Your Attention Level During Online Games?

[Blue]

I learned long ago, at a real table or virtual one, that I much prefer a quicker pace. Do I care if I forget some opportunity attack or a modifier is off by 2? No, not really, not if my character is doing things and I'm engaged. Fiddly bits are not important to my fun.

I enjoyed this in 13th Age. Much less codified fiddly bits, and if there's something that the GM feels should contribute/hinder, just assign it a +/-2 and move on.

5e had that concept, with Advantage/Disadvantage if a DM was willing to ad hoc it instead of only use it where explicitly listed in the rules, but more and more numerical modifiers slipped into the game, and then frequent riders due to Weapon Mastery in 5.5e, and it's stumbled from that path.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I made this mistake one time. It was shortly after 3E came out so no one was too familiar with the system, me included. I was putting a game together with few choice people that I had played with in a few different groups. My intention was 5-6 players. Once word got out, I had a lot of people wanting to play and I didn't want to say no so I ended up with 12-13 players, not including a few hangers-on that just came over for the "party". We played in my friends basement who had a large table. As I was setting up, I found an old fencing foil in an alcove and claimed it as my own. With the foil I was able to threaten and intimidate the players enough to maintain a semblance of control for a time, but we didn't get a whole lot done until everyone realized it was too chaotic of a game to keep playing that night, let alone on any regular basis. It was a fun night though.

Mine was at an open table I was running at a gaming cafe. I ran for whoever showed up, how many showed up. And yeah, that was also a mistake. In hindsight, I should've put a firm limit and if you showed up after we had, I don't know, seven players, that was that.

 

[R_J_K75]

Mine was at an open table I was running at a gaming cafe. I ran for whoever showed up, how many showed up. And yeah, that was also a mistake. In hindsight, I should've put a firm limit and if you showed up after we had, I don't know, seven players, that was that.

I knew it was going to be a large group before the game. I was hoping that a few people would drop out after the first game and get a manageable sized group of a few of my old players and some new players. It was just such a mess that we never played again after that. I did eventually start another game with a few of those people, but it wasn't until a few months later. If I could do it again, as you said, I would've put a cap on the number of players to begin with, and I wouldn't have let people who weren't playing show up to spectate and cause a distraction. IIRC there was one or two people that only wanted to play because some other people were playing, not because they were actually interested in the game. I shouldn't have let them play either, but I was thinking that maybe they would like it and stick with it. Just wasn't meant to be I suppose.

 

[Vael]

IMO, that's just poor GMing driven by a player and GM approach I don't enjoy.

The table needs to have some OOC discussion. Do folks want the game to progress at a quicker pace, or do they want to make sure every rule is accounted for and option considered?

I learned long ago, at a real table or virtual one, that I much prefer a quicker pace. Do I care if I forget some opportunity attack or a modifier is off by 2? No, not really, not if my character is doing things and I'm engaged. Fiddly bits are not important to my fun.

Though I'd argue that is more a problem of these fiddly systems that have too many modifiers. And to be honest, the players I know that really like those systems want to account for all those variables. A lot of players I know and play with would be quite annoyed to discover they forgot to account for another situational +2 or not, whether it would've changed the result or not, because they certainly remember that one time it cheated them out of a hit (or crit in P2). Combat often has a null result on a miss, so players are incentivized getting all those situational bonuses to make sure they hit.

And I know it's more my experience that tables I'm at have a "we'd rather get it right" mentality, to have sessions pause to look up rules, than just forget it and push on. So I tend to prefer faster, lighter systems, so that isn't as much of a speed bump.

 

[LordEntrails]

Though I'd argue that is more a problem of these fiddly systems that have too many modifiers. And to be honest, the players I know that really like those systems want to account for all those variables. A lot of players I know and play with would be quite annoyed to discover they forgot to account for another situational +2 or not, whether it would've changed the result or not, because they certainly remember that one time it cheated them out of a hit (or crit in P2). Combat often has a null result on a miss, so players are incentivized getting all those situational bonuses to make sure they hit.

