What triggers some people about Pathfinder?

[Zuras]

I should add that while PF2's vertical progression (i.e. getting bigger numbers as you level up) is largely illusory, its horizontal progression (i.e. getting more different options as you level up) is also largely illusory*; and both 3E/PF and 4E easily offer much more horizontal growth than PF2 does.

*On the one hand because of feat chains; on the other hand because most of the extra "options" either don't do anything, or are clearly inferior to standard low-level moves. If new options are clearly weaker than lower-level options, then they are making people choose between "winning" and "having fun".

If that description is accurate, it still sounds like general issues with the design rather than some nefarious plan to deceive consumers as described in “players only need the illusion of growth” discussion. As far as I can tell from the posted discussion, the design sacrifices were made to ensure the challenge level math would never be borked, and to enforce strong class niche protection. I may not agree that those are the most important goals to pursue in a d20 based fantasy rpg, but they’re understandable ones.

I find it hard to imagine anyone intentionally making a bad game. Presumably even things like the AD&D 1e psionics rules seemed like a good idea at the time.

[Psyren]

Read part two of the Reddit post, and this poster is just doing a terrible job of "defending" PF2. (Defending in quotes because like many defenders, they're actually going on the offense online because they view it as needing defending.)

I actually don't view it as offense or defense. It's explaining why the design principles under the edition might be off-putting to people coming in from PF1 or 5e. It's attempting to resolve a common expectation gap, not to tell you that PF2 is better or worse than other games. Whether it ends up being better or worse depends on what the person in question is looking for.

Well...it's not that simple. Very frequently, people don't really know what they want. They know what they've liked in the past, but rarely why or what particular parts of it were key. And very frequently, something as simple as the DM being really enthusiastic about something can totally change the person's perspective and they'll like something they never thought they would.

Of course, this is more about the details. And does not excuse bait-and-switch tactics or otherwise deceptive ones. I'm taking no position on Paizo or this article here--personally, I'm not a fan of Paizo's work generally. But "people don't always know what they want" is quite often true. The qualifier there is important.

People often know what they don't want. But that doesn't get you all the way to a finished product. And often that comes with a lot of baggage that may or may not apply. A customer might say they do not like cherry pie because they had a bad date where cherry pie was involved. This does not mean that cherries are totally off the table. Or that in the right context, with the right person, cherry pie might be great.

Or even they might be utterly confused about what it is they don't like. Often, the concerns they say are not their real concerns. And it's not that they're lying, but their concerns aren't well examined even to themselves. Some digging might (depending on the relationship the inquirer has with them) might uncover their real concerns. Or might not. Or they might not have any real concerns and are just annoyed for some other reason entirely.

Agreed.

I find that reddit post a pretty funny bit of amateur armchair theorizing.

Leaving aside the question of condescendingness, the analysis is clearly incorrect if you look at what other games in the market are popular. It also gives the designers too much credit: the more straightforward explanation is that they're great at stories (because Paizo adventure paths have been exceedingly popular for over a decade) and just not great at game design; not than that they're pulling some "magnificent bastard" level of manipulation on the player base. Occam's Razor y'all.

(edit) this fits well with the classic 3E CYA post that "yeah, we intentionally made some feats crappy because that's how MtG also works amirite? Honestly, we didn't make a mistake, it's intentional".

I'd categorize it more as marketing than manipulation. And yes, a lot of marketing does involve manipulation, but that's just one possible approach rather than the whole. Paizo aren't setting out to trick people, so much as they are attempting to reframe horizontal progression in a way that vertical progression players might find enjoyable, or at the very least not immediately offputting.

For myself at least, they did not succeed - the things that the author lists as being design goals of PF2 make sense to me, but they're not things I want. I don't mind, for example, that 5e gets sloppier at high levels or that a CR +2 encounter's difficulty might feel very different at level 15 than it did at level 9, because I'm confident in my ability to adjust things so that the high level fights stay challenging but fair even if the encounter guidelines are just a starting point. But I can also understand that those things might be appealing to other folks who decided to jump ship.

[Segev]

I'll go ahead and chime in that one of the most important steps in algorithm and software design - and presumably in any other system design - is determining what the end goal really is.

One place I have found that customers (for a loose term that means "anybody who might be interested in using what you make, but especially who has some hand in picking whether to use yours or not") often do get caught up in intermediate steps towards what they really want. They'll tell you, "I want monsters to have lots more hit points," when what they actually want are longer battles and/or more combat in general. They get hung up on the fact that the monster dies in 2 rounds, and come to you with what they perceive to be the solution to the problem they're really having, rather than telling you what the problem is and what they actually want out of (in this case) giving the monsters more hp.

It's not that customers are stupid. It's that they're actually rather smart and good at recognizing immediate causes of problems. But they usually aren't experts on the system, so they see the immediate cause and come up with a first-order solution.

