a new campaign.

The last one I ran lasted over a year, combining Phandelver + Storm Kings Thunder until it fizzled out around the middle part of SKT.

I prefer to run a pre-made module - it gives me something to read and explore as well as the players - but I DID have my issues with SKT, especially the middle part. It required a LOT of work on my part, and the book was kind of a pain to navigate. I also felt like it was hard to make the Forgotten Realms interesting, as so much of it felt generic. I hated that many of the names were hard to pronounce, and I especially hated the volcano being named Mount Hotenow.

I have not played PF1 (or 2) but I've always eyed it from afar. Golarian also seems generic but possibly more...fun?

I have also heard that Paizo's adventures are on a whole easier to run? The WOTC ones all seem to have some key element missing to make the whole thing come together.

As for systems, 5e was very easy to run...sometimes too easy? I wouldn't mind a little more crunch as long as its not brain burning math (I'm old enough to remember Rolemaster!)

Sorry if this post is all over the place, just putting it out there to hear peoples thoughts.

Not having played PF, but having read both editions...
Golarion is a kitchen sink, somewhat campy in presentation, but not to the total gonzo of Tunnels and Trolls official solos.

PF is a lot more math than 5E. None of it hard math - but lots of discrete (and forgettable) modifiers. Which is precisely why I've never played it. It's why I quit 3.x.

My understanding is that Golarion is also being made available for 5E...

 

[GrahamWills]

PF is a lot more math than 5E. None of it hard math - but lots of discrete (and forgettable) modifiers. Which is precisely why I've never played it. It's why I quit 3.x.

Me too. I found it annoying as heck. But I'm getting back into PF2 because that didn't seem to be much of an issue when we ran the playlets materials. A much smoother and less numeric experience!

Pathfinder generally is thought to write modules much better than WOTC; so if you are happy with both systems, PF2 is likely to be a better module.

 

[Parmandur]

I haven't run a TTRPG in over a year and I'm thinking of recruiting a new group to run a new campaign.

The last one I ran lasted over a year, combining Phandelver + Storm Kings Thunder until it fizzled out around the middle part of SKT.

I prefer to run a pre-made module - it gives me something to read and explore as well as the players - but I DID have my issues with SKT, especially the middle part. It required a LOT of work on my part, and the book was kind of a pain to navigate. I also felt like it was hard to make the Forgotten Realms interesting, as so much of it felt generic. I hated that many of the names were hard to pronounce, and I especially hated the volcano being named Mount Hotenow.

I have not played PF1 (or 2) but I've always eyed it from afar. Golarian also seems generic but possibly more...fun?

I have also heard that Paizo's adventures are on a whole easier to run? The WOTC ones all seem to have some key element missing to make the whole thing come together.

As for systems, 5e was very easy to run...sometimes too easy? I wouldn't mind a little more crunch as long as its not brain burning math (I'm old enough to remember Rolemaster!)

Sorry if this post is all over the place, just putting it out there to hear peoples thoughts.

If Rolemaster was not your cup of tea, might want to stick with 5E.

 

[aramis erak]

If Rolemaster was not your cup of tea, might want to stick with 5E.

Truth is, Rolemaster is conceptually and practically simple, but just lots of 2 digit 4-function math, and uses a lot of tables.

 

[Parmandur]

Truth is, Rolemaster is conceptually and practically simple, but just lots of 2 digit 4-function math, and uses a lot of tables.

Ain't nothing wrong with it: PF2 isn't hard math, either, just lots of it.

 

[Retreater]

I also dropped SKT around the midpoint, and just homebrewed my own ending.
PF1 (and what I've seen of 2E) is way too crunchy for my tastes - and this is coming from someone who ran a lot and designed adventures in the 3.5 era.
I don't think anyone can give you advice about Avernus yet, as it's not been published.
Try all three systems with one-shots to see what fits the best before committing to a campaign.
I haven't seen a campaign written in 2E, 3.xE, 4E, 5E, or PF that ties everything together well. [Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu has done a damn good job with that, though.] So I would recommend after finding your system and a campaign that seems interesting enough for you and your group, that you take a look at reviews and on boards like this one to see if there are any problem areas. Together, we can get it pulled together.

 

[Markh3rd]

If you want to try PF2 then run Fall of Plaguestone instead. It's a good story and not as huge of a commitment as the AP campaign. You're still going to get multiple sessions out of it also and it will ease you into PF2.

If you want to jump back into 5E I'd recommend Ghosts of saltmarsh. Each adventure can be played as a stand alone adventure or you could run them all together. It has areas where you can create your own adventure from the hooks they give you also. Since each adventure has an ending you could stop at any one and still feel like you completed your story.

 

[qstor]

Ain't nothing wrong with it: PF2 isn't hard math, either, just lots of it.

Less math than PF1 your proficiency is your level.

The serious "cut back" of AoO's make combat less complex IMHO. But then I'm a big fan of PF1 and 3.5e

If your group is willing to do PF2 then I'd go Age of Ashes since you want a little more crunch. It's not as daunting as PF1 for a group used to 5e.

 

[Enrico Poli1]

5e adventures are usually sort of mini-setting sandboxes, while Pathfinder's are usually railroady.

That said, from my particular point of view, I love 5e simplicity, as opposed to PF complexity. I simply cannot go back to that quantity of math.

I also love d&d settings, while I don't like Golarion at all. I bet Descent into Avernus will be a wonderful Planescape substitute.