Pathfinder 2E Leveling Up

[Aldarc]

Compared to the hype around 3.5 and PF, the changes are absolutely massive.

That this still feels "familiar" is instead a testament to 5e's success, and more to my point, shines a stark light on the failure of 3.5 and PF to live up to the respective hype.

Huh? I don't think either 3.5 or PF1 were meant to solve what you think they were. They were never meant to be the "edition jumps" like you are apparently imagining them to be or berating them for not being. The key difference is that PF2 is an edition jump.

 

[bmfb1980]

A wise man once said... "the more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain".

I am one of those originals who played when D&D first came out, migrated to AD&D and have spent a small fortune and thousands of hours playing. I realize that every generation has to modify what exists, and companies have to churn out "improved" versions to generate sales and stay alive.... but really this is all about "fantasy RPG" and if you get bogged down in all these insidious details, you don't realize just how much you lose in fun and great gameplay. It's fantasy RPG, not rocket science, theorhetical physics, or even a class in calculus. Another wise man told us of the "KISS" principle, which should be the guiding providence of RPG's.

The decline of people playing is in part due to technology, but it's also the makers of these games. They're just not fun anymore to kids, who are the ones to market to as they are the future of your game. RPG should not be treated like a common app from iTunes or Google, where every 2 weeks you get a new version and update.

Bottom line.... I'll bet a group playing from my set of books will have an infinitely more enjoyable time than a group following these new philosophies of gaming. And while you're all arguing over exquisite points of minutia.... we will have already set out and explored quite a few dungeons and maybe even a campaign.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Charlaquin]

The decline of people playing is in part due to technology, but it's also the makers of these games. They're just not fun anymore to kids, who are the ones to market to as they are the future of your game. RPG should not be treated like a common app from iTunes or Google, where every 2 weeks you get a new version and update.

What decline of people playing? Tabletop RPGs are in the middle of a massive resurgence, thanks mainly to technology making them more accessible. Also, marketing to “the future audience of your game” was the folly of 4e. Tabletop RPGs are in the unfortunate situation of requiring a significant onboarding process to get involved in, which generally needs to be facilitated by an experienced player. 4e was a great game that did incredibly well with new gamers, but failed with experienced players, which made it more difficult than it should have been for those new players it did resonate with to find groups to play with. These games need to appeal both to kids and to the old guard to succeed.

 

[bmfb1980]

lol longevity (the length of time I've been alive and playing these games) assures me that there is a decline. You were not part of the time when everyone was playing D&D, and all the mothers were talking about it, and all the news could talk about was kids playing D&D.... so yes, compared to that, it's a decline. To illustrate, imagine if in today's news, every time you hear "Trump"... you replaced it with "Dungeons and Dragons". THAT was a popular game. Not what it is now - only for a small, dedicated (fanatical?) group to follow. The original - and only - RPG was Dungeons and Dragons, and almost every kid knew something about it or played it.

A "massive resurgence" is good, if that means that people are leaving their phones and gadgets behind and sequestering themselves in a room for hours... devoting themselves to a good session. Somehow I don't see that happening. And last I heard (yesterday?)... Toys R Us is closing all 800 of their stores. Ironic, since this is how most people purchased and were exposed to "tabletop" games.... Sounds like a renaissance to me! I'm just saying it's not as rosy as the marketing wizards would have one believe.

You used the modern HR buzzword "onboarding".... which for me signifies a beaurocratic mentality. Not a gaming one for sure, and that managerial/beaurocratic/marking attitude is indeed what killed the game I agree.

There is, and never was an "onboarding" process. It's a re-branding and made-up word by millennials so they didn't have to say the word "LEARNING". All games, not just RPG, require a learning curve and a period of learning. Gasp.... that's exactly my original point... that all these 4e, 5e, 2XXXL, S, M, L designations and infinitely complex rules... HAVE DESTROYED the genre. Ask your grandparents, who will confirm that it's always better when things are simpler... The reason why 4e failed was because they changed... everything. Fatal flaw. Of course the new fish would like it as they didn't know anything else. And the experienced players should have adapted and adjusted - they are DM's right? and have the ability to ignore anything or make anything a rule. (Unless in these newfangled games, DM's are nothing more than observers...)

