Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Retreater" data-source="post: 9374384" data-attributes="member: 42040">So I've been running 4E weekly for about 6 months now - and another group of PF2 weekly for over a year. Here's my take. Both systems basically have well-balanced encounters, and you can't balance encounters without an assumption of the power of the characters. That means there is a baseline of power among all the classes &amp; most abilities reset between encounters.This leads to a feeling of a miniatures skirmish game - like Warcry, Mordheim, or Necromunda. However, what makes those games enjoyable is that for most battles - both sides are evenly matched and its competitive. Where this style of play breaks down for RPGs like 4E or PF2, is that you're probably not playing your skirmish game 4-5 hours a session every week for more than a year. And the resolution of the battle isn't a foregone conclusion. In 4E and PF2, a GM is supposed to offer a thrilling tactical experience that gives the illusion of danger, but clearly the party is going to win 99.9% of the time with the loss of 25% of its resources.To me, this gameplay loop feels soulless and repetitive. It's been a major source of my burnout - I feel so limited in my creativity. I can't run a mystery in 4E - all the monsters are designed to be balanced, defeated in a combat with 2 skirmishers, 1 brute, 1 solider, and 4 minions (or whatever). Sure, I can run a Skill Challenge to discover the identity of the Lycanthrope hiding in the village - but is the party going to feel any threat to their characters when confronting him? And if they don't feel that threat in the combat, how can the lead-up investigation have any tension?&nbsp;&nbsp; In PF2E, save a Hero Point and you're immortal. At the end of the fight, take 15 minutes and you're back to full HP. There are no consequences in these games.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Retreater, post: 9374384, member: 42040"] So I've been running 4E weekly for about 6 months now - and another group of PF2 weekly for over a year. Here's my take. Both systems basically have well-balanced encounters, and you can't balance encounters without an assumption of the power of the characters. That means there is a baseline of power among all the classes & most abilities reset between encounters. This leads to a feeling of a miniatures skirmish game - like Warcry, Mordheim, or Necromunda. However, what makes those games enjoyable is that for most battles - both sides are evenly matched and its competitive. Where this style of play breaks down for RPGs like 4E or PF2, is that you're probably not playing your skirmish game 4-5 hours a session every week for more than a year. And the resolution of the battle isn't a foregone conclusion. In 4E and PF2, a GM is supposed to offer a thrilling tactical experience that gives the illusion of danger, but clearly the party is going to win 99.9% of the time with the loss of 25% of its resources. To me, this gameplay loop feels soulless and repetitive. It's been a major source of my burnout - I feel so limited in my creativity. I can't run a mystery in 4E - all the monsters are designed to be balanced, defeated in a combat with 2 skirmishers, 1 brute, 1 solider, and 4 minions (or whatever). Sure, I can run a Skill Challenge to discover the identity of the Lycanthrope hiding in the village - but is the party going to feel any threat to their characters when confronting him? And if they don't feel that threat in the combat, how can the lead-up investigation have any tension? In PF2E, save a Hero Point and you're immortal. At the end of the fight, take 15 minutes and you're back to full HP. There are no consequences in these games. [/QUOTE]

Verification