Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E - does it play better than it looks at first glance + guides/resources for new DMs

[Thomas Shey]

I think where the pitfall of these discussions is the idea folks have to "get over it". I mean, its both ok that PF2 works a certain way, and that people prefer it didnt. They are not always ignorant or stubborn people. Which is why I can say that PF2 works really well objectively, but I dont like the experience. The game isnt bad because I dont like the feel, nor am I stupid for not accepting it as "fixed".

Edit: Rethinking this post, let's just let it that that statement was not directed at people who simply don't find it an enjoyable experience and then let it go.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I think where the pitfall of these discussions is the idea folks have to "get over it". I mean, its both ok that PF2 works a certain way, and that people prefer it didnt. They are not always ignorant or stubborn people. Which is why I can say that PF2 works really well objectively, but I dont like the experience. The game isnt bad because I dont like the feel, nor am I stupid for not accepting it as "fixed".

Sure, but this rarely seems to be the articulation on message boards and I appreciate you voicing it. If more people took this stance during the 4e discussions, the world would be a better place. " I don't like the feel" or "it's just not enjoyable for me" is perfectly legitimate but also not really much of a conversation either.

But a lot of people refuse to adopt the paradigm that a game like PF2e or 4e operates under and then try to argue it's incoherent or doesn't work well. Of course it doesn't work well for that person when they try to apply a mindset / paradigmn / framework that wasn't meant to be applied. So, just say you don't like that paradigmn for a game and move on, which is I think what you are doing.

 

[JThursby]

There’s always the Proficiency Without Level alternate rule that greatly expands the range of creatures you can face. It makes level+4 enemies not a death sentence, and level-4 enemies not a complete joke. It’s trivial to apply it in Foundry, you just check a box in the settings and it’s applied instantly. @Ruin Explorer was also saying this was something that they were iffy about in another thread, so I’m tagging ‘em here too.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, but this rarely seems to be the articulation on message boards and I appreciate you voicing it. If more people took this stance during the 4e discussions, the world would be a better place. " I don't like the feel" or "it's just not enjoyable for me" is perfectly legitimate but also not really much of a conversation either.

But a lot of people refuse to adopt the paradigm that a game like PF2e or 4e operates under and then try to argue it's incoherent or doesn't work well. Of course it doesn't work well for that person when they try to apply a mindset / paradigmn / framework that wasn't meant to be applied. So, just say you don't like that paradigmn for a game and move on, which is I think what you are doing.

Yeah. Payn has demonstrated to me he's a reasonable person since I've been on this board. But a lot of objections to PF2e I've seen have either not been, or have been expressed in hyperbolic or excessive ways that disguise any validity to them.

To give a couple examples of the distinctions:

1. Payn has expressed discomfort with how tight the math is in PF2e. I think, (in my experience), he's presenting it as more deterministic than it is (you don't build a system around a D20 if you want real consistency, especially in a system where one round's lucky rolls can have a strong dramatic effect given how relatively short PF2e in round-cycles PF2e is. But that's an argument of degree; there's no question the math is tighter in PF2e than most D&D variants, and if he doesn't like that, he doesn't.

2. Others have, in essence, objected that the encounter builder, unlike D&D3e/PF1e CR, doesn't lie to you. I have trouble having sympathy with this position; it seems to be demanding a sort of systemic illusionism baked into the game that I don't find a reasonable expectation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There’s always the Proficiency Without Level alternate rule that greatly expands the range of creatures you can face. It makes level+4 enemies not a death sentence, and level-4 enemies not a complete joke. It’s trivial to apply it in Foundry, you just check a box in the settings and it’s applied instantly. @Ruin Explorer was also saying this was something that they were iffy about in another thread, so I’m tagging ‘em here too.

Though I'm not sure that doesn't work by, effectively, breaking the assumptions the enemy levelling system is based on.

 

[Retreater]

A GM could just design encounters that match the style of play the group prefers. If most fall under "trivial" or "low" challenges, so be it. The encounter building rules are a GM tool, and players don't need to "look behind the screen."
All systems have assumptions of challenge. Some games like WFRP 4e, Cthulhu, or OSE lean towards deadly combats while 5e leans a bit towards easy combat (IMO). How you feel about the assumptions is your preference. I think PF2e is more modifiable in challenge than WFRP or Cthulhu, for example.
I think it's a fine system, playable, and logical. I don't find any problems with it that can't be fixed by a GM so long as the foundation of the game appeals to your players.
Other systems are more difficult to change from the core assumptions. (For example, you're never going to be a butt kicker in WFRP - the system won't allow it without massive overhaul.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

A GM could just design encounters that match the style of play the group prefers. If most fall under "trivial" or "low" challenges, so be it. The encounter building rules are a GM tool, and players don't need to "look behind the screen."

The problem is, I suspect, at least at low-to-mid levels, whether they know that the challenges are low or trivial by the numbers--they'll look low to trivial. I know you struggled with this at one time; what kind of opponents are level 0 or -1 encounters? Pretty obviously just as underwhelming conceptually as they are by the numbers, right?

That's the problem with at least some people used to PF1e; they were used to fighting things that at least seemed like they would be dangerous and threatening--but by a combination of character builds and baking a cake in preparation, they were able to defeat them handily or outright roflstomp them. You're just not going to get that experience out of 2e; to even try you'd have to reskin creatures extensively and play some, honestly, pretty hard core slight of hand about what's going on.

All systems have assumptions of challenge. Some games like WFRP 4e, Cthulhu, or OSE lean towards deadly combats while 5e leans a bit towards easy combat (IMO). How you feel about the assumptions is your preference. I think PF2e is more modifiable in challenge than WFRP or Cthulhu, for example.

Well, compared to BRP its going to be simply because PCs range far, far more in power than most incarnations of BRP will ever permit. I agree its entirely possible to tune difficulty--but I think as I say above, its going to be pretty hard to hide that's what you're doing.

 

[kenada]

Though I'm not sure that doesn't work by, effectively, breaking the assumptions the enemy levelling system is based on.

Proficiency Without Level has a few issues, but the encounter math isn’t really one of them. It works by providing a replacement XP table to use for building encounters.

 

[payn]

Sure, but this rarely seems to be the articulation on message boards and I appreciate you voicing it. If more people took this stance during the 4e discussions, the world would be a better place. " I don't like the feel" or "it's just not enjoyable for me" is perfectly legitimate but also not really much of a conversation either

But a lot of people refuse to adopt the paradigm that a game like PF2e or 4e operates under and then try to argue it's incoherent or doesn't work well. Of course it doesn't work well for that person when they try to apply a mindset / paradigmn / framework that wasn't meant to be applied. So, just say you don't like that paradigmn for a game and move on, which is I think what you are doing.

I do think there is good conversation to be had though. While I may not like the tight math, I do like the system and enjoy talking about it. When I think back to the E-War the best conversations were the ones where the folks that did not like 4E could actually articulate why. It's true, that often meant a subjective perspective, but it leads to diving into discussions on how games should be experienced which is also important. Though, folks get stuck on objective mechanics because its the one thing you can be right about. Also, I totally get folks tired of the game they like being bombed by offensive one-liners. I do my best not to be one of those folks though sometimes get lumped in with them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Proficiency Without Level has a few issues, but the encounter math isn’t really one of them. It works by providing a replacement XP table to use for building encounters.

Ah, that part I was not aware of; I was thinking of using it with the same tables while, effectively, reducing many opponents numbers (and in a way that wouldn't be consistent).