I remember the glory days. Otis, Gygaxx... whole weekends spent chasing down the hill giants, frost giants, fire giants... transforming into months later deep in the bowls of the earth in a forgotten drow city, only to wind up on the abyss somewhere.

What you have today is a pale shadow of what was. The imagination, creativity, and COMMUNICATION have all been taken away... replaced with rules, version numbers, and thus made sterile by comparison.

Again, my 2 cents. YMMV, but I've been around since Gygaxx put pen to paper. I do know some things... and you should be able to play the game with a simple character sheet, a basic/advanced rulebook or two, and a creative and compelling DM. Anything more is completely unnecessary and kills the game, as modern numbers show.

as I stated earlier... "really this is all about "fantasy RPG" and if you get bogged down in all these insidious details, you don't realize just how much you lose in fun and great gameplay. It's fantasy RPG, not rocket science, theorhetical physics, or even a class in calculus. Another wise man told us of the "KISS" principle, which should be the guiding providence of RPG's."

 

[Charlaquin]

lol longevity (the length of time I've been alive and playing these games) assures me that there is a decline. You were not part of the time when everyone was playing D&D, and all the mothers were talking about it, and all the news could talk about was kids playing D&D.... so yes, compared to that, it's a decline. To illustrate, imagine if in today's news, every time you hear "Trump"... you replaced it with "Dungeons and Dragons". THAT was a popular game. Not what it is now - only for a small, dedicated (fanatical?) group to follow. The original - and only - RPG was Dungeons and Dragons, and almost every kid knew something about it or played it.

Even if we are to accept the premise that there are fewer people playing tabletop RPGs now than there were when D&D originally came out (which I still say is dubious, but whatever), there are more playing now than there were 10 years ago. And the game isn’t just for small fanatical following any more. It’s absolutely mainstream again.

A "massive resurgence" is good, if that means that people are leaving their phones and gadgets behind and sequestering themselves in a room for hours... devoting themselves to a good session. Somehow I don't see that happening.

No true Scotsman fallacy. Because more people are playing D&D online through virtual tabletops and voice and video chat services does not mean those people aren’t playing D&D. Just because you have a bugbear with all this newfangled technology ruining good old fashioned fun doesn’t mean the millions of people playing the game have the same hangup.

And last I heard (yesterday?)... Toys R Us is closing all 800 of their stores. Ironic, since this is how most people purchased and were exposed to "tabletop" games.... Sounds like a renaissance to me! I'm just saying it's not as rosy as the marketing wizards would have one believe.

Seriously? Who buys gaming books at Toys R Us? Even people who insist on buying physical books from physical retailers buy them from game stores and hobby shops, maybe book stores in a pinch. The rest of us use Amazon and DrivethruRPG. Toys R Us was a terrible place to go to get RPG books.

You used the modern HR buzzword "onboarding".... which for me signifies a beaurocratic mentality. Not a gaming one for sure, and that managerial/beaurocratic/marking attitude is indeed what killed the game I agree.

There is, and never was an "onboarding" process. It's a re-branding and made-up word by millennials so they didn't have to say the word "LEARNING".

Oh, goody, we’re bickering about word choice now? Sorry my vocabulary is too “be beaurocratic” for you. It’s hard to learn. Not just because of the rules, but because tabletop RPGs are so different from other forms of gaming, they can be hard to wrap one’s head around before they’ve seen it in action. This is another barrier that technology is beginning to break down, thanks to live streaming games like Critical Role allowing people to see what this D&D thing is all about without having to be shown by someone who already plays.

All games, not just RPG, require a learning curve and a period of learning. Gasp.... that's exactly my original point... that all these 4e, 5e, 2XXXL, S, M, L designations and infinitely complex rules... HAVE DESTROYED the genre. Ask your grandparents, who will confirm that it's always better when things are simpler...

