Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[kenada]

possibly but that depends on whether or not they felt that PFS was driving most of thier sales. If that's the case then they most likely felt they couldn't do it. If that is not the case they would have been far better off doing what every version of organized D&D has done since the RPGA and limit the ruleset and allow home players to use anything they want. Then you get to sell supplements and control organized play. If your entire ruleset is written around organized play that's a very limiting business model.

Not PFS, but I expect adventure paths and adventures are probably a big driver right now. Like @CapnZapp says, people are going to grab an adventure to see how a system plays.

That I didn’t is probably an anomaly. I’d already run my share of PF1 adventures (and got tired of Paizo’s style) and had an underwhelming experience with the one I ran for my group during the playtest. I wouldn’t have even considered trying the system again if not for a happy accident. We’d had a TPK in the 5e version of my campaign, and I concluded that the power scaling in PF2 and its mechanical orientation were a better fit for my group. As it turns out, that scaling was no good us, but Proficiency Without Level made the system work.

 

[glass]

IME the completely open ended narrative nature of RPGs is such that mechanical controls which replace DM judgement virtually always end up doing more harm than good.

I am not sure what you mean by "mechanical controls which replace DM judgement", but if you mean rule systems engineered to reduce pitfalls and smooth gameplay (which is what I was talking about), then my experience is that they do exactly that. And it make running them so much easier.

_
glass.

 

[BryonD]

I am not sure what you mean by "mechanical controls which replace DM judgement", but if you mean rule systems engineered to reduce pitfalls and smooth gameplay (which is what I was talking about), then my experience is that they do exactly that. And it make running them so much easier.

_
glass.

OK noted.
You quoted games "careening out of control" and said that was exactly it, with italics. So I took you to mean just that.
If you don't have those problems, then rules whose sole purpose is to solve those problems add zero value while creating unneeded constraints.

Different game systems for different groups and needs.
Its all good.

 

[glass]

OK noted.
You quoted games "careening out of control" and said that was exactly it, with italics. So I took you to mean just that.
If you don't have those problems, then rules whose sole purpose is to solve those problems add zero value while creating unneeded constraints.

Well, I took "careening out of control" to be slightly hyperbolic. But the thing I was exactly talking about was trusting the GM to sort it out, for various values of it. If it is going to cause problems in PFS then it is going to cause problems in home games, and would rather the rules take care of that rather where practicable "trusting the GM" (ie me).

_
glass.

 

[nevin]

Well, PF was, by their own marketing "3.5 Thrives". I think it is much more appropriate to compare PF2E to 4E on this front. And that is specifically "As a reaction (or over reaction) to the complaints against 3X". I would put them in the same ballpark, but IMO, WotC did a much worse job there. 5E showed a lot of learning from the missteps of 4E. (Granted, the success of 5E goes far, far beyond just course correcting 4E.)

Anyway, I 100% agree that, substantial and important differences between 4E and PF2E not withstanding, the 3E squeaky wheel response is fundamental to both games' math.

I don't really think that player entitlement is a big concern with 3E or PF2E. Yes, 3E codified a lot and thus was a lot less DM whim dependent than 2E. No arguing that. But I think it was more a case of 3E had no "controls". There were lots of ways bad players and/or bad DMs could ruin a 3E game and the system took no pains to save you from yourself.

I'd argue your assessment is close but off mark. 3rd edition expected it's older player base to be able to GM well enough to handle whatever they put in the game, and younger GM's to learn and fix mistakes.

Pathfinder tried to fix the issues by taking away GM agency with rules for everything.

 

[nevin]

I am not sure what you mean by "mechanical controls which replace DM judgement", but if you mean rule systems engineered to reduce pitfalls and smooth gameplay (which is what I was talking about), then my experience is that they do exactly that. And it make running them so much easier.

_
glass

Things like force affects affect everything except when you use magic missile that only affects living creatures? The game is full of stuff like that. Fey abilities used to be all charm and compulsion spells but now it's just compulsion spells which have be nuetered. You probably not sure because you haven't paid attention to the training wheels that are everywhere. GM'ing pathfinder is like bowling with the kiddie rails up.

 

[BryonD]

I'd argue your assessment is close but off mark. 3rd edition expected it's older player base to be able to GM well enough to handle whatever they put in the game, and younger GM's to learn and fix mistakes.

Pathfinder tried to fix the issues by taking away GM agency with rules for everything.

You are referencing the 2009 PF? Not sure I follow how there as much on that front between 3X and the original PF.
And I never have heard anyone express that point either. Over and over I've heard that a fair number of 3X fans were unhappy that PH codified things as even more implicitly powerful and magic, making it even harder to go low magic. But nothing about GM agency.
And as a veteran of the 4E-era "edition wars", that was a frequent battle line. 4E was all about player agency and one reason (among many) that 4E was shunned was because of GM who clung to PF as a way to retain their glorious power of the lowly players.

Anyway, pretty far off topic.

 

[CapnZapp]

I would put them in the same ballpark, but IMO, WotC did a much worse job there. 5E showed a lot of learning from the missteps of 4E.

My point is that I don't cut Paizo nearly the same slack here. After all Paizo could have learned from 5E, but didn't. I refuse to let Paizo get away with "their game is a massive improvement over PF1". Only if you live in a Paizo bubble does that fly. Most prospective PF2 customers, however, will have come across 5E.

In the year PF2 was released (2019) 5E was and is the obvious comparison point, not 3E/PF1 (and certainly not 4E).

 

[CapnZapp]

No, that is exactly the kind of thing I am thinking of. As an experienced GM I would hope to head off any problems. But the more I can rely on the system to do that so I do not have to, the happy I will be. As a GM, I have plenty of other things to be doing.

_
glass.

IME the completely open ended narrative nature of RPGs is such that mechanical controls which replace DM judgement virtually always end up doing more harm than good.

This.

 

[CapnZapp]

When I talk about mechanics, I generally mean the model of the rules that results from internalizing the text rather than the text itself. I think I’ve mentioned a few times the poor job the text does helping players form those models. For example, I had to diagram perception and afflictions for myself and my group. They’re actually pretty simple, but the text spends too many pages trying to convey that (and failing for my group since we didn’t even come away with fully understanding them).

Well, at the risk of becoming tiresome I feel I still need to quibble.

You have the presentation layer.
You have the actual motions players go through to "execute" the rules
You have the end results (what comes out of the box, whether it's black or not.)

I'm arguing that step 2 is far too fussy, involves far too many decision points, calculations and die rolls.

So I'm not merely trying to say that the words make it seem much more complex than it really is. I'm saying it really is much more complex than it needed to be.

You can achieve roughly the same results with far less mechanics (which in turn means you can achieve them with far less words). No beginner box can explain Crafting or Medicine (to take two examples) in a streamlined way unless the actual CRB rules (step 2) are ignored/simplified.

This aspect alone lowers my grade of any given rpg subsystem. Whether the rules are fun, give good results, and so on, doesn't even come into this equation.