Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[Acolyte of Zothique]

There is a lot of theoretical discussion regarding PF2E as to why it will or will not succeed.

What I haven't seen much of so far is people's actual experience of playing or running the game which will give a more accurate picture of the game in practice. PF2E has been out for almost 2 months at this point; I'm sure that's enough time to have started a game.

I may be a longtime 5e DM but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be interested in trying PF2E further down the line.

So, if you are either a player or DM of PF2E, what are your actual experiences of playing in and/or running the game?

What works for you in practice and why? If something isn't working for you in practice why is that?

Also, are you coming to PF2E from PF1E or 5e? If so, what have you noticed are the major differences in actual play between the games? How easy is PF2E to run compared to those other games?

This is an important question: are you completely new to D&D style games? If so, are you enjoying your experience of PF2E? PF2E will need to attract new people to the game to thrive in the long term so this perspective is crucial.

Lot's of questions but it will be very useful to get those actual experiences.

 

[Rhianni32]

That is a good point. We do a lot of theorycrafting of pro this and con that and another system does something better or worse. Often actually playing a game can be different.

I'll be GMing PF2 after our current D&D 5ed Out of the Abyss campaign run by another GM ends in a month or two. I "THINK" the rules will work and the group will like it but I also thought that with Star Trek Adventures from Modiphius and that was a dud.

EDIT: Dud not dude lol.

 

[zztong]

I feel like with the playtest and sessions played between the playtest, launch, and the present, I've been playing PF2 for over a year. I came to PF2 from PF1. Here's the way I felt after playing. Obviously, this is just my opinion and not demonstrable fact to be widely applied.

The action system was largely a win. Our DM liked it and the players did okay with it. It fit well with spell casting. Casual players had trouble with Reactions.

The skill system was a mixed bag. It kind of worked for the DM, but the players weren't overly satisfied with it. I want to lay this on the high DCs and the "fail forward" approach, but it probably needs more analysis. There were discussions about assisting other characters and things like "taking 10" that suggested dissatisfaction.

Character generation and Feats were a common sore point. Folks were having trouble making the characters they wanted to play. Folks weren't happy picking lots of small feats that didn't seem to support their character conceptions or have a meaningful impact on play. Multi-classing worked well for some character concepts and failed for others. Personally, I don't want to get rid of the PF2 approach to multi-classing so much as I'd like to keep it as part of a buffet of various multi-classing approaches. Anathema (and similar) was acting as a barrier to making characters. I'd like to see the game back off on Anathema and leave that stuff to the player to create.

The rules themselves were both well written and too dense. The core of the system was simple, yet it took a lot of study to really grok what was involved when you got into specifics. Casual players got frustrated quick. More committed players tended to pickup the terminology as time went on.

Changes to the spell system were both innovative and depressing. Casting times fit well with the action system and various casting options were interesting and appreciated. The critical system applied to saving throws seemed to work out well. Spell durations were too short and didn't always affect enough characters -- to the point were spells didn't seem to fit the genre or some character conceptions.

Melee combat was pretty normal. We saw a little more mobility without attacks of opportunity, but nothing major. Critical hits were more common, and I didn't really care for that. Combat tended to flow decently well, unless you got derailed researching some obscure rule. Players weren't any faster at taking their actions than they were with PF1, so if you had a large group at the table, folks could become bored waiting on their turn.

Magic items were pretty boring. You must have a magic weapon and magic armor. After that, you might find something useful. We really didn't care for having lots of consumable items. Characters all tended to gravitate to carrying around a very similar magic item kit.

Neither the DM nor the players were satisfied with the Death and Dying rules, but I think they were working as intended.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

I feel like with the playtest and sessions played between the playtest, launch, and the present, I've been playing PF2 for over a year. I came to PF2 from PF1. Here's the way I felt after playing. Obviously, this is just my opinion and not demonstrable fact to be widely applied.

The action system was largely a win. Our DM liked it and the players did okay with it. It fit well with spell casting. Casual players had trouble with Reactions.

