Colette Brunel wrote:
Smart adversaries would indeed eliminate a dying creature, it's one less potential problem for them if they are revived and return to the fight. Smart enemies would not simply let a wounded character be, that's absolutely absurd. Chaotic adversaries would likely loot the dying corpse before moving on as well, all that shiny stuff could help them eliminate the rest of their foes. I don't know why anyone would assume smart or well prepared adversaries wouldn't finish the job. PCs do. It stands to reason that bad guys who have brains or common sense would as well. I can thin of a particular campaign, 'The Night Below' where PCs did not want to go down alone or without being in arm's reach of a comrade. You'd never see them again.
Wraithkin wrote:
My group has come to the same conclusion, but the rules and the layout of the rules, after reading them, is not the only issue. My group has 8 players (10 at times). Five of us have bookshelves with every PF1 hardcover made on them, and many of the softcovers and adventure paths. For us, it's a love of PF1 and an economic choice. Sure the PF2 rules may be free on an SRD, and that won't cost us a thing, but we like PF1, and we've made an investment in the PF1 rulebooks that we aren't willing to overlook. It's that simple really. Economic impact and utility is a real thing for us as well. However, I know a lot of people are excited about it, and I hope it does well for Paizo, because at the end of the day, even though it's not for me, I ultimately want Paizo to be successful.
Ngai M'katu wrote:
In some cases, you just know what you like and don't see a reason to change? For me and my group, it's that simple.
No morale issue here. My group has a total of 10 players, and only one has expressed any interest in PF2 at all. We're not even doing the playtest, although part of that is we just started an AP, and are slated to have another member of the group run another AP when that's done. Reaction after reading a good portion of the rules released yesterday only confirmed our lack of interest. We went from 1e ADnD to PF basically, after an ill-fated dip into 4e in between that was overwhelmingly disappointing. We went back to 1e ADnD for a bit, but then went to PF1, which is what we love. I think part of it too for us (aside from the fact that we're all older, and yes, know what we like, but I will emphasize that we're happy when people find what works for them, we're not the sort of older gamers that will tell you that you're doing it wrong, we like our hobby, and we like when people find their fun) is the sheer number of PF1 products we've all bought, and that was one of the things that kept us from buying wholly into 3.0/3.5 was we all owned all the 1e ADnD stuff and didn't want to spend anymore money since we had something we liked. PF1 came along, same thing. I've got a bookshelf full of all the PF1 hardcovers, they serve me well, and the other members of my group do as well, and honestly, we like it. I'm glad other people are liking what they see in PF2, but we just aren't interested. There's nothing wrong with that, and I hope Paizo does well with their release, but we've got all we need to keep playing PF1.
Staffan Johansson wrote:
2-3 years? My group just finished the Hardcover Crimson Throne, I was gming, in 13 months. We play once a week, 4.5 hours per session. We thought 13 months was slow, and there were a few unscripted side treks. I figure the average AP takes 12-18 months, if you play once a week. We did Reign of Winter in 12 months, and Rise of the Runelords in 14. Maybe we play longer than an average group does once a week though, not sure about that.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ah, then if I run the playtest, I'll do what I do with my NPCs now, build them as PCs, same rules, etc. I never understood that and neither did my players (a few who also gm and build their npcs the same way).
Milo v3 wrote: ... I am so confused by people who seem to be acting as if they're forced to play high level games when they seem to have issues with high level gameplay. Especially when it's so easy to avoid. I concur, I mean the GM can remove/add as it suits the campaign they are running, and in my case, sometimes I advise my players that it's going to be a slow progression, and we won't be going beyond level 10 or 11, or that we will be running e6. I mean, it's a rules set and a set of tools, it's not set in stone, GMs are free to design the campaigns they want, and impose limits. My group has 9 players, 3 of us share the gm chair on a rotating basis, and there are differences in the way the three of us run games, and since we discuss it with as a group first, that always works for us.
rkotitan wrote:
Awesome! I wrapped mine up a few weeks ago, it took my group a little under a year to complete the AP, and the group had no permanent casualties, although a couple of folks did have to get resurrected during the later stages of the campaign. They supported Cressida Croft as the new queen, and the citizens and nobility agreed, so in my Golarion I run, it's now Queen Cressida I of Korvosa! |