Pathfinder 2E Is It Time for PF2 "Essentials"?

[Thomas Shey]

I

An approach to the game rules that stripped down the raw number of power PCs get, but focused on making each feat meaningful & significant, would be favorable in my mind. But unfortunately I think there is an implicit friction between meaningful & significant choices and the Pathfinder 2 system objective of reducing the amount of system mastery (relative to PF1) needed to create an effective character. Because the former implies some characters are significantly more efficient at given tasks than others, the PF2 design philosophy doesn't permit it.

Well, I'd argue that's intrinsic in wanting the benefit of capable engagement with the rules to land while in-play and not so much in character generation (not that PF2e is entirely immune to the latter, but its far less severe than it was in D&D3 or PF1e). That's another case of two pieces of rope not meeting in the middle.

 

[Zardnaar]

I would still be in the market for a fixed 3.5.

Something like SWSE with bounded accuracy.

Whatever PF2 is left me cold/not interested.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think I'm just going to join in suggesting that the OP's premise is kind of faulty from the get-go, and given that any answer to the question he poses is to one degree or another, a counter-factual.

The discussion is much more interesting if you accept his premise. It might not be true, but then we can discuss how such a game would look like.

The discussion "should we even be allowed to have this discussion?" on the other hand, is incredibly repetitive and has destroyed many ENWorld threads already.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes, but notice his suggestion is "a revised, streamlined PF2". If that's the suggestion, it requires support that "streamlining" would actually help, when the detail and involvement is already a big part of setting PF2e apart from D&D 5e; expanding your market by trying to fish in the pond already dominated by a bigger player is almost always a fool's game. Its like the people who suggest the Hero System would do better if it was simplified, when the truth is, games serving a similar purpose but simpler already have that part of the market (Savage Worlds for example), so why would someone assume this is somehow going to help?

Essentially, you have to ask yourself what underserved part of the market that is supposed to pick up.

Thank you for engaging on the interesting half (I thought I would have to skip many more posts than I did).

I think Paizo has written a game that's incredibly far up its own arse. It is incredibly hard to love if you aren't into a very specific sort of highly detailed combat simulator.

Most game revisions or "streamlinings" such as 3.5 or 4E Essentials doesn't change the fundamental approach, and so fail to meaningfully attract a new customer base. What I think Paizo would need to do to attract more customers is not only to shed a huge load of clutter (but that is a required step too), but also to show, not tell, they're capable of offering other sorts of adventures than the highly regimented adventure paths.

These adventure paths, when you strip away the particulars, all the same: they offer 20 levels of 12 encounters of 4 monsters each (on average). There is a very railroaded story that shunts you from encounter to encounter. Sometimes you are given the illusion of choice, more often you aren't.

Everything is incredibly tied down and there can be no upsets since that would wreck the balance. No magic item is ever truly magical. They provide the necessary upgrade and nothing more. You have millions of small game features that add +1 to one corner of your character, but you are not trusted with any of the big decisions.

Everything is geared toward one thing and one thing only: creating interesting - and challenging - death matches in the ring. And for every (20-level) AP, you will be having 240 of them. Too few, and you fall behind a level and you die.

I therefore believe a PF2.5 would be a mistake. What would be needed is a game that finally(!) asks the question "why was 5E such a huge success?" and then offers more of that, only not as simplified. A game that looses the grip on character fundamentals. A game that offers other kinds of adventures.

 

[transmission89]

The discussion is much more interesting if you accept his premise. It might not be true, but then we can discuss how such a game would look like.

The discussion "should we even be allowed to have this discussion?" on the other hand, is incredibly repetitive and has destroyed many ENWorld threads already.

Alternatively make a thread with that actual question rather than begging it on every other thread.
The discussion here is: is it time for pf2 essentials. And like most threads boil down to : yes, because I posed the question, no, I disagree and maybe that or something?

 

[CapnZapp]

The people who want to play Pathfinder 2 but find the organization of the core rules in need of improvement, the writing bloated, the conditions easily streamlined, etc.

Amen, brother.

PF2 is excruciatingly obviously still in draft form, especially if you compare it to the competition. It would benefit hugely from an editing pass from an editor given permission to throw out any baggage, kill any sacred cow, and really go to town on the myriad of cluttery little things called feats.

 

[CapnZapp]

4e Essentials was a disaster of a product, and 4e itself was a disaster.

Amen to that.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think they didn't do that because, again, for the most part, other games have that covered. Going completely outside the D&D-sphere set of expectations was going to require them to try and come up with not only a game system, but setting conceits that somehow outsold all the other non-D&D fantasy games out there. I suspect strongly their market share would be even smaller had they done that, unless they just happened to get lightning in a bottle--and that's not something a big player like Paizo is likely to count on.

Absolutely. Going "outside the D&D sphere" would have doomed them to insignificance.

What never ceases to amaze me is the number of publishers who sincerely believe they can shift the market's tastes. They start out with d20 and then offer up Numenera or Blue Rose or whatever.

The answer remains the same: not interested. What we want is a modern game but once that plays much the same stories as Gygax did.

So Paizo was entirely right to stick to the Forgotten Realms Golarion. It's just that they vastly overestimate how badly traumatized gamers are by 3E/PF1 imbalance. Sure balance in that game was bad, but not worth the straight-jacket that is PF2 balance.

Since PF2 balance actively interferes with my ability to tell stories, it's too much.

 

[CapnZapp]

I wanted to add my two cents that I would be on board with a "Pathfinder 2 Essentials." However the caveat I feel like I would have with this is that I think the scope of changes I'd like to see with PF2 Essentials would probably be outside of the realm of what they are likely to introduce.

Yes. Or in other words, what PF2 needs is "more than just a revision".

(On the other hand, those trying to use this argument to control discussion to only imho uninteresting revisions of the game needs to chill out)

I've been playing PF2 for over a year now, and I feel like it is too highly focused on ensuring mathematical game balance over presenting a coherent narrative experience.

This.

An approach to the game rules that stripped down the raw number of power PCs get, but focused on making each feat meaningful & significant, would be favorable in my mind.

Are you me?

 

[CapnZapp]

But often they have a new setting that they make a big deal about that avoids some of the common monsters and adds new ones--and for the most part, people still don't want to play them. Nor do they seem to be that interested in many fantasy games derived from other systems such as BRP or Storyteller, at least on the scale a company like Paizo will care about.

The long and the short of it is I'm unconvinced that the same system used for PF2e with a new, less D&D-traditional setting would have somehow done notably better, and very well might have done considerably worse.

I absolutely agree.

"It's D&D but with more lion men" is just not a captivating pitch. So many times this have been tried, and still nothing is learned...