Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Retreater" data-source="post: 8382290" data-attributes="member: 42040">I'm posting this to collect my thoughts and share the experience I had running PF2 for a second group in a second campaign. In no way am I trying to fault the players in either of the groups (some of whom frequent these boards), nor am I saying that anyone's opinions of PF2 are wrong. If you love the system, great for you.Proto ExperienceMy very first experience experience with PF2 was running the Playtest adventure for two players (later in my Age of Ashes campaign). Each played two characters and we attempted the first adventure of the playtest series. The rules weren't finalized, the adventure was designed to test the system more than having actual fun. Not surprisingly, this was a bad first impression of the system. Later attempts with the playtest rules at game conventions (GenCon, Origins) were mixed at best. Still, it wasn't finalized.First CampaignThe first campaign was the Age of Ashes AP. We played in-person with six players. I did not adjust the encounters to be more difficult for the additional players. Still, the challenges actually felt fair (especially considering two of the players were pretty new at TTRPGs in general). Then the pandemic hit, and we moved online. Only four of the players followed the campaign onto the VTT, so we had a "normal" sized group. After a quick TPK with a Severe Encounter that couldn't be avoided (towards the end of Book 1), my wife encouraged her brother to join us as a player - so we had 5 players. After that point, we averaged a TPK every other session, constantly attempting to "restart" encounters that were going poorly. The whole experience felt like an extension of the playtest experience, as if we were still testing an unstable version. In the end, we finished Book 2 of Age of Ashes, and couldn't go on for various issues.IntermissionI signed up to play some Pathfinder Society at Gameholecon online. It was not a bad system. After talking to many Paizo fans, it seemed like a combination of a bad AP, some GMing errors, and bad faith players might've contributed to the bad experience we had with the campaign. So I thought I would give PF2 a second chance.Second CampaignI found a second group of willing participants (the only carry-over from the previous campaign was my wife, who legitimately loved the system). We were going to do the most current (at the time) AP, which was going to be half the length of all the others, and written by one of the main Pathfinder authors. The Abomination Vaults had to be good, right?The VTT IssueThe first glaring problem facing the campaign was that the largest VTT in the business (Roll20) has limited PF2 support. In fact, that "cream of the crop," current Adventure Path wasn't even available on the VTT. So using my PDFs, I had to scan each map, align to the grid, draw in walls and dynamic lighting, create dozens of unique monsters and NPCs. Each dungeon level took about 5 hours to put into Roll20. While other VTTs are available, they still required a lot of work and expertise to learn, more money to invest, etc. Problems with the APPerhaps not surprisingly, if players don't love dungeon crawls, they might not like this AP. However, it is amazing the lack of content other than dungeon crawling in this AP. There are 10 levels of never-ending dungeon -- no plot, no mystery, no meaningful roleplaying opportunities. Nothing but monsters that fight "to the death" (yes, you can search the PDF for that specific phrase) or ones that give unreasonable demands to the party ("you can surrender to the ghoul king and be eaten alive. do you want to do that, or fight to the death?") Rooms that are too small for meaningful combat movement, no foreshadowing for the players or GM about what's upcoming in the adventure. No time pressure - a 15-minute walk back to town for a full rest any time you want. Problems with the SystemDespite having played the system with the current group for 5 months, I'd say that none of us moved beyond a novice level with the system. And when we did, the individual fights didn't feel exciting enough to be the focus of the session. A single combat could take the majority of the session. Players felt like their characters were worthless. In a 1.5-2 hour combat, if you have a rogue and you can't sneak attack a monster AND it ignores the first 7 points of damage you do on each attack, you don't feel very important. In a 1.5-2 hour combat, if you have a monster that can easily save against all your spells, your caster isn't going to feel great. This would happen with more frequency than you'd like. Severe encounters (of which there would be a couple on each dungeon level), could be TPKs or exercises in frustration ("you just can't win. no matter what you do.") And yes, we attempted intimidations, trips, shoves, etc. Second Attempt, FinishedSo we had signed on to try the system. Most of the players had been like me - gamers who had tried the system before but it just didn't connect. An honest, fair second-chance didn't change things. Some of these players had been fans of PF1, 5e, D&D 4e, or other systems. It unanimously failed with each of us. Why I Think PF2 Didn't Click (for us)Bad Adventure DesignSure, "Age of Ashes" suffered because it was written before the rules were finished and the challenges are way too difficult. I have heard "Plaguestone" suffered a similar issue. "Abomination Vaults" - well, that's not going to appeal to people who don't like dungeon crawls, obviously.But these issues are merely scratching the surface of why the adventure design in 2e is bad. And I think the root of the issue is the same as the bad adventure design that 4e had. Combats are big, involved things, but they aren't given the space (physically, as in the number of squares in the module; or distance from encounter-to-encounter; or time from encounter-to-encounter) to actually pull off that importance. You can't have your encounters play off each other. They can't be reactive or dynamic - or you'll risk an easy TPK. Still, the writers are creating adventures like it's PF1, and they play not so great. Bad RulesToo many conditions. Too many feats. Too many options. I think Paizo realizes that more people buy their adventures to read them than actually play them, and on the same token, more characters are made for the char-gen mini game than are ever taken to an actual table. This dichotomy ensures there are two factions to the Pathfinder fan-base (the players and the theory-crafters), and the two actively work against each other. I know - I've GMed for theory-crafters (who are fine losing their characters to try other "sick builds.") Meanwhile, those who care about plot, story, and roleplay are shut out by a treadmill of power creep that has travelled 5 miles in two years. When your character keeps getting shut-down by the design of the monsters, you're going to need to constantly re-design your character.</blockquote>

Verification