In Exalted 2E, a common complaint on the forums I frequented was that combat was too safe because paranoia combos were prevalent. (Paranoia combos are build-feature combinations that ensure you cannot be denied the ability to use a perfect defense to totally negate any attack.) This was perceived as the problem in and of itself, and so people tried things like banning them, or making perfect defenses less perfect, or other options, and those woh tried them found that combat got stupidly lethal very fast, because Exalted 2E's combat system was flawed through and through if what you wanted was something that player characters could survive on the regular. It was just supremely lethal to anyone who doesn't have perfect defenses on demand.

Many solutions focused on trying to either make combat less lethal without requiring perfect defenses, or making perfect defenses still allow through a smidgeon of damage, or... a number of things, all focused on making combat have more attrition, essentially.

But what people really want in Exalted combat is dramatic, exciting fights with big, awesome moments and real stakes. And while it delivers the big, awesome moments if you use it right, the stakes are hard to find. Unless you change up what you expect the stakes to be.

This is a common problem in a lot of TTRPGs, but when you step back and let go of the notion that players need to have risk-of-death or at least lose ongoing resources that eventually lead to that risk, you can focus on creating stakes in other ways. Sure, the PCs might be invincible, but the cargo they're escorting is still vulnerable to theft, and the NPC merchants transporting it aren't. The PC may be in no danger of dying as he fights the Dragonblooded enemy for the idol, but getting to the idol isn't only about not dying first; it's about getting to it, grabbing it, securing it, and getting away from all who'd take it from you. The fact that there's a fight that would be lethal if you weren't amazing at combat is almost window dressing, though it isn't because it can impact action economy to try to keep yourself from actually dying.

That's an example of where users/customers/players "don't know what they want." They actually do have a pretty good idea of what is causing problems, but they're not seeing good solutions, and don't konw why the solutions they have identified as "what they want" aren't actually going to deliver what they want.

And a big part of being good at system design is figuring out how to really drill down to identify with the customer what it is the customer really wants. If you're doing it right, you aren't substituting what you "know" they want for what they say they want. Instead, you're working with them to make sure that you identify what they really want, so you can design something that delivers it to them.

[Tanarii]

Besides which, using the most inflammatory phrasing possible (the designers did x because they think we’re fools) hardly brings much insight to the issue. If their number one customer complaint was balance, and they solved it by shifting level advancement to be more horizontal, that’s hardly ignoring your customers.

It's not bad ... if you assume that all players will have characters of the same level, and they will only ever do level appropriate challenges. Or you have a system that doesn't use levels (ie not PF2) and has some kind of power cap (hard or soft) in place on total capability that can be applied to a specific problem at hand.

It's common to run D&D and D&D-a likes that way in modern D&D. But AD&D, 2e, 3e and 5e have great flexibility in level range of characters that can effectively adventure together, and even for parties of the same level for effective challenge of things they can handle. That means they can be used for sandbox campaigns, either open table true sandbox or one-party many options sandboxes. 4e (and 13th Age), and apparently PF2 based on this article, can't.

[Satinavian]

If they had openly called PF2 what it is - a horizontal progression system -

PF2 is not a horizontal progression system at all.

Horizontal progression means that the characters become more and more versatile while their options each don't get more powerful.

What of PF2 would match this ? PF2 produces characters that are good at a very narrow group of things and strongly incentives to never invest anywhere else to not become irrelevant. That is the exact opposite of horizontal development. One of PF2s main problem is that it lacks horizontal progression compared to most other crunchy games.
How many point buy systems with scaling costs for higher abilities/skills/whatever do we have? Pretty much every single one of them does horizontal progression far better than PF2.


While i won't say that analysis is wrong in every point, it is wrong more often than not.

[Kurald Galain]

For myself at least, they did not succeed - the things that the author lists as being design goals of PF2 make sense to me, but they're not things I want.

I am curious whether the things the reddit author lists are actually PF2's design goals (edit: NOPE! The PF2 designers have shared their goals, but the reddit post talks about other goals that its author appears to have made up himself).

Anyway, for me it's a combination of (1) I don't like several of PF2's design goals, and also (2) PF2 doesn't particularly seem to meet its design goals (I mean, this is the game that considers it a top-tier high-level ability that "you can ask enemies to stand down from combat but they may simply refuse that"...)

[Zuras]

It's not bad ... if you assume that all players will have characters of the same level, and they will only ever do level appropriate challenges. Or you have a system that doesn't use levels (ie not PF2) and has some kind of power cap (hard or soft) in place on total capability that can be applied to a specific problem at hand.

