Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Retreater" data-source="post: 8150410" data-attributes="member: 42040">Yeah, there is (unsurprisingly) some indignation about this video on the PF2 messageboards at Paizo. I don't completely disagree with his assessment. There is little wiggle room for suboptimization of every character action in the Age of Ashes Adventure Path (which he and I both have GMed). It's deadly (my group averaged 3 TPKs in around 9 sessions). It was so frustrating my group rage quit upon completing the second book in the AP. (I've documented our experiences in other threads here.)My personal opinion is that Age of Ashes was a bad way to kick off PF2. Based on what I ran, what I've read from others, and Taking20's video, I have to describe it as a catastrophic failure of design to promote a new system, akin to the terrible 4E inaugural adventure &quot;Keep on the Shadowfell&quot; - which I believe is a contributing factor to the lack of success seen by 4E.Had PF2 launched with a solid starting adventure and easy entry point, like the 5e Starter Set (and by all reports the 1.5 years too late Beginner Box for PF2), we'd likely be having a different conversation. Can it get back those who tried a &quot;real campaign&quot; with it, only to give up because of poor adventure design?PF2&nbsp; completely stumbled out of the gate with a bad Adventure Path. Then Paizo apologized for the theme of their most recent Adventure Path (which my group wouldn't play even when the issues with Age of Ashes became apparent). In the past month, they've found the need to print errata'ed 600+ page rulebooks and release affordable paperback editions. Now a pretty major voice on YouTube (who previously championed their system) - at least in the small circle of gaming content - has lambasted the system. Pathfinder 2 is in trouble.&nbsp; Their upcoming AP has to knock it out of the park, or I don't know if PF2 will have enough interest to warrant discussing this time next year.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Retreater, post: 8150410, member: 42040"] Yeah, there is (unsurprisingly) some indignation about this video on the PF2 messageboards at Paizo. I don't completely disagree with his assessment. There is little wiggle room for suboptimization of every character action in the Age of Ashes Adventure Path (which he and I both have GMed). It's deadly (my group averaged 3 TPKs in around 9 sessions). It was so frustrating my group rage quit upon completing the second book in the AP. (I've documented our experiences in other threads here.) My personal opinion is that Age of Ashes was a bad way to kick off PF2. Based on what I ran, what I've read from others, and Taking20's video, I have to describe it as a catastrophic failure of design to promote a new system, akin to the terrible 4E inaugural adventure "Keep on the Shadowfell" - which I believe is a contributing factor to the lack of success seen by 4E. Had PF2 launched with a solid starting adventure and easy entry point, like the 5e Starter Set (and by all reports the 1.5 years too late Beginner Box for PF2), we'd likely be having a different conversation. Can it get back those who tried a "real campaign" with it, only to give up because of poor adventure design? PF2 completely stumbled out of the gate with a bad Adventure Path. Then Paizo apologized for the theme of their most recent Adventure Path (which my group wouldn't play even when the issues with Age of Ashes became apparent). In the past month, they've found the need to print errata'ed 600+ page rulebooks and release affordable paperback editions. Now a pretty major voice on YouTube (who previously championed their system) - at least in the small circle of gaming content - has lambasted the system. Pathfinder 2 is in trouble. Their upcoming AP has to knock it out of the park, or I don't know if PF2 will have enough interest to warrant discussing this time next year. [/QUOTE]

Verification