Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E's reception?

[BryonD]

That is a very enlightened perspective. I mostly agree with it, but honestly, when we play I don't see much difference between 1e, 4e, or 5e. I guess the system matters much less to my group than the group itself.

There is truth in that. When I switched a campaign from 5E to PF one of my players literally said "it doesn't matter, its all just 'Bryon D20'." And he meant that in a good way. My 5E game was very house ruled back toward PF and/or shared the same house rules that I use when I run PF. And I think that to most of my players the differences are less distinct then they are to me, especially in single evening.

Though in the end, I'm still adamant that the group is the group, so you should still always play systems you love. Saying the group matters more is no excuse for playing a crappy game.

 

[BryonD]

Good stuff

Heh So it seems that we agree on pretty much everything except our taste in game. And we absolutely disagree there.

So, to be blunt, I don't see any baby to save in 4E. (No offense)
I've never played 13th Age, but I have read it. It seems to take everything about 4E and go off the deep end with it. (No offense) As a semi-random example, I really like the broad concept of "failing forward", but that idea as described in 13A makes my eyeballs spin.

Seriously, I don't want to go into a deeper battle over taste vs. taste. I get it. It is cool. But I truly can't imagine playing that game even for a one shot. Life is too short.

And, the interesting thing to me is, people who love 13A always describe it as the game for story-tellers and people who want more narrative and less min maxing. I really have to stop myself and think slowly when I hear this. Because my knee-jerk reaction is to go on a rant. But, when I do step back I think I get it. 13A has "one cool thing" and all these other bits and pieces that push players into a role and reward that kind of playing and tend to push away from kick in the door and roll init gameplay. In short, it gets the mechanics out of the way of the story. When the mechanics are there, they make an effort to resolve whatever and get back out of focus.

I can certainly see that as narrative gaming.
But I'm coming from the opposite perspective. The 3X/PF system is wide open to min/max and powergaming. It will let you sabotage yourself to your hearts content. But, IF you are playing with a group that wants to tell a story and chooses to work with the system to realize a compelling story about a group of fantastic characters then the system really sings. Now, I'm good at running it. I have a current L9 PF game and a L15 game that is on pause due to life events for three different players. In both cases I generally have 2-3 pages of sessions prep notes, probably a few key monster stat blocks printed, a 1-page PC tracking sheet, and a grid pad I use for init and monster HP tracking. That is it.
The core book is generally within hands reach. But I am very hesitant to reach for it, and rarely find that I need to. I have had entire sessions where the party when off script in the first five minutes and I'm playing by ear. I love those sessions.
I realize not everyone can do this and my opinions are useless to them.

But, to me, I don't need a game that pushes players into a role. I don't need a game that gets the mechanics out of the way. And what I really want is a rewarding "simulation" game, where cause and effect play out based on looking at the narrative pieces and asking how things should interact. And to do that well requires a pretty heavy system. PF does it better than any other game I've ever played, so I'm happy with it. And, despite not having the 13A narrative focused mechanics, I still have 100% of the value of them because the people at the table bring that. 13A gives me something I already have at the price of taking away something I love.

Sorry if this ended up sounding confrontantional. It isn't my intent. I really do respect that my love of this solid cause and effect system comes with a price and isn't appealing to a lot of people. I completely repect that. Truly, I do. I'm just trying to express my personal view here and not calling it "right", I'm just calling it "mine".

I just don't know enough about the PF2 play experience. I have not run it. It seems there are things that superficially 4E-ish or took a 4E-ism to the next logical conclusion. I can see however that it's too cumbersome for my personal style to run on any long term basis. I don't really have the desire in my old age to delve deep into a complicated system/rulebook to figure it out- any complicated system. If they brought out a BB, I'd be all over that and give it a go. Or if could find a decent one-shot.

Yeah, to me PF2E seems a lot "less bad" than 4E or 13A. But I think that is because it still does offer a lot of the fiddly bits. It just also throws in this foundational poison pill, so there you have it. I obviously can't speak for you, but based on what you have said, and the handful of recent comments from others, I think your read is correct.

 

[JeffB]

That is a very enlightened perspective. I mostly agree with it, but honestly, when we play I don't see much difference between 1e, 4e, or 5e. I guess the system matters much less to my group than the group itself.

Make no mistake- I believe every D&D game is different and every DM's personal stamp is on their games, no matter what system is used. Back in 77, our group each DM'd their own games too and everyone was remarkably different in feel and approach, and house rules. That is a good thing and we all played in each other's games and respected the styles and had fun (I won't go into my normal Rant where D&D went off the rails with AD&D and all future editions,) My games playing 4E are not terribly different than playing PF1,Moldvay/Cook/Marsh, or even another system like RQ. Its just the mechanics to get you through the sessions. However, some versions of the game- as written- suit my style better. Having to re-write or make drastic changes to get where we want to be is a PITA I'd rather not deal with- This is why I prefer 13A or older editions where I can add what I need instead of breaking everything by removing things from new editions.

My statement about 5E is simply that it is WOTC's, least problematic version of the game as written, and plays well out of the box with no changes by the individual group (part of this is tight design, part of it is loose design where DM fiat at the table is the way to go).