It's common to run D&D and D&D-a likes that way in modern D&D. But AD&D, 2e, 3e and 5e have great flexibility in level range of characters that can effectively adventure together, and even for parties of the same level for effective challenge of things they can handle. That means they can be used for sandbox campaigns, either open table true sandbox or one-party many options sandboxes. 4e (and 13th Age), and apparently PF2 based on this article, can't.

Yeah, it sounds like the Reddit author basically thinks tuning the system to generate accurate CRs and protect class niches is an admirable goal worth sacrificing other mechanics for, but the inaccuracy of 5e’s CR system and weak class niche protection are pretty low on my list of complaints. I can compensate for them as a DM much more easily than players getting bored because the giants feel like stat-scaled ogres and their class options seem too similar.

[Psyren]

Horizontal progression means that the characters become more and more versatile while their options each don't get more powerful.

PF2 characters do get more powerful, but the tightly tuned math means their expected challenges keep pace with that much more closely than in 5e or PF1, especially when you compare the higher levels in those systems. So that feeling of increased power is very different.

Meanwhile, the versatility of options available to your character is growing outward/sideways much more noticeably during that time.

Yeah, it sounds like the Reddit author basically thinks tuning the system to generate accurate CRs and protect class niches is an admirable goal worth sacrificing other mechanics for, but the inaccuracy of 5e’s CR system and weak class niche protection are pretty low on my list of complaints. I can compensate for them as a DM much more easily than players getting bored because the giants feel like stat-scaled ogres and their class options seem too similar.

Indeed - as I said earlier, every group needs to decide for themselves whether the bold is a tradeoff they're willing to prioritize or not. For me it's not, for pretty much the reason you laid out in your last sentence, but for others it might be. I think the author is simply pointing out that both groups exist and trying to articulate why the members of a given camp might feel like they belong there.

[Kane0]

PF2 is not a horizontal progression system at all.

Horizontal progression means that the characters become more and more versatile while their options each don't get more powerful.

What of PF2 would match this ?

I havent played PF2 but would also like to know the answer to this.

[Kurald Galain]

Meanwhile, the versatility of options available to your character is growing outward/sideways much more noticeably during that time.

I don't see how this is at all true in PF2. Sure, you get more feats, but most combat feats are in feat lines/chains and most skill feats don't actually add to your versatility. Or does this versatility apply only to getting higher level spells?

[Kurald Galain]

I am curious whether the things the reddit author lists are actually PF2's design goals

Ah, here we go; the five design goals as stated by Paizo. The reddit post does not appear to be talking about these goals.

Summarized, PF2's goals are to,
(1) being simpler to learn and play AND reward rules mastery. Verdict: not met; it's not clearly simpler than PF1, clearly not simpler than 5E, and intentionally does not reward rules mastery.
(2) work with the same stories and worlds as PF1. Verdict: this goal is not about rules design.
(3) include innovations of PF1. Verdict: not met; PF1 has innovative rules on (e.g.) wilderness travel, library research, and social debate encounters - all of which are absent from PF2.
(4) balance AND allow every character to contribute meaningfully. Verdict: halfway there; as many threads point out, low-to-mid-level casters don't really contribute.
(5) be open and welcoming. Verdict: laudable but this is also not about rules design.

...so in terms of meeting its own design goals, skipping the two that are not about rule design, PF2 scores one-half out of three. Not a good show.

[Satinavian]

PF2 characters do get more powerful, but the tightly tuned math means their expected challenges keep pace with that much more closely than in 5e or PF1, especially when you compare the higher levels in those systems. So that feeling of increased power is very different.

I do agree with this part of the analyses. But that is not the important one because :

Meanwhile, the versatility of options available to your character is growing outward/sideways much more noticeably during that time.

Sorry, i don't see this actually happening. At least not more than in other systems. Less so, if anything.

If i put PF2 and, let's say Shadowrun (as some widely known system) next to each other, i would say that SR is the one with horizontal instead of vertical progression, not PF2. While you can overspecialize in SR, there are increasing costs, diminishing returns and caps. Spreading out instead is what nearly everyone does and it is rewarded because flexibility is powerful.

[Ignimortis]

Dang, missed a couple pages of this thread while I was gone. Lots of good points made there.

I don't know a lot of people who have played PF1 who enjoy PF2. I know a lot of people who have played PF1 and enjoy 5e. Most of the people who I have seen enjoy PF2 have simply not played 3.5 or PF1. Having played the game, I cannot say it has improved from the playtest. I get the impression people like the idea of a crunchy system, and the illusion of PF2 having in depth character building holds up as long as you've not played a system that executes it well.