The skill system was a mixed bag. It kind of worked for the DM, but the players weren't overly satisfied with it. I want to lay this on the high DCs and the "fail forward" approach, but it probably needs more analysis. There were discussions about assisting other characters and things like "taking 10" that suggested dissatisfaction.

Character generation and Feats were a common sore point. Folks were having trouble making the characters they wanted to play. Folks weren't happy picking lots of small feats that didn't seem to support their character conceptions or have a meaningful impact on play. Multi-classing worked well for some character concepts and failed for others. Personally, I don't want to get rid of the PF2 approach to multi-classing so much as I'd like to keep it as part of a buffet of various multi-classing approaches. Anathema (and similar) was acting as a barrier to making characters. I'd like to see the game back off on Anathema and leave that stuff to the player to create.

The rules themselves were both well written and too dense. The core of the system was simple, yet it took a lot of study to really grok what was involved when you got into specifics. Casual players got frustrated quick. More committed players tended to pickup the terminology as time went on.

Changes to the spell system were both innovative and depressing. Casting times fit well with the action system and various casting options were interesting and appreciated. The critical system applied to saving throws seemed to work out well. Spell durations were too short and didn't always affect enough characters -- to the point were spells didn't seem to fit the genre or some character conceptions.

Melee combat was pretty normal. We saw a little more mobility without attacks of opportunity, but nothing major. Critical hits were more common, and I didn't really care for that. Combat tended to flow decently well, unless you got derailed researching some obscure rule. Players weren't any faster at taking their actions than they were with PF1, so if you had a large group at the table, folks could become bored waiting on their turn.

Magic items were pretty boring. You must have a magic weapon and magic armor. After that, you might find something useful. We really didn't care for having lots of consumable items. Characters all tended to gravitate to carrying around a very similar magic item kit.

Neither the DM nor the players were satisfied with the Death and Dying rules, but I think they were working as intended.

So a mixed play experience so far?

I'm concerned about the experience of the casual players that you mentioned. If I were to hypothetically run PF2E in the future, the ease of introducing new players to the game would be my major concern.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm concerned about the experience of the casual players that you mentioned. If I were to hypothetically run PF2E in the future, the ease of introducing new players to the game would be my major concern.

What I am about to say is not a defense of PF2, but a stray, anecdotal observation I noticed while running other game systems.

I have observed that often the players who have the hardest time learning a new system are not the new players or the casuals, but the long-time players and veterans who have it in their mind that tabletop roleplaying work in a particular way, usually their prior standby system. So when these veterans encounter other game systems that do things differently from their normal mode of operation, the inevitable friction occurs.

And to cut ahead of potential pushback, yes I understand #NotAllRPGVets.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

What I am about to say is not a defense of PF2, but a stray, anecdotal observation I noticed while running other game systems.

I have observed that often the players who have the hardest time learning a new system are not the new players or the casuals, but the long-time players and veterans who have it in their mind that tabletop roleplaying work in a particular way, usually their prior standby system. So when these veterans encounter other game systems that do things differently from their normal mode of operation, the inevitable friction occurs.

And to cut ahead of potential pushback, yes I understand #NotAllRPGVets.

Noted but the actual experience mentioned in the post above reported that experienced players seem to pick things up faster.

This is exactly why actual play is important, rather than theory and previous experience from other games.

 

[Aldarc]

Noted but the actual experience mentioned in the post above reported that experienced players seem to pick things up faster.

This is exactly why actual play is important, rather than theory and previous experience from other games.

I agree that this is why actual play is important to gather. I seem to recall reading in another PF2 thread from the past few days though that someone said that the casuals and newbies had an easier time learning the system.

 

[Arilyn]

What I am about to say is not a defense of PF2, but a stray, anecdotal observation I noticed while running other game systems.

I have observed that often the players who have the hardest time learning a new system are not the new players or the casuals, but the long-time players and veterans who have it in their mind that tabletop roleplaying work in a particular way, usually their prior standby system. So when these veterans encounter other game systems that do things differently from their normal mode of operation, the inevitable friction occurs.

And to cut ahead of potential pushback, yes I understand #NotAllRPGVets.