We are (I am) going way off on a Tangent again.

 

[JeffB]

Heh So it seems that we agree on pretty much everything except our taste in game. And we absolutely disagree there.

I can and will play ANYTHING. Running a game, is a different story- and I have been a DM for nearly my entire gaming career. I rarely ever play. As I stated above, our original group had very different styles when it came to each of us DMing. I was more story and quick action S&S focused with scenes and small and varied locations ala Lieber or Howard. One fellow was a stickler for History and his games were very much like C&S with Knights and Squires, and warfare (He was also a massive houseruler) -very simulationist. Another fellow - as was so popular with kids my age in the 1970s- into the whole Saturday Morning Kung Fu Theatre- so his games were all about Ninja and Samurai, and mostly wahoo!. Probably the other player who I most identified with was VERY well read, and improv'ed alot- he ran all kinds of craziness-the most memorable being our game on Barsoom with us "groping through black pits" as my Paladin of Odin and others searched for a Temple of Set. Though I am a massive fanboy of Gygax and other forefathers of the day the things we didn't play were what people think of stereotypical OD&D games of the 1970s (maps, minis and megadungeons)

TLDR: I could have a blast playing in your PF game, no doubt. I don't know if you'd have as much as fun in one of my Dungeon World games, but thats OK. We all like different things!

 

[dave2008]

This is why I prefer 13A or older editions where I can add what I need instead of breaking everything by removing things from new editions.

That is how I currently feel about 5e, I have added or revised what I want and the result is something really close to the perfect game for me and my group. It is not 5e out of the box, is our D&D, or maybe as @BryonD put it: "dave's D&D."

We are (I am) going way off on a Tangent again.

We are, I think I will stop posting in this thread as I don't have anymore to actually add to the OP.

 

[BryonD]

I think 5E is the most readily "house-ruleable" version of D&D. And, really, they are all very easy to modify. But 5E feels almost like it has perforations and notched edges. It wants to be customized. It is the lego set of D&D. And I mean that in a 100% good way.

 

[kenada]

The hydra isn't the only monster. There is at least one other monster with that trait, and several monsters "play" with the action economy. For example: the red dragon can bite as OA and redirect fire as a reaction. It call also make three attacks with its 2 action "Draconic Fury."

PCs have abilities that let them make two Strikes with one action, so a monster’s having one that lets them do three for two isn’t too weird. The other reactions are fine too.

However, I guess when it comes down to it, I am less worried about "breaking" the action economy and more worries about making it an interesting combat. However, I do think it is an interesting exercise to see how far you can stretch it. Maybe I am less creative than you, but limiting myself to the 3-action economy for a boss monster doesn't seem like the way to go.

The issue I’m trying to avoid is drawing a chilly response from my players because the monsters are now ‘cheating’, or it feels too ‘gamey’.

I would also argue "boss" monsters are not some arbitrary monster. I mean, you specifically asked about making it an MMO style boss monster. That is not some arbitrary monster.

That’s fair. There’s a tension between how I normally run dungeons (with wandering monsters and repopulation, so they always feel alive and dangerous) and having a bit of fun on my side of the screen making monsters and running them.

You realize that wasn't how monsters were/are made in 4e or 5e. I have seen that style of monster hombrewed for 4e and 5e, but it was never part of an official design. The concept is edition neutral, you could do the same thing in 1e, 2e, 3e, PF1, and PF2. So I don't really understand you comment on that concept.

Yeah, not sure where I was going with that. I think it was a point about being too gamey.

You can give monsters feats if you want.

You can, but monsters don’t have a dedicated feat section like they did in PF1. However, I forgot about the lengthy ability glossary, which is almost as bad as the old feat lists from PF1 (especially when things are just slightly different from the PCs’ version…).

 

[dave2008]

The issue I’m trying to avoid is drawing a chilly response from my players because the monsters are now ‘cheating’, or it feels too ‘gamey’.

You know your group better than me, best to do what they will accept. Personally, I find that initiative and action economy are already very, very gamey. If anything, I personally find adhering to set initiatives / actions more gamey then breaking that up, which seems much more simulationist / RL to me.

Interesting you mentioned "cheating." That term came up in the 5e forum recently and the idea of "cheating" in D&D is just foreign to me. I never worry about that with my players, nor they me (as DM). That is just not the point of D&D for us ( I do realize that is not true for others).

(especially when things are just slightly different from the PCs’ version…).

Yikes, that is annoying!

 

[teitan]

This seems relevant to the discussion for a better perspective.

Diamond Comic Distributors Top 100 Games--Full Year 2019

Diamond Ranks Its Top Games of 2019

icv2.com

 

[BryonD]

Interesting data, but hard to see what new info we get here.

Clearly the CRB is #1, but no surprise there. Good news that bestiary is #2 because we hadn't seen much clarity on where that cover stood.

If you look at units sold:
1) PH2E CRB
2) Tal Dorei campaign setting
3) PF2E Best
4) My Hero game
5) Starfinder Core Book
6) Basic Flip Map
7) PF Pocket Book
8) PF2E GM screen
9) Starfinder Ops manual
10) Expanse RPG

I'm still interested to see where the trends take us.