If everything is better when things are simpler, why did you make the switch to AD&D from original/basic D&D? You want to talk about over complicated rules, AD&D puts all of the WotC editions to shame in terms of complexity. And yet, somehow, it was still popular. Almost as if complexity doesn’t actually ruin the game.

Here’s the truth: complexity is the currency with which you buy depth. Simpler is indeed better, but deeper is also better. You want a deeper system of rules, you need more complexity. But you should be economical about your complexity. There needs to be a worthwhile tradeoff in terms of depth.

The reason why 4e failed was because they changed... everything. Fatal flaw. Of course the new fish would like it as they didn't know anything else. And the experienced players should have adapted and adjusted - they are DM's right? and have the ability to ignore anything or make anything a rule. (Unless in these newfangled games, DM's are nothing more than observers...)

It’s not “because they didn’t know anything else” that the newer gamers liked 4e. We had 3.5 and Pathfinder to compare to, and some of us even went looking at the TSR editions. And D&D wasn’t the only game on the market any more, we had other games to compare to as well. We had plenty of knowledge, what we didn’t have was expectations of what D&D should look like. 4e failed because it didn’t appeal to the experienced gamers that serve as a gateway for new players. It therefore didn’t reach as many new gamers as it could have, and it made it hard for those of us who did discover it to find groups to play it with. And yes, that did happen because of how much it changed.

I remember the glory days. Otis, Gygaxx... whole weekends spent chasing down the hill giants, frost giants, fire giants... transforming into months later deep in the bowls of the earth in a forgotten drow city, only to wind up on the abyss somewhere.

You say that like we don’t do exactly that today. We do.

What you have today is a pale shadow of what was. The imagination, creativity, and COMMUNICATION have all been taken away... replaced with rules, version numbers, and thus made sterile by comparison.

I’m sorry, have you read the AD&D rules? Because they’re far more complicated than any modern edition. And no, the imagination isn’t gone from the game.

Again, my 2 cents. YMMV, but I've been around since Gygaxx put pen to paper. I do know some things... and you should be able to play the game with a simple character sheet, a basic/advanced rulebook or two, and a creative and compelling DM.

That is still all you need to play the game.

Anything more is completely unnecessary and kills the game, as modern numbers show.

Modern numbers don’t show that at all, and just because more isn’t necessary doesn’t mean more can’t be enjoyable.

as I stated earlier... "really this is all about "fantasy RPG" and if you get bogged down in all these insidious details, you don't realize just how much you lose in fun and great gameplay. It's fantasy RPG, not rocket science, theorhetical physics, or even a class in calculus. Another wise man told us of the "KISS" principle, which should be the guiding providence of RPG's."

K.I.S.S. is a good principle for guiding RPG design, but it lacks nuance to be the sole guiding principle. Rather, the goal should be to find the best possible ratio of depth to complexity.

 

[bmfb1980]

Spoken like someone who can only guess what the past was like. Youth is indeed wasted on the young... well I understand your position as I was once a 20-something and thought I knew everything. And as every father and grandfather comes to know and understand... you really don't know anything and will regret in your later years that you truly did not embrace the wisdom of those before you.

All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.

I've been a technical engineer all my life, and thank you very much, I prefer to leave all the insidious details to work and enjoy my fun without them. So yes, I was born on those AD&D books you find so amusing, and while original D&D was simpler, it was also totally unfettered and got boring when everyone advanced to level 100+. That was the only thing wrong with it. With AD&D, you had to actually work to go up in level. And the rules, though more complicated by D&D standards, are NOTHING to the thousands of pages of rules that have been added since (basic math will tell you that, 230 pages is less than or equal to how-many thousands lol)... you are completely in the wrong suggesting old AD&D is more complicated than any modern edition!!!!!!!!!!! You've obviously never actually played a long-term campaign by an expert DM with 2nd ed rulesets... indeed you couldn't do that if all you are used to is patching some online things together.

