payn
Legend
Yeah that’s time I enjoy spending on making a memorable game come to life. One thing seems obvious there is a hunger out there for a hamburger helper line of modules that are easy and time saving for folks.
Pathfinder 2E My Pathfinder 2e Post-Mortem
- Thread starter Teemu
- Start date
Justice and Rule
Hero
That's not a bad one. d20 systems need to try out Bennies systems because it's one of the easier ways to link it into those systems given their structural problems in adapting such things. I don't think a reverse version of that where the GM causes you to fail but gives you something extra in return would go over as well, but it should be considered.
The Player's Guide is clearly meant for people who are going to Society play as what they need, which limits it to stuff that largely comes up in Society play. The GMG is way more expansive, with most of that stuff is tied into their VP systems they create. For example, they give a bunch of examples of downtime activities and their results in the Infiltration chapter, where you are pulling a heist. That's actually a lot of really good stuff, but I guess it just doesn't play into stuff like APs, which is honestly sad because it's really good stuff.
But it is there! There are other systems, too, like the Research system. That whole thing of how to research, largely focused on libraries, is basically transferable to anything: You set thresholds for what you learn, maximums for the places you can gain research from, etc. I'm currently using it myself right now and have a little chart of the things they've learned with some thresholds about what they learn when. It's also something that encourages you to create sources of information for the players to look up.
It's also where it's useful to hand the PCs a special feat every now and then for their efforts. It's obviously much easier to do this with Wizards and such, where you can hand out a spell, since switching spells in and out is generally much easier. But tossing them a neat custom feat or something that they've been desiring but are limited in getting from the level system makes for a reward that allows the players to actively seek things out and engage with the world.
Again, the biggest limitation seems to be the divide between players in PFS and players outside of it. You have to have everything able to be used in PFS and they just didn't make those sorts of systems a part of that, so they didn't attach feats to them.
The-Magic-Sword
Hero
It's hard to say, I will note that the players coming into TTRPG now are generally informed by video games in respect to their tastes in greater numbers than before, which heavily feature violence as a primary form of engagement nearly across the board, even cozy slice of life farming game Stardew Valley features a many level generic dungeon you can farm with a sword in hand-- and that's not likely to change given how much larger the video game market is, I think there's a desire for games that feature other things, but I don't think it's a pivot so much as an additional interest some players have, with a much smaller number being disinterested in the monster fighting entirely, and out of that number some of them dislike fighting because its heavily mechanical and would resent the intrusion of crunch into their improv roleplay time, I've comes across that type quite a bit.
From experience, the VP system meshes ok with feats if only because of how relatively painless it is to offer bonuses-- if you have group impression, but the VP system is in play say in a political context where the resolution of each conversation is too low for its usual effects ("You go and discuss X with Y, lets see how that goes, roll"), it's trivial to convert it to a circumstance bonus to the roll when the player raises the fact that they have it (to reflect the fact that if you're handling a bunch of people at once, you're effectively playing the odds) whereas if the resolution is higher, it might be usable ("Ok the guest list includes four of X, because you're going to discuss Y with them and have group impression, let's roleplay it and do the skill rolls as they come up")
The weirdness is actually arising from the fact that unlike combat, social stuff sometimes takes place in encounter mode (word for word conversations, the back and forth of a detailed scene), sometimes takes place in exploration mode (a series of interactions across a ball that aren't tracked individually), or even in downtime mode, so the bonuses that benefit it sometimes needs to flex a little to reflect those three different framings.
Last edited:
If that’s what you think it takes to run a good campaign, then that’s fine, but I also don’t agree. I don’t think that level of prep is necessary for a good campaign, and it definitely shouldn’t reflect poorly on GMs who want tools that actually work for them. It’s like holding up the crappy encounter-building rules in 5e as fine because a “good GM” can make it work. Even WotC doesn’t agree! That’s why they’ve said they plan to improve them for 2024 version of the rules. Why should we as GMs settle for less?
The first D&D campaign I joined was a hack and slash campaign. There’s nothing wrong with finding fun in that, and it was the gateway for me into the hobby. However, I think we should hold adventures to a higher standard than we do. Especially if people are coming to RPGs with assumptions from other media, then adventures should be a way to introduce them to what RPGs do beyond just offering a bunch of combat.
