Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JmanTheDM" data-source="post: 8393658" data-attributes="member: 6791902">Couple of quick comments, as I jump into this thread WAAAAY too late.1.&nbsp; I just had 1 of my 2 PF2 games implode and end.&nbsp; not due to PF2, per say, but due to the fact that the CRB of PF2 does not do a good enough job describing the &quot;default&quot; play style that is expected out of the rules.&nbsp; I 100% agree that the game can be played using different styles (eg, hex crawls, etc.), but as someone who was GM'ing PF2 for the first time and had never played or ran D&amp;D 3.5 or PF1.&nbsp; I took the CRB's advise to heart that you can &quot;do anything&quot; within the game to literally.&nbsp; I didn't have enough experience to try &quot;advanced mode&quot; PF2, while also learning the rules and the adventures etc.&nbsp; too bad, it was a fun game - and the details are not important here.&nbsp; suffice it to say, if some space was dedicated to describing how organized play and AP's are designed (maybe not explicitly, but in the GM section for example), that would have really helped me calibrate my own game expectations with the rules.2.&nbsp; reading the CRB, and the sheer levels of prescriptive rules.&nbsp; I was a) awestruck at having guidance like this, b) awestruck at the task of trying to learn it all, c) amused.&nbsp; mostly c.&nbsp; why?&nbsp; because it honestly read to me like many sections of the CRB were written as a FAQ, to address years of edge cases that crop up in organized play, where convention leaders would be summoned to a table with a situation, they would mull it over, and certain ones would repeat each convention and over the years.&nbsp; so, Paizo decided that instead of leaving these ambiguities, they'd address them from the get.&nbsp; to me, these subsystems/rules/complexity makes a kind of sense, because of #1 above - that there is a default mode, which as a total Newb, to me feels catered mostly towards AP subscription sales and organized play support.3.&nbsp; Hero points were the one area that I house ruled.&nbsp; of the 5 house rules I have added to my game,&nbsp; 3 were around hero points, 1 surprise and initiative and 1 for recall knowledge on monsters.&nbsp; none have broke the game. all were more tweaks than outright replacements.&nbsp; and for the hero points, it pushed the responsibility directly into the hands of the PC's to manage and monitor - which for me - was a win!I have learned a lot about the 3 different PF2 games I've been a part of (1 as player, 2 as GM), and especially with the implosion.&nbsp; The implosion would not have happened had I played 5e or OSR D&amp;D, and it was not because of bad rules, but more so bad assumptions on the type of game those rules are most suited for. PF2 remains my most favourite version of D&amp;D, but now I know, like TV shows that make you think vs. those that you can just let wash over you,&nbsp; not ever story in TV is equally well suited for both types of shows.Cheers,J.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JmanTheDM, post: 8393658, member: 6791902"] Couple of quick comments, as I jump into this thread WAAAAY too late. 1. I just had 1 of my 2 PF2 games implode and end. not due to PF2, per say, but due to the fact that the CRB of PF2 does not do a good enough job describing the "default" play style that is expected out of the rules. I 100% agree that the game can be played using different styles (eg, hex crawls, etc.), but as someone who was GM'ing PF2 for the first time and had never played or ran D&D 3.5 or PF1. I took the CRB's advise to heart that you can "do anything" within the game to literally. I didn't have enough experience to try "advanced mode" PF2, while also learning the rules and the adventures etc. too bad, it was a fun game - and the details are not important here. suffice it to say, if some space was dedicated to describing how organized play and AP's are designed (maybe not explicitly, but in the GM section for example), that would have really helped me calibrate my own game expectations with the rules. 2. reading the CRB, and the sheer levels of prescriptive rules. I was a) awestruck at having guidance like this, b) awestruck at the task of trying to learn it all, c) amused. mostly c. why? because it honestly read to me like many sections of the CRB were written as a FAQ, to address years of edge cases that crop up in organized play, where convention leaders would be summoned to a table with a situation, they would mull it over, and certain ones would repeat each convention and over the years. so, Paizo decided that instead of leaving these ambiguities, they'd address them from the get. to me, these subsystems/rules/complexity makes a kind of sense, because of #1 above - that there is a default mode, which as a total Newb, to me feels catered mostly towards AP subscription sales and organized play support. 3. Hero points were the one area that I house ruled. of the 5 house rules I have added to my game, 3 were around hero points, 1 surprise and initiative and 1 for recall knowledge on monsters. none have broke the game. all were more tweaks than outright replacements. and for the hero points, it pushed the responsibility directly into the hands of the PC's to manage and monitor - which for me - was a win! I have learned a lot about the 3 different PF2 games I've been a part of (1 as player, 2 as GM), and especially with the implosion. The implosion would not have happened had I played 5e or OSR D&D, and it was not because of bad rules, but more so bad assumptions on the type of game those rules are most suited for. PF2 remains my most favourite version of D&D, but now I know, like TV shows that make you think vs. those that you can just let wash over you, not ever story in TV is equally well suited for both types of shows. Cheers, J. [/QUOTE]

Verification