Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jmartkdr2" data-source="post: 8100872" data-attributes="member: 7017304">For points 1 + 2: Did these issues bother you when you played 4e? Because there's not a huge difference in number of choices there, and the same tools are available to help you with them beyond trying to absorb three books by yourself. What's different this time?Also, when you crunch the numbers - everything works. There's a very small difference between the best and worst option. For point 3: Some of that is PF2 being a tightly constrained game. The whole point of all those rules is you don't need to guess how stuff will work (or, more to the point - how your dm will think it should work); it's already spelled out. You can still improv (if your group is in to that), it just requires less. To me, that's the upside to more rules. If your group wants a more casual game, it's easy enough for the gm to use easier encounters. Then all the choices have lowered stakes.(The surprise people are having is that if you're coming from 5e - it's actually challenging. 5e is very hard to keep challenging as opposed to just swingy, unless you have a lot of encounters between rests.)On 4: Yeah, that's a problem we all have, I think. It's a lot harder to get any game going that isn't 5e these days. The method I've used in the past is to offer to run games until I've assembled a core group, then let someone else take over gming. I haven't gotten that far yet (I'm waiting to see if another temp group will solidify) but I'm in three long-running DnD groups formed by this method.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jmartkdr2, post: 8100872, member: 7017304"] For points 1 + 2: Did these issues bother you when you played 4e? Because there's not a huge difference in number of choices there, and the same tools are available to help you with them beyond trying to absorb three books by yourself. What's different this time? Also, when you crunch the numbers - everything works. There's a very small difference between the best and worst option. For point 3: Some of that is PF2 being a tightly constrained game. The whole point of all those rules is you don't need to guess how stuff will work (or, more to the point - how your dm will think it should work); it's already spelled out. You can still improv (if your group is in to that), it just [I]requires [/I]less. To me, that's the upside to more rules. If your group wants a more casual game, it's easy enough for the gm to use easier encounters. Then all the choices have lowered stakes. (The surprise people are having is that if you're coming from 5e - it's actually challenging. 5e is very hard to keep challenging as opposed to just swingy, unless you have a lot of encounters between rests.) On 4: Yeah, that's a problem we all have, I think. It's a lot harder to get any game going that isn't 5e these days. The method I've used in the past is to offer to run games until I've assembled a core group, then let someone else take over gming. I haven't gotten that far yet (I'm waiting to see if another temp group will solidify) but I'm in three long-running DnD groups formed by this method. [/QUOTE]

Verification