Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 8108364" data-attributes="member: 16586">I am in a similar position (software engineer and user experience designer) although my degree is in Information Systems rather than Computer Science. I also do have substantial time in art school though.For me personally the way the rules of a game are written contribute substantially to how smooth it feels at the table. PF2 feels smooth to me because I find it much easier to tell what rules are actually in effect compared to games like 5e that use "natural language" where if I want to actually use the rules I have to interpret it like a bible verse. I think most people are not aware of how complex a game like 5e can feel because they gloss over substantial portions of the rules because they are hidden in obscuring paragraphs.Most rules elements in PF2 are written in a very crisp, procedural way where it is very easy to follow the steps. You resolve something and you are basically done with it. Interactions are easy for me to process due to how modular and object oriented the game is with traits and some fairly consistent interface stuff like a consistent proficiency system, counteracting, and a very consistent action economy with very few passive effects built into the game. It is also extremely explicit about where and when it expects the GM to apply their judgement.The text absolutely should have been better organized. There's also tons of ways it could be written to provide a better user experience. Crafting could have used another pass. The character sheet is fairly awful (so is the official 5e sheet).Still the technical writing, actual play processes, and core game play loops feel very smooth in play to me. The game is actually designed in a very modular way with a fairly good design manual in the Game Mastery Guide. Feature like rarity, traits, modular actions and activities that look like Apocalypse World moves structurally let you extend and change the system in more of an agile way,Some people like [USER=12731]@CapnZapp[/USER] would have liked a game designed for a tighter experience where attrition was less dynamic and you could design to an experience better. So they spend an inordinate amount of time reading the tea leaves for more exacting guidelines than actually exist. PF2 is not 4e.I think one of the reasons why PF2 might feel more smooth (and possibly you [USER=70468]@kenada[/USER] ) to me personally is that one of the lead designers is actually a very well trained Computer Scientist. Before joining Paizo Mark Seifter was working on his PhD at MIT. I think that's way there is such a strong like modular and object oriented approach to systems design. Also probably why it sometimes shows too much of its guts.</blockquote>

Verification