I think "illusion of choice" is right. Illusion of work is probably also right. I had thought of it as a rigidly vertical system, but I'm not sure why it's worth even to put the pen to paper to make a character sheet outside of your bio. I've played a lot of MMOs, and FFXIV comes to mind. It's a game I like well enough, but it has deep seated issues that have compounded after years. The progression is drawn out pointlessly each time an expansion comes out. Each class gains an ability, and loses one, and you need to level 10 levels to get back to having one more button to push. There's not a lot of meaningful decision making in buildcrafting (you'll probably get a weapon for a slight different weighting in a second stat). It's a treadmill in the purest sense. The story is the main draw, I would say, but nothing about any other MMO (or even FFXIV itself with some level compression) would preclude a good story.

FFXIV's class design has been going down a hole since Shadowbringers (Dark Arts, my beloved...), and the the fact that it has to juggle about the same amount of buttons as it had at level 50, but now spread them out to level 90 certainly does dilute the kit at low levels, to the point that people starting the game now will spend 60+ levels with toolkits less full than what I had during Heavensward.

However, due to recent discussions elsewhere, I find myself forced to actually compare PF2 not with FFXIV (which it does resemble in multiple, mostly meh ways, but has none of the strengths), but with...Dragon Age: Origins.

Now, I know it's considered a classic. I also consider it immensely boring and dull. There is no payoff for playing DAO "the right way", you just win and get to keep playing. There's no catharsis and no moments of power. There's no small satisfaction that you can get, say, in DA2 when detonating a Brittle status with Mighty Blow and seeing an elite enemy's HP just...drop. DAO doesn't do that. It's a lot of busywork that isn't there to be fun, it's there so that you feel challenged.

And it's very similar to how PF2 functions in my experience: you make a lot of movements and make a lot of decisions, which are pretty important to the game (unlike 5e, which is rather forgiving of mistakes a lot of the time), but you don't get anything in return. You make them to keep going, not to do something cool or powerful. All of your actions are already balanced in a way that won't let you feel that you've come out on top of the game.

[ahyangyi]

I should add that while PF2's vertical progression (i.e. getting bigger numbers as you level up) is largely illusory, its horizontal progression (i.e. getting more different options as you level up) is also largely illusory*; and both 3E/PF and 4E easily offer much more horizontal growth than PF2 does.

*On the one hand because of feat chains; on the other hand because most of the extra "options" either don't do anything, or are clearly inferior to standard low-level moves. If new options are clearly weaker than lower-level options, then they are making people choose between "winning" and "having fun".

Yep, having to spend feats to remain relevant simply feels bad. The feats should be used to gain horizontal growth instead.

Horizontal growth is the kind of character growth I can feel, after all.

As for 4E, the background, paragon path and epic destiny are like "everyone gets three free archetypes" in pf2 terminology. It was such a good idea, quite healthy for horizontal growth, why nobody does that any more?

[Rynjin]

Ah, here we go; the five design goals as stated by Paizo. The reddit post does not appear to be talking about these goals.

Summarized, PF2's goals are to,
(1) being simpler to learn and play AND reward rules mastery. Verdict: not met; it's not clearly simpler than PF1, clearly not simpler than 5E, and intentionally does not reward rules mastery.
(2) work with the same stories and worlds as PF1. Verdict: this goal is not about rules design.
(3) include innovations of PF1. Verdict: not met; PF1 has innovative rules on (e.g.) wilderness travel, library research, and social debate encounters - all of which are absent from PF2.
(4) balance AND allow every character to contribute meaningfully. Verdict: halfway there; as many threads point out, low-to-mid-level casters don't really contribute.
(5) be open and welcoming. Verdict: laudable but this is also not about rules design.

...so in terms of meeting its own design goals, skipping the two that are not about rule design, PF2 scores one-half out of three. Not a good show.

It's notable BTW that this blog post was only posted after a DELUGE of threads like mine asking "Hey so what is this game actually trying to accomplish".

It took them close to two months to muster up an answer to that frequently asked question.

I don't know a lot of people who have played PF1 who enjoy PF2. I know a lot of people who have played PF1 and enjoy 5e.

5e is a game I frequently refer to as "the best game I don't like". The big difference between PF2 and 5e is that 5e feels like a really well-designed system that I simply don't enjoy all that much; though I can be cajoled into playing it and have a good enough time up to level 5 or so, after which I start to get bored.

Pf2e...is not a well-designed system.

[Xervous]

If i put PF2 and, let's say Shadowrun (as some widely known system) next to each other, i would say that SR is the one with horizontal instead of vertical progression, not PF2. While you can overspecialize in SR, there are increasing costs, diminishing returns and caps. Spreading out instead is what nearly everyone does and it is rewarded because flexibility is powerful.

Shadowrun is a very interesting comparison point, to such an extent that I would say SR is better compared to Blades in the Dark rather than D20 games as a whole.

At face value, both Shadowrun and Blades are built around structures and assumptions integral to the setting. They both feature limited use, player initiated skews on scenes whether it be Shadowrun’s edge or a variety of Blades moves (discounting flashbacks). The question each game asks you when progressing is “does this investment meaningfully reduce your expected meta currency cost over the course of an arc?”

