Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

There would be a lot of things that are a lot more similar to PF1E if their only motivation was money, that's a strange argument to me. Like, a lot of core design stuff is practically diametrically opposed to what PF1E allowed you to do or expected of you for a reason, I gather, they didn't just shuffle things around randomly and end up with stuff like heavily constrained bonus types, big simplifications of action types and core progression, decoupling of enemy-building from player options, and sharp reduction of caster resources and individual power by coincidence.

PF2 at high levels is 1000 times easier to GM and to play than PF1 high level games, but it still takes a fair bit of work and has some kinks in the weave. So far, from the talk around the remastery, it seems like straightening those out is a part of the plan and something they are going to keep on top of with errata.

Until you try GMing a high level PF2 adventure and compare the experience to trying to prepare and run PF1 encounters, I don’t think you can fully appreciate what the game balance and streamline have brought to the game. It is the kind of stuff that makes old systems feel “unplayable.” Not because they are not fun, but the fun to time investment is so skewed away from GMs being able to quickly and easily pick up the game. I think it is pretty important through the remastery that this stays a priority, even with all the player options available. Making sure the material in the core books establishes the ceiling of the character power and that the game mastery core is an approachable book with good advice that will let a newer GM pick up the game are all that really needs to be done with the remastery, outside of giving the ORC license a strong, narratively rich foundation that feels like it’s own unique system and not an appendix to something else.

scope of encounter design are always limited

one save or suck spell put down every enemy is not encounter at all

The point of PF2 is to have fun playing a game with your friends. The stories you tell might draw on themes of war, but the purpose of encounters in the game is not the exercise of overwhelming power and force to assert one person’s will over this fictional universe, but for a group of people to face a diverse array of challenges that are reasonable constructed to be achievable and to be arbitrated by another player who’s goal is that everyone enjoys the experience.

Saying balance creates a “video-game” feel is a little misleading. All games have thought about how essential both chance and predictability are to the experience they offer, but video games only really build to balance in multiplayer modes, usually designed around balancing tens to hundreds of players experience at once. TTRPG balance is about setting expectations for players, including GMs, about mechanical concepts of things like fairness, chance, strategy, role playing, and tone. These are easily modded by individual tables but good mechanics create repeatable, consistent baselines that can then be modded in intentional ways.

“Combat as sport” vs “combat as war” is also a problematic spectrum to focus on when talking about a game played with friends. We are only actually talking about the simulation of combat and only for the purpose of everyone involved having a good time. Values that don’t really overlap with militaristic constructions of war.

The point of PF2 is to have fun playing a game with your friends. The stories you tell might draw on themes of war, but the purpose of encounters in the game is not the exercise of overwhelming power and force to assert one person’s will over this fictional universe, but for a group of people to face a diverse array of challenges that are reasonable constructed to be achievable and to be arbitrated by another player who’s goal is that everyone enjoys the experience.

Saying balance creates a “video-game” feel is a little misleading. All games have thought about how essential both chance and predictability are to the experience they offer, but video games only really build to balance in multiplayer modes, usually designed around balancing tens to hundreds of players experience at once. TTRPG balance is about setting expectations for players, including GMs, about mechanical concepts of things like fairness, chance, strategy, role playing, and tone. These are easily modded by individual tables but good mechanics create repeatable, consistent baselines that can then be modded in intentional ways.

“Combat as sport” vs “combat as war” is also a problematic spectrum to focus on when talking about a game played with friends. We are only actually talking about the simulation of combat and only for the purpose of everyone involved having a good time. Values that don’t really overlap with militaristic constructions of war.

Yeah, the whole "combat as war" thing has always seemed weird to me. Of course it's combat as sport. It's a game. The whole thing is essentially sport.

Unicore wrote:

The point of PF2 is to have fun playing a game with your friends. The stories you tell might draw on themes of war, but the purpose of encounters in the game is not the exercise of overwhelming power and force to assert one person’s will over this fictional universe, but for a group of people to face a diverse array of challenges that are reasonable constructed to be achievable and to be arbitrated by another player who’s goal is that everyone enjoys the experience.

Saying balance creates a “video-game” feel is a little misleading. All games have thought about how essential both chance and predictability are to the experience they offer, but video games only really build to balance in multiplayer modes, usually designed around balancing tens to hundreds of players experience at once. TTRPG balance is about setting expectations for players, including GMs, about mechanical concepts of things like fairness, chance, strategy, role playing, and tone. These are easily modded by individual tables but good mechanics create repeatable, consistent baselines that can then be modded in intentional ways.

“Combat as sport” vs “combat as war” is also a problematic spectrum to focus on when talking about a game played with friends. We are only actually talking about the simulation of combat and only for the purpose of everyone involved having a good time. Values that don’t really overlap with militaristic constructions of war.

Yeah, the whole "combat as war" thing has always seemed weird to me. Of course it's combat as sport. It's a game. The whole thing is essentially sport.

It ain't "sport" 'til we see Buhlman or Seifter on an Olympic podium gettin' a Gold medal while the National Anthem plays!

Removed LOTS of off topic, baiting, harassing posts and their quotes. PLEASE keep to the topic on hand, the Remaster. Game design conversations and such can be moved to their own threads. Please remain civil in those threads as well.

As magnuskn said upthread, I’m enjoying and learning from the derail, and I think DLHitomi is making some quite interesting points. A new thread is needed though.

I created the new thread in the Advice subforum, Encounter Balance: The Math and the Monsters.

Removed MORE off topic posts. The new thread has been created, please take the conversation there.

Roll For Combat had a stream yesterday that excerpted the first book (Rage of Elements) conforming to remaster rules, and they peeked at the sidebar showing the transition rules that apply to the new book.

I saw this screenshot on Reddit.