Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8150293" data-attributes="member: 70468">I watched the first video but not the second. I think it’s a fair criticism in the sense that he’s saying stuff that aligns with what I’ve been seeing in the discussion here. There’s a group of players for whom PF2 ought to be perfect, but it’s not actually not all that great for them. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: PF2 seems better-suited towards old-school style games than 3e-style games with tons of combat.The video goes on and on about optimal play as if that is the most important thing at the table. PF2 does put a premium on tactics, but I don’t think it’s tuned that tightly. You can’t play dumb, but playing to your strengths should be enough. He keeps going on and on about optimal play and optimal tactics, but that’s a self-inflicted problem. What does he expect from an RPG? If you’re just setting up fights for PCs to defeat, you’re going to fall into a rut sooner or later.It struck me as a red herring to distract from the combat-heavy focus of the rest of the video. If they’re talking in character, then obviously they’re roleplaying, right?Reading between the lines, I’m guessing they separate “RP” and “encounters” instead of running everything together (roleplaying all the time). Let the players go wild in exploration mode, creating advantages and messing up encounters. I think they’ll find things less boring then.There were four ads in a twenty minute video. Four! <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😒" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f612.png" title="Unamused face&nbsp; &nbsp; :unamused:" data-shortname=":unamused:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="kenada, post: 8150293, member: 70468"] I watched the first video but not the second. I think it’s a fair criticism in the sense that he’s saying stuff that aligns with what I’ve been seeing in the discussion here. There’s a group of players for whom PF2 ought to be perfect, but it’s not actually not all that great for them. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: PF2 seems better-suited towards old-school style games than 3e-style games with tons of combat. The video goes on and on about optimal play as if that is the most important thing at the table. PF2 does put a premium on tactics, but I don’t think it’s tuned [I]that[/I] tightly. You can’t play dumb, but playing to your strengths should be enough. He keeps going on and on about optimal play and optimal tactics, but that’s a self-inflicted problem. What does he expect from an RPG? If you’re just setting up fights for PCs to defeat, you’re going to fall into a rut sooner or later. It struck me as a red herring to distract from the combat-heavy focus of the rest of the video. If they’re talking in character, then obviously they’re roleplaying, right? Reading between the lines, I’m guessing they separate “RP” and “encounters” instead of running everything together (roleplaying all the time). Let the players go wild in exploration mode, creating advantages and messing up encounters. I think they’ll find things less boring then. There were four ads in a twenty minute video. Four! 😒 [/QUOTE]

Verification