If TSR didn't need to increase sales, I don't think there would have been any further editions beyond the 2nd ed. It was that good, and everything else after that diminished and diluted the original. They should have given it a new name as it was never the same.

The point that you think it completely "normal" and "good" that everyone goes online to play a game meant for in-person interaction... is indicative of the times. But that doesn't mean it's better. That message is repeated ad nauseam by social pundits and commentators and scientists, who easily point out shortfalls of your digital life. You should pay attention, and try something like it was supposed to be... you might like and prefer it. It should be easy now, since as you say, millions and millions are now playing right? Just like in the past, when you could easily find a group of people in your hometown to get together and play... I'm sure you can easily go to your hometown and find just as many people today right? Um, not. You can't find anyone locally to play today, and have to use the crutch of a digital community to find a group of players. That is the truth... and yes, backs my earlier comment about the numbers being DOWN instead of up. yes, when you start counting the entire connected world... your numbers will appear to be "UP" but that is statistical manipulation. (more of that beaurocratical mindset, but I wont' go there...) so rail against me all you want, and proclaim with all the trumpets on high just how wonderful and magical your digital, connected, virtual game is.... but some actually know just how different and diluted it is compared to what was. That's the difference between steamy youth and wisdom/experience.

I'm happy you are so passionate about defending your modern digital philosophy and gaming style. I REALLY AM HAPPY FOR YOU! Please understand that. It's a good thing. but take the blinders and rose-colored glasses off please. I'm just as digital as you, but prefer to see my Mona Lisa's in person, and not in a chatroom or facebook page.... which is essentially what you are doing. You say the original, the classics.. are no better than your digital, depthless, modern counterparts. Beethoven is better heard on my iPod than in a symphony hall, according to your logic! LOL LOL LOL LOL. Ahhh, thanks for making me grin with amusement on that one.

Completely delusional... ah, the joys of youth!

 

[bmfb1980]

Because more people are playing D&D online through virtual tabletops and voice and video chat services does not mean those people aren’t playing D&D. Just because you have a bugbear with all this newfangled technology ruining good old fashioned fun doesn’t mean the millions of people playing the game have the same hangup.

Ah... that implies that you have the experience of actually doing it both ways... which you don't or you'd agree it's just not the same... because they just aren't lol. again, iPod Beethoven vs. Symphony Beethoven.

Seriously? Who buys gaming books at Toys R Us? Even people who insist on buying physical books from physical retailers buy them from game stores and hobby shops, maybe book stores in a pinch. The rest of us use Amazon and DrivethruRPG. Toys R Us was a terrible place to go to get RPG books.

Toys R Us is an example, and yes, you could get those things there. Before your time. And ever hear of Barnes & Noble? Ah wait... you mention your Amazon (I have no clue what DrivethruRPG is though). It's the digital curse that destroyed the places where these books were sold. Your hobby stores are next btw. Just the way things are now.

... because tabletop RPGs are so different from other forms of gaming, they can be hard to wrap one’s head around before they’ve seen it in action. This is another barrier that technology is beginning to break down, thanks to live streaming games like Critical Role allowing people to see what this D&D thing is all about without having to be shown by someone who already plays.

God, that just goes to show how stupid kids are these days lol. Um, I started playing when I was 10. Understood the concept just fine, because I had an imagination. Didn't need a digital interface to make something for me as I used my mind. When I was a little older... my younger brothers and the younger siblings of my friends also picked it up JUST fine. And spun off into their own groups. Imagine that.... we must have all been child progenies, if these tabletop RPG's are SOOOO difficult to learn and warp one's head around... can't imagine any child wondering what a knight, mage, or dragon looks like on his own...

If everything is better when things are simpler, why did you make the switch to AD&D from original/basic D&D? You want to talk about over complicated rules, AD&D puts all of the WotC editions to shame in terms of complexity. And yet, somehow, it was still popular. Almost as if complexity doesn’t actually ruin the game.