There is a point past which you’re still the punchiest puncher who basically never needs a finger placed on the scales. You can choose to use such potency to fight even greater things, but if you as a player have no interest in going halfway around the world/city to fight some amped up cultists you’re not seeing much benefit in pursuing ever higher scores. In this way characters end up sculpted by the needs of the campaign and the presentation of the world. But by gosh golly darn you’ve spent a lot of edge/stress over basket weaving, things would go smoother if you just had a few points/a pip...

In short, each system lets you act proficiently in defiance of your stats or luck, but places a limit on how often.


Shadowrun gear systems are convoluted for a reason. Availability and legality inform how the setting is expected to interact with it. The choice in purchasing cheap guns for a job you really don’t want linked back to you could be decided not by price, but expected delivery times as explained by lore. The shopping and gear is a big part of the lore. You don’t have Shadowrun without magic hating machine, mages not wanting a bit of chrome in their body. Of course the AK is still the cheap, mass produced automatic rifle. Yes, you can get a custom rebuild on a specific model handgun to make a high tech marvel, but that costs time, you can’t smuggle it everywhere, and you might want a less distinctive throwaway for that loud mission.


Shadowrun cares less about balance and more about presenting a world with its fiction genre expectations. PF2 (pfuhtooey) mainly concerns itself with delivering on game genre expectations, it’s the soulless uninvited sequel.

[Zuras]

5e is a game I frequently refer to as "the best game I don't like". The big difference between PF2 and 5e is that 5e feels like a really well-designed system that I simply don't enjoy all that much; though I can be cajoled into playing it and have a good enough time up to level 5 or so, after which I start to get bored.

Pf2e...is not a well-designed system.

5e is less a well-designed system than a well-edited and playtested system. They basically kept lots of interesting ideas and simplified things where they could apply unifying ideas (like advantage/disadvantage) but left well enough alone when they couldn’t.

5e is like a good Shakespeare modernization that cleans up some of the archaic language where it was getting in the way of comprehension but knows to keep “wherefore art thou Romeo” because everyone expects that line in Romeo and Juliet, even though nobody says wherefore instead of why anymore.

[kyoryu]

5e is less a well-designed system than a well-edited and playtested system. They basically kept lots of interesting ideas and simplified things where they could apply unifying ideas (like advantage/disadvantage) but left well enough alone when they couldn’t.

5e is like a good Shakespeare modernization that cleans up some of the archaic language where it was getting in the way of comprehension but knows to keep “wherefore art thou Romeo” because everyone expects that line in Romeo and Juliet, even though nobody says wherefore instead of why anymore.

That's a really, really good way of putting it.

While 4e had its own shortcomings, I still maintain that one of the biggest ones is, to put it in your terms, that it didn't have "wherefore art thou Romeo". 5e got that aspect of it spot on.

[Tanarii]

That's a really, really good way of putting it.

While 4e had its own shortcomings, I still maintain that one of the biggest ones is, to put it in your terms, that it didn't have "wherefore art thou Romeo". 5e got that aspect of it spot on.

The biggest one was probably the same as PF2 is being said to have in this thread: tightly bound math and a math treadmill.

Technically it was that the math didn't work properly at first, but that was a result of the underlying issue plus an additional mistake.

Edit: of course, you're talking about a perception problem. I consider the above a design problem, and as such a bigger problem. But that's because I didn't perceive the perception problem. In terms of community response and poor adoption rate, the problem you're noting was almost certainly actually bigger.

[PhoenixPhyre]

5e is less a well-designed system than a well-edited and playtested system. They basically kept lots of interesting ideas and simplified things where they could apply unifying ideas (like advantage/disadvantage) but left well enough alone when they couldn’t.

5e is like a good Shakespeare modernization that cleans up some of the archaic language where it was getting in the way of comprehension but knows to keep “wherefore art thou Romeo” because everyone expects that line in Romeo and Juliet, even though nobody says wherefore instead of why anymore.

That's a really, really good way of putting it.

While 4e had its own shortcomings, I still maintain that one of the biggest ones is, to put it in your terms, that it didn't have "wherefore art thou Romeo". 5e got that aspect of it spot on.

I'm coming around to the idea that the mechanical "goodness" of a system matters less than a lot of us (myself included) think it does. You can have the best balanced, most expressive and elegant system...and it will fall utterly flat if it comes across as soulless or doesn't excite people. On the reverse, you can have utterly janky systems that people really enjoy, at least in part because of the sense of "wonder" or "fun" that they encourage. It's almost as if the key is getting people hooked for long enough that they are able to overlook/compensate for any jank.

