Pathfinder 2E PF2: Second Attempt Post Mortem

[Justice and Rule]

The social engineering is what I miss. I prefer having a reward economy that nudges players towards the game’s themes and creative agenda. I want it to work like the fate point economy in Fate or the XP reward cycle in games like Blades in the Dark or Dungeon World. The way hero points in PF2 (and inspiration in 5e) work feels like rewarding players for doing something they were going to do anyway.

Another good example would be the Destiny Point system in FFG's Star Wars RPG. You generate a pool of light and dark side points, where the GM can use the dark side points and the players can use the light side points to get advantages or add parts to the narrative. However, whenever you use one you flip it to the other side, so there's some interesting push and pull, as well as a nice system that allows the GM to use fiat to make things more difficult while also giving the players a reward for it. It also plays into certain character powers.

 

[Aldarc]

@Retreater, not every game is for everyone and that's okay. Maybe it will be with time and you still have the books. Maybe it won't and your books will go to someone for whom this is the right game for them.

At the very least, you have learned more about your own personal preferences and what you want out of a game. Maybe the upcoming Level Up will be that game for you.

 

[kenada]

Yes, it is a good illustrative point of PF2s severely overengineered nature.

Can you ignore it? Yes. Simply give everyone more hero points at session's start and you're done. But why was it allowed to become so cludgey and overbearing in the first place?

It’s actually the opposite — hero points are under-engineered. They don’t tie into the core gameplay loop. It’s left entirely to fiat to make sure the GM gives them out at the intended rate. They’re just kind of feeble and timidly implemented (I’d say the same about inspiration in 5e).

 

[kenada]

Maybe it's time to give up on getting a system that can support the fiction of D&D and classic fantasy gaming with a more robust tactical element than 5e. Maybe Level Up will suit us better? Maybe we should look at going back to PF1?

I’m pretty sure I sound like a broke record at this point, but check out Worlds Without Number. It has a 3e-style action economy, but tactical play is afforded via action choice (e.g., how/when you decide to take your turn rather than by stacking up modifiers effectively). It also does customization (foci are feats, basically). The only bad part is it’s too verbose for its own good*. The core rules are only ~20 pages, but there are things scattered around other sections that are important too.

---

* I ended up putting together a guide for my group in the style of OSE (actually using the OSE Core Rules as a base). How do people do retroclones? It’s something I’d like to share with the WWN thread here, but I should like to make sure it’s not infringing on WWN.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, it is a good illustrative point of PF2s severely overengineered nature.

I don't want to talk about individual trees. I want to talk about the forest.

Mod Note:

Coming into the Pathfinder forum, where people who like the game are busy discussing it, and putting forth relentless and unremittingly negative posts about the game is kind of like walking into an ice cream parlor, putting down a soapbox in the middle of the room, standing on it, and loudly haranguing customers about how ice cream sucks.

It is clear you don't like the game. That's fine. Leave spaces on the boards for people who do like it to discuss without your input, please and thanks.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The social engineering is what I miss. I prefer having a reward economy that nudges players towards the game’s themes and creative agenda. I want it to work like the fate point economy in Fate or the XP reward cycle in games like Blades in the Dark or Dungeon World. The way hero points in PF2 (and inspiration in 5e) work feels like rewarding players for doing something they were going to do anyway.

You're far from alone. I've just concluded after years of dealing with experience systems that do that, its not only not something I want to be doing, its not something I should be doing.

But my point was, there's no need to get into the weeds in that way for a hero point mechanic to work. You can simplify it immensely and it makes almost no practical difference in the actual purpose.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I am not criticizing Pathfinder 2 for providing "actual systems" to deal with regularly done task.

I am however repeatedly asking myself "did it really need to be this complicated and detailed?"

(And before you try saying "yes", no. Absolutely not. It definitely did not need to be this cluttery and fiddly.)

And here's a surprise that you clearly have trouble with CZ: Not everyone agrees with you. In some cases, to do the job right, I do, indeed think it needed to be that, and the fact you don't think so doesn't change that.

As an example, I can see exactly the problem the stealth and concealment system was designed to deal with, because its a set of problems that comes up with those area in every game that has to deal with them. You can either address them systematically or throw them into the GM's lap every time they come up. I don't consider the latter a virtue.

(This doesn't mean I don't think in the case of some areas it couldn't be presented more clearly, but that's a different question.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Maybe it's time to give up on getting a system that can support the fiction of D&D and classic fantasy gaming with a more robust tactical element than 5e. Maybe Level Up will suit us better? Maybe we should look at going back to PF1?
But seems pretty clear that for some of us there's just no getting PF2 to where we want. And after some substantial time and financial investment (at least on my part), that's a shame. There's also the baked-in disappointment that it's from a company I used to support and now my interest in their products will be waning.
I'm some ways it feels like a breakup from a relationship where two partners want different things. Maybe that's why we see so much passion in these threads?

Here's the difference: while I think you sometimes overstate some things, its clear that some things are simply a case you have different expectations and needs than what PF2e is trying to serve, and don't want to try and hammer PF2e in it because (as I mentioned in regard to the other poster), why should you? Trying to use the proper tool for the job is a virtue; as Keneda has mentioned, its better than the situation with some 5e fans who have a "when you have a big hammer" approach.

The problem with CZ is that he is apparently incapable of accepting that anyone can have a view different from his on the problems he sees with PF2e and come by them legitimately. So he massively begs the question, and outright accuses people who don't accept that of arguing in bad faith. That's not a feeling I get from any other PF2e critic around here.

(And that doesn't even getting into the question about whether hopping into every thread about a game you dislike to let everyone know it. FATE and PbtA games don't work for me, and I'll sometimes mention that and why if it comes up, but I don't usually post in threads here or elsewhere that are dedicated to those systems or individual games based on them, because people have a right to like what they like and that they don't suit me doesn't change that.)

 

[Green Onceler]

. Instead you're likely to have a fairly effective character unless you are actively trying to make a bad one.

Awesome. Ever since I was a kid I've daydreamed of being a fairly effective wizard in a land of high adventure.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Awesome. Ever since I was a kid I've daydreamed of being a fairly effective wizard in a land of high adventure.