Here's your No true Scotsman fallacy. Having actually played both D&D and AD&D... there were some rule additions 'tis true. But nothing compared to AD&D versus where we are now (5, or 1,000 who knows). People adopted the new game because it was actually playable. They adapted. Just like you do today with your digital lifestyle. You know what you know, and you like it. Doesn't mean it's better than the past. Or less complicated. People still have the choice, and since they're lazy, everyone does the digital as it's more convenient. Again, doesn't make it better... just more convenient.

There is absolutely NO substitute playing the old way, with the old philosophy. But to each his own. Everyone has a right to enjoy their own ignorance, including me. I just sprinkle mine with some wisdom (not by choice).

See, I can do the fancy quote thingy too...

 

[bmfb1980]

All I'm asking for is a nod to the old games, and they way they were played. Why is it so hard for youth to respect the elder ways?

OMG... dude I have to really thank you for educating me on http://www.drivethrurpg.com. AWESOME.

I already have all the original books and modules (literally), many of them signed by the authors and have always wanted to digitize them. I actually have meticulously typed about half my collection, including scanning the original artwork... into PDF's for my own use... there are some benefits to a digital world as this is a GYNORMOUS timesaver.

You still don't get my point that having played both ways, it is better in person, and better when you don't need a spreadsheet to track all the skills, abilities, and whatnots. Just like dinner with your family. Put down the smart phones and actually enjoy your dinner and have conversation. Shut down your video chats, actually get together in person... and play.

I'll acquiesse and let you play with whatever complicated set of rules you want. Ironically, in the true spirit of the original D&D game where anything is possible, your 5th ed rules still apply in my 2nd ed world (except when I choose to override them).

Btw, I've been a contributing author for about 30 years to WofC and before that, TSR. Voicing my disapproval some aspects (ie. new rules) for newer editions is nothing new to corporate...

 

[Campbell]

5e is far from being my favorite role playing game or even edition of D&D. Still I would never insinuate that is a hard game to learn. The Dungeons and Dragons and Drafts group I go to from time to time is teaching new players every week. I have never seen new players get the game so easily. A few weeks ago I someone brand new to role playing games created a Half Elf Sorcerer in 10 minutes and played it with aplomb.

 

[Charlaquin]

Spoken like someone who can only guess what the past was like. Youth is indeed wasted on the young... well I understand your position as I was once a 20-something and thought I knew everything. And as every father and grandfather comes to know and understand... you really don't know anything and will regret in your later years that you truly did not embrace the wisdom of those before you.

All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.

Way to put words in my mouth, dude. I don’t pretend to know everything, nor do I ignore the advice of those who came before me. Just because I have a different perspective than you does not mean I am ignoring yours, or that I think mine is infallible. How about we leave the ad homenim aside and focus on the actual arguments being made.

I've been a technical engineer all my life, and thank you very much, I prefer to leave all the insidious details to work and enjoy my fun without them. So yes, I was born on those AD&D books you find so amusing,

Never said I find them “amusing.” There’s a lot to like in both classic D&D and AD&D, and I have only respect for the trail they blazed.

and while original D&D was simpler, it was also totally unfettered and got boring when everyone advanced to level 100+. That was the only thing wrong with it.

So, I’m other words, the added depth of AD&D was worth the added complexity for you. Depth is good. Complexity is bad. But depth always comes with some amount of complexity. The key is to get the most depth you can out of the least complexity you can.

With AD&D, you had to actually work to go up in level. And the rules, though more complicated by D&D standards, are NOTHING to the thousands of pages of rules that have been added since (basic math will tell you that, 230 pages is less than or equal to how-many thousands lol)...

5th Edition has 320 pages in the players handbook, not thousands. And while yes, 230 is a larger number than 230, that’s a poor indicator of complexity. What matters is what’s actually on those pages. Formatting and content play a big role.

you are completely in the wrong suggesting old AD&D is more complicated than any modern edition!!!!!!!!!!! You've obviously never actually played a long-term campaign by an expert DM with 2nd ed rulesets...

