Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8152533" data-attributes="member: 70468">I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, D&D-likes generally expect the GM to react and adapt to what the PCs are doing. Even if GMs aren’t running dynamic complexes or anything “fancy”, they probably shouldn’t be passively engaging with the adventure. I think there’s an expectation that you are just as much an active participant in the adventure (beyond setting up the encounters and running the bad guys) as the PCs. On the other, PF2 tries to have it both ways. It wants to say: this is how PF2 goes, but it’s always couched in qualifiers.Look at the <a href="http://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2" target="_blank">first rule of PF2</a> and their discussion of <a href="http://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=492" target="_blank">published adventures</a>. They say you can change things, which I take to mean that “by the book” isn’t intended, but it’s couched in qualifiers (“if your group agrees”) or as a way to tie things to the players’ characters. However, I’ll concede that it can also be read to mean that doing so is optional, and that can be a trap depending on how the group actually plays (e.g., a newbie group that happens to pick up tactics quickly probably won’t notice issues versus one that gets killed repeatedly).I’m also reminded of the exploration mode rules, which want to structure things but are really non-committal about it. It’s not like the exploration procedure in e.g., OSE, which is very specific about what you do when. It’s like they want to take the system in a certain direction, but they don’t want the system to say anything about how it should be run. Consequently, experiences are varying pretty widely based on the group. That’s definitely not good. Even if I think PF2 is better suited towards old-school style play, it’s sure as hell not going to get any traction in that community, and that’s not how Paizo designs their adventures.Coming back to your statement, I more or less agree. It’s a problem that PF2 doesn’t seem to understand its audience and say what the game is about. It’s okay if it’s not for “by the book” groups, but that should be clear. No one would mistake a game like OSE as that kind of game, but one can mistake PF2 for various kinds of games. That’s a definite mistake, and the system suffers for it.</blockquote>

Verification