Yes, introducing brand new rpgers to Fate is a breeze, but entrenched D&D players often struggle to get their minds around it.

I have seen a few posts elsewhere that have noted brand new players aren't struggling with PF2 at all. But need more examples.

 

[zztong]

So a mixed play experience so far?

I'm concerned about the experience of the casual players that you mentioned. If I were to hypothetically run PF2E in the future, the ease of introducing new players to the game would be my major concern.

Yes, I'd say mixed. PF2 is going to appeal to many people. There was a playtest and Paizo probably didn't ignore the majority of their customers.

We perhaps have a few really casual, casual players. We have two that don't really want to know any game system. They have characters made for them because they don't want to do it themselves. There's a couple of folks who have played for a long time, but aren't rules hawks. Then there's a core of folks who @Aldarc might consider to be vets, and as he suggests, might be letting previous games and things color their opinions.

EDIT: I think of a casual player as one who is playing more for the social experience than the underlying game system. Its a distinction from veteran and newbie. A non-casual newbie will be fine. A non-casual player of any experience level will figure out the rules. Our casual, casual players are content if other players tell them what to roll, for instance. like "I want to attack with my sword. Okay, 1d20+5 to-hit. Hit. Okay, 1d10+4 damage. Its right there on your sheet. Oh yes, so it is." Or... "You leveled. Okay, well lets keep fighting. Okay, another level of Fighter it is."

 

[CapnZapp]

There is a lot of theoretical discussion regarding PF2E as to why it will or will not succeed.

What I haven't seen much of so far is people's actual experience of playing or running the game which will give a more accurate picture of the game in practice. PF2E has been out for almost 2 months at this point; I'm sure that's enough time to have started a game.

I may be a longtime 5e DM but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be interested in trying PF2E further down the line.

So, if you are either a player or DM of PF2E, what are your actual experiences of playing in and/or running the game?

What works for you in practice and why? If something isn't working for you in practice why is that?

Also, are you coming to PF2E from PF1E or 5e? If so, what have you noticed are the major differences in actual play between the games? How easy is PF2E to run compared to those other games?

This is an important question: are you completely new to D&D style games? If so, are you enjoying your experience of PF2E? PF2E will need to attract new people to the game to thrive in the long term so this perspective is crucial.

Lot's of questions but it will be very useful to get those actual experiences.

Veteran GM running a sandbox PF2 campaign for veteran D&D gamers here.

Good: combat and monsters
Neither: lots of +1 bonuses and conditions and whatnot, and level-to-proficiency. Yes, it's fiddly but my players are starved for that naughty word ever since 3E. At least NPCs and LFQW seems to be have addressed (to early to confirm they succeeded)
Bad: the way Pathfinder 2 tries to insert itself in GM decisions and player actions
Ugly: far too many choices that basically doesn't change anything, most prominently feats and consumables. Luckily I'm the GM...

Skills in D&D work best when they stay out of the way of character characterization and DM adjucation, but there are a myriad niggling ways you're supposed to have this level or that feat before you can properly do something. Unless you bother acquiring perfect system mastery as the GM you will basically have to tell your players "I don't care if I allow you to do something you really needed some little thing before you could do. If that bothers you, don't take that little thing".

I am amazed of how much of level-based shenanigans I had forgotten (despite playing 3E for ten years). Things like how you basically get free mind control over NPCs as little as four levels below you. Guess 5E does that to you.

Monsters come across as MUCH more inspired and worthy of the player's (and his PC's) respect. I can't wait to play more to see how the party manages to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat next session.

(Though you gotta be careful as a former 5E GM. DM. Whatever M. I just threw three Reefclaws against a reduced party of two level 2 heroes and one level 3 hero. Outta water, even. They came THIS close to eating them all. They're level 1!! I... just... that happens exactly NEVER in 5E... Phew! I already have three character deaths, but that debacle was much more avoidable than this basically random encounter. I need to recalibrate here. No more casually throwing half a dozen monsters higher in level than the party at them AND THEN starting the double deadly encounter... just to see the heroes eat everything for breakfast and, a short rest later, ask for more!)