I think we agree here? I hadn’t considered the situation where the group is larger than what your feat allows, but I think what you propose sounds like a reasonable solution. Anyway, my point is the VP subsystem makes it clear you can still attempt the activity. The situation otherwise is it can feel like the feat is gating off something you “should” be able to do (even if technically it is reducing the number of rolls or time it takes).
The-Magic-Sword
Hero
Yup, it was more just describing my experience of it being relatively easy to adjust to suit the framing, in regards to the intersection of skill stuff and the vp systems.
But as for Adventures, yeah, I tend to see published adventures as being more mass market since they need to move volume-- they tend to hew closely to the idea of a relatively default experience, whereas home games can tend to be more high concept because fewer people need to buy in.
Its actually one of the reasons I don't love them as a snapshot of the system, their incentives differ in some key ways, from those of the system's core design. Some 5e players I know would probably appreciate that pf2e is more flexible in terms of encounters per day, because difficulty is less weighted according to daily resources, but it doesnt matter to the published adventures because they're catering to a market for whom lots of encounters is presumably a selling point (taking for granted they do their own market research well.)
My big complaint is that I like site based adventures more than narrative sequences, and the AP format doesnt do super well with that-- though Malevolence by itself was good in that respect.
Because the social encounter introduces four NPCs that are relevant in the adventure, and then introduces a sub-system for the party to persuade a person with authority to allow them access to a good plot. Note that the only stats listed for the NPCs are the ones relevant to the debate, although they have full stats elsewhere.
The combat encounter, on the other hand, offloads a lot of work by referring to the Bestiary.
I agree. Paizo apparently does not (or at least did not at the time).
Out of curiosity, was the debate subsystem VP-based? It’s my understanding Paizo has used VP-derived subsystems in other adventures, so my presumption is it is, but I don’t know. If only it were a core mechanic (versus being banished away to the GMG), they could rely on it the way they do the bestiary and combat subsystems to handle combat (thus freeing up space for more adventure content).
Justice and Rule
Hero
Plus what happens in combat is largely dictated by the combat system itself, while motivations and other social things aren't really dictated by the social system. Like you say, most of combat is offloaded elsewhere, whether it be in the Bestiary or just in the rulebook. You can quickly cover some potential results (death, surrender, retreat) in a sentence or two. Covering the motivations, wants, needs, and the variety of potential situations that can come from conversation and negotiation are just vast and generally require a bit more guidance if you are doing a strongly-structured adventure.
Removing the supporting material would not give you more adventure. It would just result in a 64-page book instead of a 96-page one (and possibly at a lower cost, but not 2/3 of the cost). The supporting material is almost always written by people other than the main adventure writer, which is why it's usually only tangential to the adventure.
VP-ish, but not exactly the same. I believe the book predates the GMG, and if it doesn't the GMG was certainly not published while the book was being written. The system works like this, bullet-pointed:
- The guard captain (whom you are trying to persuade) starts with 5 Resistance Points. The PCs' job is to reduce this to 0.
- On their turn, the PCs can try to sway the captain by rolling Diplomacy, Deception, or a relevant Lore. A success removes 1 RP, a crit 2, and a critical failure adds 1. Using particular arguments gets you a lower DC.
- They can also try to support another person's arguments using the same skills. On a success, that person gets +1, and on a crit you also remove 1 RP. A crit fail gives -1.
- Once during the debate a PC can demonstrate their talents for entertainment and roll Performance (or possibly another skill). Success removes 1 RP, crit also allows for one more attempt. A crit fail adds 1 RP.
- The PCs can also try to discredit their rival using Circus Lore or Society. A success lowers their rival's success on their next roll by one level, but a crit fail instead improves their result.
- Meanwhile, there's a rival also taking a turn who is countering the PCs' arguments. This automatically adds 1 RP, +1 or 2 if they succeed on a Diplomacy or Deception roll (needing 6+ to succeed). A crit fail removes 1 RP.
- The debate is finished when the captain reaches 0 or 10 resistance. 0 is a success for the PCs, which gives them favorable terms and 80 XP. 10 is a failure, which gives them bad terms and no XP.
payn
Legend
I didn’t mean to imply a less intricate module means bad campaign or crappy GM. I do think the more time and effort a GM puts into their game shows from experience. The main point is I have never seen the AP line as a GM simplifier or time savor and launching a new line that is would likely have its audience.
