I haven't played it yet, but that's all I currently own and agree it's definitely fleshed out enough to play on it's own.The beginner box version of the game is totally playable.
I haven't played it yet, but that's all I currently own and agree it's definitely fleshed out enough to play on it's own.The beginner box version of the game is totally playable.
From the descriptions I've heard, the Beginner Box is not so much lighter as simply doesn't go as deep into things you only need to know if you advance past the range it covers (of course it also doesn't have the subsidiary material that expands the game, such as the additional classes and ancestries).The beginner box version of the game is totally playable.
That’s the Beginner Box. It’s (more or less) the same core system but with fewer options and presented more clearly and concisely.I do wish there were a lighter version of the game that had the same core mechanics.
But it’s only for a couple levels. I meant a complete game.That’s the Beginner Box. It’s (more or less) the same core system but with fewer options and presented more clearly and concisely.
Personally, I think Paizo should have done it first, so they could have built on its better text instead of what they released for the Core Rulebook.
There is. The core of the system is pretty streamlined with few (if any) exceptions to the rules. It suffers for a few reasons:I have a hunch that there is a lighter game in there, it's just covered up by (imo) over complicated on boarding. I'm still investigating tho
- There is a lot of character customization. The customization is compartmentalized, so even if the system has a ton of feats, that’s like counting every invocation, knack, and other bit of customization altogether in 5e. However, you’re still going to be making a decision between some things every level, and that can be overwhelming to players (especially if they’re used to systems with poor or trap options, and they get analysis paralysis about what to pick) or disappointing to them (if they expect to win the game through character building before the session instead of skillful play during).
It’s not an argument against customization but rather how it affects the onboarding experience.I have mixed feelings about some of your other points, but regarding this one, the fact people carry over trauma or expectations from other D&D games doesn't seem a good reason to limit customization. Less choices is always simpler than more choices, but at some point that's too high a price to pay for simplicity.
I understand your concern, but this is a common misconception. It is not about limiting customization. It is about not letting customization negatively impact on-boarding (the new player experience). Setting these two in opposition is lose-lose for the game.I have mixed feelings about some of your other points, but regarding this one, the fact people carry over trauma or expectations from other D&D games doesn't seem a good reason to limit customization. Less choices is always simpler than more choices, but at some point that's too high a price to pay for simplicity.
It’s not an argument against customization but rather how it affects the onboarding experience.
I understand your concern, but this is a common misconception. It is not about limiting customization. It is about not letting customization negatively impact on-boarding (the new player experience). Setting these two in opposition is lose-lose for the game.
The Troubleshooters produces mechanically distinct characters with significantly less crunch than PF2 does. Characters in the Troubleshooters are primarily mechanically distinguished by two things:As you can see, I'm afraid I believe its just that. Can you point at an example of a game with decent, mechanically meaningful customization that does not have this problem? (I make no promises I'll agree with your characterization; note I carefully have inserted "mechanically meaningful" every time I've brought this up.)
The Beginner Box seems to do a decent job of narrowing the options without eliminating choice completely.But in practice, I think it is. Any customization with mechanical teeth is provide some degree of the two problems you mention, especially in the D&D-sphere. The only way to avoid it is to avoid there being any real decisions that matter.
In our off weeks, my group plays an adventure board game called Middara. It has very crunchy character building. The way they handle onboarding is by starting you off with a set build depending on your character. After you graduate (quite literally in the story), you then get to rebuild your character how you’d like. That seems like a pretty decent approach. By the time we got to rebuild our characters, we had a feel for the system and how things worked. I think it would have been too intimidating if we were just dumped into all the options up front.Basically, I'm not aware of a single game (in or out of the D&D sphere) with any degree of meaningful customization that doesn't create decision paralysis or some degree of attempt to cook the books. The first is most likely unavoidable, and the second is an intrinsic problem with some approaches to character creation. The only way to avoid them is to avoid any decisions that mean anything (or at least, to the degree you avoid them you reduce such meaningful decisions).
The Beginner Box seems to do a decent job of narrowing the options without eliminating choice completely.
In our off weeks, my group plays an adventure board game called Middara. It has very crunchy character building. The way they handle onboarding is by starting you off with a set build depending on your character. After you graduate (quite literally in the story), you then get to rebuild your character how you’d like. That seems like a pretty decent approach. By the time we got to rebuild our characters, we had a feel for the system and how things worked. I think it would have been too intimidating if we were just dumped into all the options up front.
For Pathfinder 2e, one approach might be to start a new player off with a pregen then let them rebuild once they are comfortable with the system. You could tie to the completion of an adventure/milestone, but I don’t think that’s strictly necessary.
The Troubleshooters produces mechanically distinct characters with significantly less crunch than PF2 does. Characters in the Troubleshooters are primarily mechanically distinguished by two things:
Note that the system don't have any direct analogue to traditional ability scores. Things like Strength or Agility are skills just like Melee or Vehicles, and there's no "flow" of ability from one to the other. You can be a huge circus strongman with great Strength and still leave your Melee skill at 15, or a tiny little judo master without any Strength skill at all but a very high Melee skill.
- Skills. There's a list of 28 percentile-based skills. A character has 15 in skills they're unskilled in, the highest you can start with is 85, and the absolute max is 106 (although skills above 100 is mostly an academic matter given how modifiers work in the system). A character typically starts with 75 in one skill, 65 in four, and 45 in six.
- Abilities. These are binary abilities, similar to feats, and usually tied to one or more skills. These provide differentiation between people with similar skills. Two characters might both have high Charm skills, but one might be Cheerful and have Empathy, and another might have a Pet and be an Animal Friend.
The game deals with onboarding by basically providing various tiers of complexity in character generation:
- The game comes with a set of seven pre-generated characters that are also included in demo materials.
- There are a number of templates that have most of the mechanical stuff done already and offer a limited list of options regarding abilities, gear, and so on.
- You can use a template as a starting point and modify it in various ways to match your particular vision of the character. For example, you might want to play a Student Athlete, so you start with the Elite Athlete template and swap out the Credit skill (you're on a scholarship, not a rich athlete with sponsorships) for Humanities (you need to keep your grades up, remember?).
- Finally you can build a character from scratch.
I have been watching some PF2 videos on YouTube and it seems way more complicated than it need to be. For example, do we really need separate terminology for unnoticed and undetected?
I wouldn’t say they are very different but there is a difference there. I am just not sure there needs to be a game terminology for both of them. The circumstances are going to distinguish them.They are two very different states, the problem is that there isn't really a good terminology to distinguish them. Unnoticed is that no one suspects anyone is there. Undetected is that you know something is there, but you have no clue where it is. Hidden is that you have a rough idea of where something is, and observed is that you know where it is.
Unnoticed: "I'm alone in the room."
Undetected: "I am not alone in the room."
Hidden: "There is someone behind the boxes over there."
Observed: "I can see someone behind the blue box over there."
I wouldn’t say they are very different but there is a difference there. I am just not sure there needs to be a game terminology for both of them. The circumstances are going to distinguish them.
Are there any game mechanics that key off these two differently?