Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: is it RAW or RAI to always take 10 minutes and heal between encounters?

[FrozenNorth]

But I can say that our bad experiences with PF2 didn't necessarily come from the challenge. I've run systems where combats can be deadly, such as Call of Cthulhu or any OSR variation. I think the main issue, across all the games I've played for the various groups, is that the system never got out of the way. It always felt like learning a simulation, even after months of play, whether in-person or online. Honestly, it felt like trying to graft roleplaying on top of Descent or Gloomhaven.

Interesting comparison. I had an epiphany concerning PF2 when playing Gloomhaven with my kids when I realized that I was just having a lot more fun playing Gloomhaven.

 

[JmanTheDM]

DMs making a mistake that weakens an encounter is not a problem for either the DM or the players. If despite the mistake, the encounter is challenging, neither party may even realize the issue. If the mistake led to the party to steamroll an encounter that should have been more difficult, the DM has a reason to review the fight and take steps not to repeat the error. After all, the DM has infinite dragons to throw at the party.

A DM or player that makes a mistake that ends in character death tends to be more serious. Many players are attached to their characters and bummed when they die particularly when it is due to a mistake. A TPK (or even a near TPK) may be the end of the campaign.

its less of a problem, but still a "problem" (I recognize that yeah this is a better outcome but still a problematic situation). my point was simply this:

Some make broad statements that "wrong play" within PF2 are unidirectionally punished - in that error only escalates deadliness (as posted upthread) upwards. In reality, we need to acknowledge that "wrong play" is bidirectional and its just as likely a new GM or player "mistake" will lead equally to a less deadly outcome as it does to a TPK. stating otherwise, paints a false picture. there is so much focus on how non-optimal play or mistake free play can only lead to one logical conclusion, which I don't believe is necessarily an absolute.


Cheers,

J.

 

[Retreater]

Interesting comparison. I had an epiphany concerning PF2 when playing Gloomhaven with my kids when I realized that I was just having a lot more fun playing Gloomhaven.

My opinion is that other games have supplanted the genre of dungeon-crawling, combat-centric TTRPGs. If a game doesn't offer streamlined rules that get out of the way, where combats and looking through rules take up the majority of the time, I feel I'm better served by playing a board game or a computer game like Skyrim or Diablo.
I'm not sure what a PF2 game would look like that fits my tastes. I can make my style of game out of 5e, 3.x/PF1, and pre-WotC editions. 4e (and PF2) have an inherent, baked-in assumption of play that isn't easily modified. And I'm usually pretty good at running these types of games. I could run mystery, horror, historic, mythological, dungeons, parody, or sci-fantasy in any of those other editions. I haven't seen the flexibility in "powers-based" designed games (such as 4e, 13th Age, PF2) that would allow me to run anything other than what the designers have created.
And I think I finally got the term in writing this post: PF2 is "powers-based" (even if they don't use the language from 13th Age and 4e). The basis of adventure structuring is encounter design without mind for how encounters impact each other or a coherent story.

 

[payn]

The basis of adventure structuring is encounter design without mind for how encounters impact each other or a coherent story.

Right. Its like you have to be very good at compartmentalizing the game from the fiction, which is difficult for some folks like myself.

 

[Campbell]

Speaking personally what really sold me on PF2 was how it handles stuff outside of combat - that it has stuff to say about exploration, rules for social stuff. Stuff that draws me into world like Anathema, Rituals, etc. That it shapes the fiction. It's a big part of why my Soulsborne inspired game really worked for us. Things were more emergent.

When I ran 5e it was so damn exhausting because I felt like I had to do everything, be responsible for everything.

If I am looking for a lighter experience I tend to run games that still have an impact, but function the same way inside and outside of combat. Stuff like Dune 2d20 or Blades in the Dark. I personally would rather ditch the combat system than have a game that has zero impact outside of combat.

 

[Retreater]

Speaking personally what really sold me on PF2 was how it handles stuff outside of combat - that it has stuff to say about exploration, rules for social stuff. Stuff that draws me into world like Anathema, Rituals, etc. That it shapes the fiction. It's a big part of why my Soulsborne inspired game really worked for us. Things were more emergent.

When I ran 5e it was so damn exhausting because I felt like I had to do everything, be responsible for everything.

I'm glad it worked for you.
For me, when a designer has codified every corner of the game and given a rules structure to every mystery, they have killed the thrill of discovery. They have also succeeded in bloating the rules to a point of defining rare cases, limiting a GM's perceived ability to make on-the-fly decisions.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not saying groups can't have a great experience roleplaying in PF2 or that it's not fun. I enjoyed the heck out of 4e, but it's not a great system for roleplaying. Like PF2, when you have rules to make combats (or exploration) thrilling, mechanical affairs with lots of rules options, you run the risk of making those elements of the game to be a rules simulation that take away from immersion. I think that's my overall issue with PF2, 4e, and other systems like that. They just don't do what I want a roleplaying game to do.

I find it far more immersion breaking to have to negotiate with the GM just to get meaningful combat options than having them cooked into the rules.

 

[Thomas Shey]

DMs making a mistake that weakens an encounter is not a problem for either the DM or the players. If despite the mistake, the encounter is challenging, neither party may even realize the issue. If the mistake led to the party to steamroll an encounter that should have been more difficult, the DM has a reason to review the fight and take steps not to repeat the error. After all, the DM has infinite dragons to throw at the party.

A DM or player that makes a mistake that ends in character death tends to be more serious. Many players are attached to their characters and bummed when they die particularly when it is due to a mistake. A TPK (or even a near TPK) may be the end of the campaign.

I'll note, however, that the first can lead to massive anticlimax, and if you don't think that can harm a game, I can't follow you there.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm glad it worked for you.
For me, when a designer has codified every corner of the game and given a rules structure to every mystery, they have killed the thrill of discovery. They have also succeeded in bloating the rules to a point of defining rare cases, limiting a GM's perceived ability to make on-the-fly decisions.

That's as it is, but frankly, I don't see any connection with game having rigorous mechanics and the thrill of discovery. They're utterly disconnected to me. All lighter rules systems do for me is tie up more of my processing overhead (as a GM) in deciding what's reasonable and how it should be resolved mechanically rather than in thinking about what NPCs are doing and keeping the world going, and make me engage with more back and forth with the GM on a meta level (as a player) rather than just playing my character.

So, again, this is a stark split in how people utilize the tools in play and what does and doesn't work for them. I don't see it as being particularly bridgeable.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'm glad it worked for you.
For me, when a designer has codified every corner of the game and given a rules structure to every mystery, they have killed the thrill of discovery. They have also succeeded in bloating the rules to a point of defining rare cases, limiting a GM's perceived ability to make on-the-fly decisions.

The thrill of discovery comes from the plot, not the rules. If you need to make an on-the-fly decision, make it. I don't understand the fretting here. If you make a bad decision, that's fine: you can correct it later. If my players find that I make a ruling against the rules in a game, I give them a Hero Point (or system equivalent) and a beer (if they're old enough). It's way better than having to make a system from whole cloth and having to predict how this system might be used later on.

It's one of the things I tell anyone who I help GMing: If you can't find the rule in 30 seconds, make a decision and move on. It's okay to be wrong, and obsessively hand-wringing over it does nothing.