Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8913811" data-attributes="member: 7026617">I was also going to comment on something someone earlier in the thread about the reputation being that GMs like PF2e better than players do.&nbsp; I think there's a couple reasons you see this frequently and it has everything to do with the fact that most players and GMs hitting the game system aren't tabula rasas and are often familiar with either 3e era D&amp;D or PF1e.1. At the GM end, those games become progressively a pill to run at higher levels because of the compounding accumulated bits many opponents have that you need to keep track of.&nbsp; Except to a limited degree with spellcasters, PF2e avoids that, and its a pretty noticeable difference.2. At the other end, players have sometimes gotten used to one of three things that are either less or not true with PF2e: A. Being able to bake a cake during character generation and/or advancement so you breeze through opposition, B. Being able to run a character on autopilot, C. Spellcasters that are, frankly, often OP compared to other classes.&nbsp; Its genuinely hard to completely cook a character in PF2e (and requires some effort to wreck one), the system almost always requires paying some attention in play, and spellcasters and non-spellcasters have been pushed closer together which required the reduction or elimination of some easy-win cards some people got used to.&nbsp; If any of these three apply, the system can take some getting used to at the least, and if players were really comfortable with any of the three, can come across as unpleasant.&nbsp; As mentioned, if the level of opposition is not comforting you can adjust that a bit (but its going to be in a way that doesn't hide what it is) but the others are not likely addressable in ways that wouldn't break the system.My opinion is neither of these would be as&nbsp; pronounced to people who come in entirely from outside the D&amp;D ecosystem or were new to RPGing in general.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8913811, member: 7026617"] I was also going to comment on something someone earlier in the thread about the reputation being that GMs like PF2e better than players do. I think there's a couple reasons you see this frequently and it has everything to do with the fact that most players and GMs hitting the game system aren't tabula rasas and are often familiar with either 3e era D&D or PF1e. 1. At the GM end, those games become progressively a pill to run at higher levels because of the compounding accumulated bits many opponents have that you need to keep track of. Except to a limited degree with spellcasters, PF2e avoids that, and its a pretty noticeable difference. 2. At the other end, players have sometimes gotten used to one of three things that are either less or not true with PF2e: A. Being able to bake a cake during character generation and/or advancement so you breeze through opposition, B. Being able to run a character on autopilot, C. Spellcasters that are, frankly, often OP compared to other classes. Its genuinely hard to completely cook a character in PF2e (and requires some effort to wreck one), the system almost always requires paying some attention in play, and spellcasters and non-spellcasters have been pushed closer together which required the reduction or elimination of some easy-win cards some people got used to. If any of these three apply, the system can take some getting used to at the least, and if players were really comfortable with any of the three, can come across as unpleasant. As mentioned, if the level of opposition is not comforting you can adjust that a bit (but its going to be in a way that doesn't hide what it is) but the others are not likely addressable in ways that wouldn't break the system. My opinion is neither of these would be as pronounced to people who come in entirely from outside the D&D ecosystem or were new to RPGing in general. [/QUOTE]

Verification