And this sense of excitement/wonder/awesomeness generally comes when the system is designed by people excited about that particular thing. Where you can see things and you know someone put that in because "dude, wouldn't that be cool?" Pure focus-group development (a corporate-design specialty), number-obsessive balancing, and "super elegant systems" (usually the brain-child of a solo developer) can all fall short because they focus on the mechanics, not the game.

The game is more than the mechanics. The "fluff" and getting a good feedback loop between fiction and mechanics, letting people feel like they're actually doing cool things (and not having to wade through piles of crap to get there)--these seem to matter more than a lot of us would like to admit.

This isn't to say that mechanics don't matter...just that they don't matter as much as is often presumed.

[kyoryu]

I'm coming around to the idea that the mechanical "goodness" of a system matters less than a lot of us (myself included) think it does. You can have the best balanced, most expressive and elegant system...and it will fall utterly flat if it comes across as soulless or doesn't excite people. On the reverse, you can have utterly janky systems that people really enjoy, at least in part because of the sense of "wonder" or "fun" that they encourage. It's almost as if the key is getting people hooked for long enough that they are able to overlook/compensate for any jank.

And this sense of excitement/wonder/awesomeness generally comes when the system is designed by people excited about that particular thing. Where you can see things and you know someone put that in because "dude, wouldn't that be cool?" Pure focus-group development (a corporate-design specialty), number-obsessive balancing, and "super elegant systems" (usually the brain-child of a solo developer) can all fall short because they focus on the mechanics, not the game.

The game is more than the mechanics. The "fluff" and getting a good feedback loop between fiction and mechanics, letting people feel like they're actually doing cool things (and not having to wade through piles of crap to get there)--these seem to matter more than a lot of us would like to admit.

This isn't to say that mechanics don't matter...just that they don't matter as much as is often presumed.

The experience matters.

Mechanics are a part of that. But they're not the totality of it. It includes things like fluff/worldbuilding, but it also includes things like "what decisions do the players make?" The most important thing that mechanics do, at the end of the day, is facilitate decisions.

And then there's the whole thing of "does this violate expectations I have?" On the negative side, that's probably the biggest dealbreaker.

[Snowbluff]

Dang, missed a couple pages of this thread while I was gone. Lots of good points made there.

FFXIV's class design has been going down a hole since Shadowbringers (Dark Arts, my beloved...), and the the fact that it has to juggle about the same amount of buttons as it had at level 50, but now spread them out to level 90 certainly does dilute the kit at low levels, to the point that people starting the game now will spend 60+ levels with toolkits less full than what I had during Heavensward.

Ah jees yeah. That was my fave tank too. My favorite DPS got reduced from a weird but fun balancing action to being worth only 1 button.

To further torture the analogy, the pet (carbuncle) on this pet class now sits there and does nothing. It's design to look like a pet class but the amount of actual pet has been removed in favor of being simpler to program. Also there's no more cool lore missions for the class and the tie ins with the eidolon content doesn't make sense that arc is long dead.

However, due to recent discussions elsewhere, I find myself forced to actually compare PF2 not with FFXIV (which it does resemble in multiple, mostly meh ways, but has none of the strengths), but with...Dragon Age: Origins.

Now, I know it's considered a classic. I also consider it immensely boring and dull. There is no payoff for playing DAO "the right way", you just win and get to keep playing. There's no catharsis and no moments of power. There's no small satisfaction that you can get, say, in DA2 when detonating a Brittle status with Mighty Blow and seeing an elite enemy's HP just...drop. DAO doesn't do that. It's a lot of busywork that isn't there to be fun, it's there so that you feel challenged.

And it's very similar to how PF2 functions in my experience: you make a lot of movements and make a lot of decisions, which are pretty important to the game (unlike 5e, which is rather forgiving of mistakes a lot of the time), but you don't get anything in return. You make them to keep going, not to do something cool or powerful. All of your actions are already balanced in a way that won't let you feel that you've come out on top of the game.

I remember having issues like that with DAO, so I think I will say I generally agree with that. That game definitely felt brutal without allowing a lot of creativity at times.

It's notable BTW that this blog post was only posted after a DELUGE of threads like mine asking "Hey so what is this game actually trying to accomplish".

It took them close to two months to muster up an answer to that frequently asked question.

Amazing.

As stated above "soulless uninvited sequel" is the feeling I got during the playtest as well. I also like to call the system the "Paizo Ouroboros" with all of the systems that loop back on themselves, like MAP and agile.

5e is a game I frequently refer to as "the best game I don't like". The big difference between PF2 and 5e is that 5e feels like a really well-designed system that I simply don't enjoy all that much; though I can be cajoled into playing it and have a good enough time up to level 5 or so, after which I start to get bored.

Pf2e...is not a well-designed system.

I see, a very fair assessment. 5e isn't my favorite but it does execute some things very well, and a bunch of my players are playing it as their first ttrpg.

