Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[Thomas Shey]

I think pathfinder 2E has the problem that any game would have when creating a new edition means creating a completely new game with the same name as another game. That is unfortunately what a new edition has come to be for many games. It’s not an update or refinement of a game people love. It’s a new and different thing that uses the name of a game that people love. If they are going to create a completely new game I wish they would give them different names.

This is an absolutely no-win situation with new editions. If you do enough changes to justify it, you get complaints like the above (which I think is overblown; PF2e is easily recognizable as another D&D derivative and descended from the prior game, so "completely new game" seems a gross overstatement); if you don't do that, people wonder why the hell they're paying again for a game that just noodled in the margins of the system slightly.

 

[nevin]

This is an absolutely no-win situation with new editions. If you do enough changes to justify it, you get complaints like the above (which I think is overblown; PF2e is easily recognizable as another D&D derivative and descended from the prior game, so "completely new game" seems a gross overstatement); if you don't do that, people wonder why the hell they're paying again for a game that just noodled in the margins of the system slightly.

Of course its a no win situation. Companies want to sell books. If you have a system that is popular enough to sell campaign settings and splat books then the sytem gets overloaded with stuff. But the game is popular. Redesigning the game gives the company a reset, but if the old game was fun and popular enough that the devs were willing to redisign it, why would you expect anything but a fractured play base?
Hollwood is learning that lesson now. Remaking anything that was good or popular is almost always a losing proposition. live actuon Mulan and Aladdin for example.

 

[CapnZapp]

And I see no reason to assume a) isn't just as likely, so here we are.

I don't understand what you're basing it on, though.

 

[CapnZapp]

This is an absolutely no-win situation with new editions. If you do enough changes to justify it, you get complaints like the above (which I think is overblown; PF2e is easily recognizable as another D&D derivative and descended from the prior game, so "completely new game" seems a gross overstatement); if you don't do that, people wonder why the hell they're paying again for a game that just noodled in the margins of the system slightly.

It's just a name.

There are several things that different, yet named the same.

It just isn't a weighty complaint.

 

[CapnZapp]

Hollwood is learning that lesson now.

Counterpoint: No they're not...?

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not sure where you're getting that from me, unless its simply trying to use it for anyplace but Golarion lands in that category from your perspective. I'm as reasonably happy with the game structurally and mechanically as I'm going to be with any real D&D derivative. If I want magic items to not be a big factor, I'm unlikely to use anything descended from D&D proper.

Got it.

 

[CapnZapp]

I’m starting to see comments on reddit from people claiming that Age of Ashes was easy, and they had to buff the encounters to make them challenging, so maybe people are starting to figure out how to break it.

I don't consider that a useful data point. I'm sure we agree I can run the game for you in a way that makes you completely win AoA.

More useful (I hope) is listening to trustworthy testimonials. If you consider my experiences trustworthy, I can say I have never played an iteration of D&D as deadly as that first level of Curse of Extinction.

Sure, mathematically old OD&D surely compares, but the expectations are vastly different. In one game you have 4 hp and a sword deals 1d8. On the other hand chargen takes five minutes. In the other game, you have all the bells and whistles and safeguards of a modern game. Yet all these rules still result in scenarios where the heroes are tested til breaking point, and then some more.

I'm sure it's possible to change play styles, and learn how to approach the game. Coupled with a healthy dose of old-fashioned exaggeration I completely believe those redditors believe they've "won" Pathfinder 2.

Still doesn't change my general sentiment.

 

[kenada]

I don't consider that a useful data point. I'm sure we agree I can run the game for you in a way that makes you completely win AoA.

More useful (I hope) is listening to trustworthy testimonials. If you consider my experiences trustworthy, I can say I have never played an iteration of D&D as deadly as that first level of Curse of Extinction.

Sure, mathematically old OD&D surely compares, but the expectations are vastly different. In one game you have 4 hp and a sword deals 1d8. On the other hand chargen takes five minutes. In the other game, you have all the bells and whistles and safeguards of a modern game. Yet all these rules still result in scenarios where the heroes are tested til breaking point, and then some more.

I'm sure it's possible to change play styles, and learn how to approach the game. Coupled with a healthy dose of old-fashioned exaggeration I completely believe those redditors believe they've "won" Pathfinder 2.

Still doesn't change my general sentiment.

I’ve seen it on the official forums too, but without knowing their experience, I have no way to evaluate the veracity. Anyway, the point wasn’t to make an argument or convince anyone of anything. I was just trying to acknowledge that it’s possible the math isn’t as robust as it’s been postulated. That’s all.

 

[dave2008]

If I want magic items to not be a big factor, I'm unlikely to use anything descended from D&D proper.

Really!? I've played D&D for 30+ years (1e, 4e, and 5e) and I've never had magic items be a big factor. My 5e group is lvl 15 now and they have very few magic items, like attunement is not an issue at all for my group.

 

[GrahamWills]

More useful (I hope) is listening to trustworthy testimonials. If you consider my experiences trustworthy, I can say I have never played an iteration of D&D as deadly as that first level of Curse of Extinction.

I can't help thinking that this thread is crossing across some barrier into parallel universes. We're just about to finish book one and we had nothing even close to a dangerous situation. Not quite a cake walk, but we haven't had a single death saving throw yet even -- not sure anyone has dropped unconscious even. The most dangerous encounter was the we thought we were paying a social visit to a religious establishment and ended up fighting demons; we had spent most of our resources and were still running on starting equipment. That one was a bit scary, but it turned out OK.

We really don't have an optimized party either -- my investigator multiclassed into Archaelogist, and I think our witch is a Familiar Master; our swashbuckler is our main damage dealer -- it doesn't seem like we're at the top end of the power curve.

I wonder if PF2 might be unusual in that GM variance is more extreme than in other editions -- perhaps other editions are more constraining on GMs, so that experiences there are more uniform? Anyone any thoughts as to why PF2 seems to have more divergent experiences than other editions?