Pathfinder 2E I think I am giving up on PF2ER

[Reynard]

Forgive me if this has already been asked, but would 13th Age split the difference?

(PF2E and 13th Age are my two F20 games now, so they're the ones I can feel confident recommending).

I don't know much of anything about 13th Age, but I imagine it would be yet another game I would have to relearn the meanings of the same terminology we have been using for decades at this point.

 

[Velderan]

Starfinder 2E might be a bit easier because you're at the start of the cycle, rather than after several big books and a whole remaster. Might help you get over the hump of learning/knowing things by not feeling like you have a whole bunch of "homework", but are starting with everyone else.

I would say that it's also one of those very hard mental blocks to get over that I had for a long time (and still kind of do), where you feel like you have to know all the rules at any given time. Sometimes you roll with things if you can't find it quick and inform everyone that you'll look it up in the future. That might not fly with certain groups, but it does with mine.

That was something I debated how to handle when we first started and we ended up agreeing if we come across something we can't answer by either reading the Foundry tooltip or a single AoN search, we just make something up, I note it's something we need to read more about, and we move on. Next session we recap what we found at the start and if we got it wrong, we use the correct rule going forward. Keeping the game moving forward is more important to us then getting every rule right on the spot.

But yeah, agree completely on starting with SF2e at launch would probably be much easier because there's no remaster to deal with and only 1 rulebook to pick character options from.

 

[Eric V]

I don't know much of anything about 13th Age, but I imagine it would be yet another game I would have to relearn the meanings of the same terminology we have been using for decades at this point.

Maybe? It didn't seem like that much work to my group after we tired of 5e. It's -definitely- looser in play and narrative.

 

[Eric V]

That was something I debated how to handle when we first started and we ended up agreeing if we come across something we can't answer by either reading the Foundry tooltip or a single AoN search, we just make something up, I note it's something we need to read more about, and we move on. Next session we recap what we found at the start and if we got it wrong, we use the correct rule going forward. Keeping the game moving forward is more important to us then getting every rule right on the spot.

Great approach. I am in 2 different PF2E games and we play on Foundry on both and...wow. PF2E runs really smoothly on Foundry. E.g. I am running an Investigator in the Blood Lords AP. I have Undead Slayer as a feat. Foundry always remembers to add the damage from the feat, but additionally remembers the extra damage if the target is a vampire. It remembers when I don't!

A lot of the mental load is offloaded on the VTT.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Something I forgot about that may make me change my mind, at least for a little bit: the whole reason I decided to learn PF2E was that I love Starfinder and want to play SF2E. The playtest rules should be out relatively soon.

Crap. Now I am torn.

Its never easy.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

it is that it is A LOT to learn while still enjoying running it.

You don't need to know everything starting out - internalize the most important items and start playing. There's no shame in quickly looking things up as you go.

You shouldn't have to learn everything on your own. Your players should be putting in equivalent effort to learn to play rather than relying on you to know everything.

I recommend playing the beginner box as your introduction if you aren't doing that.

 

[Justice and Rule]

That's making the assumptions that their sales numbers were trending downward, and that that's what prompted them to work on PF2 to begin with.

I believe they had stated as such with the release of PF2, saying that they could see the writing on the wall if they didn't do something different because sales were starting to trail off. I can't find it right now because Google sucks, but I know they have basically stated so in the past.

 

[Pedantic]

Yeah I can understand that, at the same time I can see why Paizo did it. After 5E launch, PF1 was basically a much more complicated version. PF2, however, stands out in a lot of ways to differentiate it from D&D currently. Being not just a but thee alternative to D&D puts the pressure on. As opposed to when 4E was on the scene and Paizo could rest on that keeping alive yesterday's game position.

Arguably the PF2 remaster actually is this kind of iterative small update and I'm just bitter because I really don't care for PF2.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I will say that the youngins I used to play 5E with have converted over to playing an in-person version of PF2 with like a 6-person party. There are a decent amount of open Pathbuilder instances, but several of them still use sheets.

 

[payn]

Arguably the PF2 remaster actually is this kind of iterative small update and I'm just bitter because I really don't care for PF2.

Iterative? You and 5E fans both. Kidding aside, the remaster was really just the right opportunity. For example, without the OGL fiasco, I dont think it would be happening right now.