[Pauly]

Man, if people knew what they wanted we’d still be drinking New Coke. It’s not like those market researchers didn’t know how to run a double blind taste test or interpret a t-statistic.
.

No the actual problem was that the market testers didn’t test for what people actually use their product for.
The taste testing was do you prefer a sip of X or a sip of Y?
The real question was do you prefer to drink a can/bottle of X or a can/bottle of Y?
In small doses the sweeter option is generally preferred, in larger doses the desire for sweetness decreases.

The people knew exactly what they wanted. It’s the ‘experts’ who screwed up.

[Segev]

I'm coming around to the idea that the mechanical "goodness" of a system matters less than a lot of us (myself included) think it does. You can have the best balanced, most expressive and elegant system...and it will fall utterly flat if it comes across as soulless or doesn't excite people. On the reverse, you can have utterly janky systems that people really enjoy, at least in part because of the sense of "wonder" or "fun" that they encourage. It's almost as if the key is getting people hooked for long enough that they are able to overlook/compensate for any jank.

It certainly explains why Exalted is so well-loved by those who love it. None of its editions have been free of MAJOR flaws. 3e is actually flawed in a particular way reminiscent of "we think we know the solution and are ignoring the end goal in favor of implementing it" type design that I mentioned earlier.

2e is hideously broken and hard to wield, but still a lot of fun despite this because it just goes full ham with its themes.

[Psyren]

5e is less a well-designed system than a well-edited and playtested system. They basically kept lots of interesting ideas and simplified things where they could apply unifying ideas (like advantage/disadvantage) but left well enough alone when they couldn’t.

5e is like a good Shakespeare modernization that cleans up some of the archaic language where it was getting in the way of comprehension but knows to keep “wherefore art thou Romeo” because everyone expects that line in Romeo and Juliet, even though nobody says wherefore instead of why anymore.

Yep.

No the actual problem was that the market testers didn’t test for what people actually use their product for.
The taste testing was do you prefer a sip of X or a sip of Y?
The real question was do you prefer to drink a can/bottle of X or a can/bottle of Y?
In small doses the sweeter option is generally preferred, in larger doses the desire for sweetness decreases.

Also they didn't test which one mixes better with alcohol (especially whiskey and rum), which is a fairly common use case.

I'm coming around to the idea that the mechanical "goodness" of a system matters less than a lot of us (myself included) think it does. You can have the best balanced, most expressive and elegant system...and it will fall utterly flat if it comes across as soulless or doesn't excite people. On the reverse, you can have utterly janky systems that people really enjoy, at least in part because of the sense of "wonder" or "fun" that they encourage. It's almost as if the key is getting people hooked for long enough that they are able to overlook/compensate for any jank.

And this sense of excitement/wonder/awesomeness generally comes when the system is designed by people excited about that particular thing. Where you can see things and you know someone put that in because "dude, wouldn't that be cool?" Pure focus-group development (a corporate-design specialty), number-obsessive balancing, and "super elegant systems" (usually the brain-child of a solo developer) can all fall short because they focus on the mechanics, not the game.

The game is more than the mechanics. The "fluff" and getting a good feedback loop between fiction and mechanics, letting people feel like they're actually doing cool things (and not having to wade through piles of crap to get there)--these seem to matter more than a lot of us would like to admit.

This isn't to say that mechanics don't matter...just that they don't matter as much as is often presumed.

Agreed. I'm waiting for the inevitable thinkpieces on "here's why our group is going back to 5e/starting OneD&D" in a few months time.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm coming around to the idea that the mechanical "goodness" of a system matters less than a lot of us (myself included) think it does. You can have the best balanced, most expressive and elegant system...and it will fall utterly flat if it comes across as soulless or doesn't excite people. On the reverse, you can have utterly janky systems that people really enjoy, at least in part because of the sense of "wonder" or "fun" that they encourage. It's almost as if the key is getting people hooked for long enough that they are able to overlook/compensate for any jank.

Well said, and this succinctly accounts for the massive exodus (years ago) from 4E to Pathfinder.

But frankly the best example for this is probably the old White Wolf games. The rules are slow, convoluted, and broken like there's no tomorrow; but the setting is very evocative and the books just ooze atmosphere.

[Tanarii]

My experience with systems with great settings or styles or flavor that is compelling but had a terrible system is groups just do the style/setting/flavor with a different rule set. And add in house rules for things that are critical mechanics. (E.g. sanity)

[Ignimortis]

Pf2e...is not a well-designed system.

I think otherwise - it's well-designed in the purely mathematical sense. If it was a boardgame instead of a TTRPG, perhaps with a bit less customization (then again, Gloomhaven and such exist...), a lot more people would be head over heels for it. But it's a TTRPG, and thus it takes a lot more than just having thought-out maths and balanced core rules. A very major point of a lot of people who praised PF2 to me was along the lines of "it's so easy to DM, I've never had an easier time getting ready for a session with any D&D-like system before". And I can believe that, I really can. I think that PF2 lends itself well to games that run inside its' intended parameters and do not feel the need to shift lanes nor introduce some kind of "broken, but fun" stuff.