And I know it's more my experience that tables I'm at have a "we'd rather get it right" mentality, to have sessions pause to look up rules, than just forget it and push on. So I tend to prefer faster, lighter systems, so that isn't as much of a speed bump.

I get it. Been there, played that way.
But as I said, I learned, and the tables I now play at agree, that "getting it right" is not important to us. "Having fun" is.

One turn every 30 minutes, even if you get to add in fifteen different modifiers and apply all sorts of special conditions is less fun than assuming a one size advantage or +X and having 6 turn in 30 minutes. At least for me.

Find the table that is right for you. There is no one true way. Doesn't seem like the OP has found the table that fits what they want.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Yes - if the other players and DM enjoy spending 30 minutes a turn to determine every possible modifier, there's nothing wrong with them playing the game that way. It's just not a table that's a good fit for anyone who doesn't like that stuff.

 

[Thomas Shey]

For me, it's a juice vs. squeeze situation.
There's a good number of "rider conditions" that go along with attacks in PF2. That slows down the game, when you have to roll saves, trigger additional actions, impart conditions that have to be taken into account and saved against in future rounds, tracking ongoing damage, auras, etc.
In a pure, whiteboard experiment, I'd run sample encounters in Foundry. I would ignore most feats, conditions, etc. The combats were faster but ultimately unchanged.

I suspect you saw what you were expecting there. The maths for, say, prone do not support it not having a fairly strong effect between to-hit and crit chance changes.

That said, the very fact that PF2e fights can sometimes be quite short, especially if the opposition is weak, might have masked that.

Those "extra 2 hp of bleed damage" don't really matter. In most cases that extra +1 to hit doesn't matter. An extra 5 ft of movement is usually not important to the outcome.
I enjoy progress, epic heroics, atmosphere, exploration - not "pixel b*tching" about miserly +1's for 3 hours.

But again, "pixel bitching" does not describe many of the PF2e fights I've been in, so we're back to there being something beyond system going on here.

Essentially, a system with a lot of mechanical engagement allows people who like paying attention to tactics and choices to do so, but it also allows people who are obsessive about fine detail to bog things down. A simpler system reduces both of these, but as a method of dealing with the latter it seems throwing out the baby with the bathwater to me, but if you care less about the former its probably going to seem attractive.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I enjoyed this in 13th Age. Much less codified fiddly bits, and if there's something that the GM feels should contribute/hinder, just assign it a +/-2 and move on.

5e had that concept, with Advantage/Disadvantage if a DM was willing to ad hoc it instead of only use it where explicitly listed in the rules, but more and more numerical modifiers slipped into the game, and then frequent riders due to Weapon Mastery in 5.5e, and it's stumbled from that path.

It was a self-inflicted wound. If you have any design elements where you want two design elements to both matter when they're present, Advantage is going to fail that test; its very ease and simplicity works against that. So the moment that was a desirable factor, it had to be represented in some other way.

PF2e just made sure it had a limited number of modifier types (unlike PF1e or D&D3e) so incessant hunting for them is not useful (and some are pretty much not something you can easily fish for). There still may be more than some people want, but its a case where you can't really have it both ways.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I get it. Been there, played that way.
But as I said, I learned, and the tables I now play at agree, that "getting it right" is not important to us. "Having fun" is.

I think I'd argue that people really super focused on "getting it right" find that they aren't "Having fun" if they don't. Because it bothers them.

That said, I'm still of the opinion that if a group is taking a half hour to run a PF2e battle at 10th level, unless its unusually complicated (probably for things about the enemies or the setup, since the players should know their own gig by then), someone is not doing their job in the game. Or possibly the group is too large. Or both.

Find the table that is right for you. There is no one true way. Doesn't seem like the OP has found the table that fits what they want.

I'd gotten the impression they'd had good luck with Daggerheart, so I'm not sure why they're still fighting their way through PF2e, which they've consistently had a bad experience with.

 

[Planescape]

I'm in some online games that have combats that can span 30-40 minutes before the turn comes back to me.

If this is happening and your group is less than like... 7 players... something is definitely wrong and you should talk to your DM. That's an incredible waste of time for everyone! My group only gets 2 hours a week at the moment and combat like that would straight up ruin everything for us.