Thomas Shey
Legend
I'm still of the opinion that people who are really heavily into the noncombat events in games are less likely to be playing in the D&D-sphere for that experience in the first place. While they aren't monomaniacal about it, too much of the character design element is too baked around combat for it to seem an attractive choice unless that's going to be a fairly strong focus of the game you're playing, unless you're unlikely to get anyone onboard anything else.
Thomas Shey
Legend
I strongly still claim that most of that is people who don't look at the feats involved, or do and read too much into them. Almost all feats are (and this of course supports your claim at least in part) "You get to do this thing in this way" which usually involves not having a requirement, taking as long, or using a different skill, or getting better output than the default way one would expect. I.e. they're things for people who expect to do something frequently and want to be able to do so better than the rank-and-file do it.
Thomas Shey
Legend
At the very least you'd have to find things the whole group can (and is interested in) participating in. That's harder than one might think (I tend to find investigation or puzzle-solving tedious as all get-out for example). Combat may not be interesting to everyone, but its easy for everyone to participate (and gets back to my comment about class design to boot).
Thomas Shey
Legend
Just as a datapoint, our PF2e GM has expressed that he finds it massively easier to run than PF1e (I'm unwilling to make a more general statement since I have yet to run it, but reading it makes me think I'd find it far easier than D&D 3.5).
I haven't found it bad, though I can understand why some people do.
Can sometimes be interesting from a gamist, kind of process sort of view, but you're not generally wrong.
payn
Legend
Id bet I find PF2 a lot easier to run if I had as much experience with it as 3E/PF1. After so many decades it just becomes second nature. On the flip side, the reliance on VTT might get to the point GMs never really learn to play PF2 on the table!
Thomas Shey
Legend
I haven't run D&D3.5 in, I want to say something like 15 years now, but that's largely because I basically decided after watching how it played out at level 14 I'd never do it again.
From a pedagogical perspective, it would be nice to bring back the "Normal:" entry from 3e feats.
For those who don't recall, 3e feats often had a "Normal" entry describing the effects of doing the thing described in the feat without having it. For example, the feat Combat Expertise allowed you to take a penalty of up to 5 on your attacks and get an equal bonus to AC. The feat had a "Normal" entry referring to the Fight Defensively option, where you take a -4 penalty to attacks in exchange for a +2 bonus to AC.
But given that the core book is 640 pages long, I can't really blame them for not including that.
payn
Legend
Understandable. I ran APs for a solid decade in PF1 up to about level 14 tops (even if the AP went further).
glass
(he, him)
I consider this to be a good thing. Public Organised Play stress tests any system, so if it can run smoothly for that, it should be even smoother in a typical home game.
For simple monsters, it is pretty much going to be a choice of moving and attacking in various combinations (maybe raising a shield at the end if they have one). More complex monsters are more likely to have 2- or 3-action activities, so while the decisions are more complicated there are fewer of them.
I would say that I find PF1 and PF2 about equally easy to run, but since I have been playing and running the 3e family for around 22 years and PF2 for around 22 sessions the latter is probably easier in a vacuum.
Anyway, although I like PF2, I think I agree with the OP's criticisms, even though I do not feel as strongly about them as they do (apart from their criticism of the AP format in principle - I cannot speak to the specific APs mentioned, as I have played neither nor indeed any PF2 APs). The post-combat hp recover is not too onerous, but it is definitely fiddlier than it needs to be. A lot of the feats are rather situational or just...small. And secret checks are a bit of a PITA, especially the "come up with plausible false info on the spot for a crit fail on knowledge checks" bit.
The downtime and exploration sections are rather anaemic. And even though the book tells you that the players describe what they are doing in plain language and the GM convert it into explanation activities, there are far too many ways for the PCs to screw themselves over if they do not understand the underlying mechanics for that to be feasible.
But my biggest issue right now the prevalence of "the GM will set the DC", with the guidance on how to do that being extremely well hidden, leading to me shouting "I am the naughty word GM" a lot. I guess that one will get easier with experience though.
To reiterate, I still like PF2 overall, and am in fact gearing up to run it in the new year (which reminds me: I have an adventure to write). But that just makes the missed opportunities all the more annoying!