That being said, I do think that in this particular case, this ease comes at a heavy cost of player expression and player ability to feel like they're getting away with something (which I consider almost integral to making a good game, perhaps as a subclause to the Snowbluff Axiom).

It certainly explains why Exalted is so well-loved by those who love it. None of its editions have been free of MAJOR flaws. 3e is actually flawed in a particular way reminiscent of "we think we know the solution and are ignoring the end goal in favor of implementing it" type design that I mentioned earlier.

2e is hideously broken and hard to wield, but still a lot of fun despite this because it just goes full ham with its themes.

One day I will actually play Exalted. The main point of all my GMs refusing to run it is "I don't know what's there to play, it seems like an unabashed power fantasy".

I'm coming around to the idea that the mechanical "goodness" of a system matters less than a lot of us (myself included) think it does. You can have the best balanced, most expressive and elegant system...and it will fall utterly flat if it comes across as soulless or doesn't excite people. On the reverse, you can have utterly janky systems that people really enjoy, at least in part because of the sense of "wonder" or "fun" that they encourage. It's almost as if the key is getting people hooked for long enough that they are able to overlook/compensate for any jank.

And this sense of excitement/wonder/awesomeness generally comes when the system is designed by people excited about that particular thing. Where you can see things and you know someone put that in because "dude, wouldn't that be cool?" Pure focus-group development (a corporate-design specialty), number-obsessive balancing, and "super elegant systems" (usually the brain-child of a solo developer) can all fall short because they focus on the mechanics, not the game.

The game is more than the mechanics. The "fluff" and getting a good feedback loop between fiction and mechanics, letting people feel like they're actually doing cool things (and not having to wade through piles of crap to get there)--these seem to matter more than a lot of us would like to admit.

This isn't to say that mechanics don't matter...just that they don't matter as much as is often presumed.

Pretty much. I find that the main point of crunchier systems for me is to make my own character who does their own things in their own way - and has those things backed up by their charsheet instead of being vaguely appropriate as it is in lighter systems. Having 40+ soak dice in Shadowrun, teleportation as your main movement mode in 3.5, or even just going "I have 4 Celerity, I can literally outrun a car" in VtM - that's what's important to me instead of actually going all-in on optimization for damage or whatever. Crunch is there to let you do cool stuff as often as possible.

For my own part, I think of the system as having bloated numbers for deflated PC options. "The high level combat doesn't break" because level 20 PF2 PCs are about as powerful as level 10 5E PCs.

I wouldn't go that far. Level 20 PF2 spellcasters are about as powerful as level 10 5e spellcasters. Spells are severely nerfed and basic rules end up removing the idea of a "save-or-die" from the game almost entirely, because the only targets that would die are those that aren't worth spending a spell slot on.

For martials, it's probably the other way around, because PF2 Fighter actually functions as something more than a basic attack dispenser, and post-level 15 feats actually do give people some nifty powers. A level 20 PF2 Fighter can leap 50 feet high with no assistance and scare someone so hard they drop dead on the spot (but see save-or-die point above). It's just not exactly useful in general gameplay of combat-grid with challenge-balanced enemies, but their capabilities for out of combat are higher by a LOT, and in combat they do at least as much as their 5e versions, usually more. They just get cool powers too late and too few of them, but better a little than nothing. Martial characters in 5e are incredibly lackluster even in comparison to their PF2 counterparts.

[Xervous]

I will note I’ve seen more interesting, potent, and broadly competent characters come out of E6 3 .5e than PF2 seems to offer. The detail:dividends ratio for PF2 feels comparable to timing stoplights to decide which gas station to use based on how long you expect to be waiting to turn back onto the main road. I’d rather be choosing metaphorical gas stations by the free car wash, free sandwich, or free air pumps they offer to customers.

[Rynjin]

I think otherwise - it's well-designed in the purely mathematical sense. If it was a boardgame instead of a TTRPG, perhaps with a bit less customization (then again, Gloomhaven and such exist...), a lot more people would be head over heels for it. But it's a TTRPG, and thus it takes a lot more than just having thought-out maths and balanced core rules. A very major point of a lot of people who praised PF2 to me was along the lines of "it's so easy to DM, I've never had an easier time getting ready for a session with any D&D-like system before". And I can believe that, I really can. I think that PF2 lends itself well to games that run inside its' intended parameters and do not feel the need to shift lanes nor introduce some kind of "broken, but fun" stuff.

Math is one of the least important parts of design to focus on; that can always be tweaked once everything else is settled. It having tight math is not synonymous with good design for a game.