Sorry, but in AD&D there are a dozen or so separate subsystems for resolving different tasks. If I want to know if my character succeeds at bending the bars of a prison door, there’s a specific dice roll and table for that. If I want to pick the lock there’s a separate system for that. If I want to break the lock by hitting it with a weapon there’s a separate system for that. In any edition from 3.0 up, all of those actions and anything else I can think of are resolved by rolling a d20, applying a modifier, and trying to beat a target number. The base system is far, far less complex. Granted, options bloat can add a lot of complexity for not much depth. There’s a reason I tend to run my games out of the core books only, and it’s not because I don’t want to buy the splat books (which I usually do).

indeed you couldn't do that if all you are used to is patching some online things together.

And it’s clear you’ve never played a game online if “patching some online things together” is what you think it looks like. But again with the words in my mouth. I have both played and run games both online and in person. I prefer in person when it’s possible but there are benefits and drawbacks of both, chief among them being ease of coordinating schedules.

If TSR didn't need to increase sales, I don't think there would have been any further editions beyond the 2nd ed. It was that good, and everything else after that diminished and diluted the original. They should have given it a new name as it was never the same.

K

The point that you think it completely "normal" and "good" that everyone goes online to play a game meant for in-person interaction... is indicative of the times. But that doesn't mean it's better.

Never said it was better.

That message is repeated ad nauseam by social pundits and commentators and scientists, who easily point out shortfalls of your digital life. You should pay attention, and try something like it was supposed to be... you might like and prefer it.

Again, I have played and run online and in person. In person is preferable when it’s possible but it is not always possible, and there are other advantages to playing online as well, which I take full advantage of when in person isn’t possible.

It should be easy now, since as you say, millions and millions are now playing right? Just like in the past, when you could easily find a group of people in your hometown to get together and play... I'm sure you can easily go to your hometown and find just as many people today right? Um, not. You can't find anyone locally to play today, and have to use the crutch of a digital community to find a group of players. That is the truth...

That’s actually not the truth at all. Most of my coworkers play, all of my friends from outside of work play, much of my family plays, and I could easily go to my LGS, offer to run a game, and get more interested players than I am willing to run for. The only reason in person games are not always possible for me to run is schedule conflicts. We have busy lives now. When I was in college, this was not a problem and I was always able to find players with time to spare for in person games.

and yes, backs my earlier comment about the numbers being DOWN instead of up. yes, when you start counting the entire connected world... your numbers will appear to be "UP" but that is statistical manipulation. (more of that beaurocratical mindset, but I wont' go there...) so rail against me all you want, and proclaim with all the trumpets on high just how wonderful and magical your digital, connected, virtual game is.... but some actually know just how different and diluted it is compared to what was. That's the difference between steamy youth and wisdom/experience.

Again, not better, just different, and there are advantages and disadvantages to both. But there are more than enough players to go around, both globally and locally.

I'm happy you are so passionate about defending your modern digital philosophy and gaming style. I REALLY AM HAPPY FOR YOU! Please understand that. It's a good thing. but take the blinders and rose-colored glasses off please. I'm just as digital as you, but prefer to see my Mona Lisa's in person, and not in a chatroom or facebook page.... which is essentially what you are doing.

I’m not the one with the blinders, man. I’m embracing both the digital and the physical.

You say the original, the classics.. are no better than your digital, depthless, modern counterparts.

No, I don’t, you are the one assuming meaning that I am not putting into my comments.

Beethoven is better heard on my iPod than in a symphony hall, according to your logic! LOL LOL LOL LOL. Ahhh, thanks for making me grin with amusement on that one.

Completely delusional... ah, the joys of youth!

False equivalence. To a straw man argument. Maybe it’s you who should stop railing against an imagined foolish youth and start engaging with the points actually being made by the human being you’re actually talking to.