| MartinTheActor |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but I'm confused by your statement since the official scenarios and adventure paths are a big portion of what keep Paizo running as a business. The "main" books are sellers, but mostly in a burst after release. The continuous release of adventures composes a big portion of sales.
I bring this up to say, could you explain what it is you don't like about official adventure paths and scenarios?
You know what you're right. I'm somewhat frustrated and I've transferred my feelings about GM Core and Gamemastery Guide over to the adventures. It was unfair. Abomination Vault for example is a pretty decent adventure, as are a few others. They're just not what I have enjoyed running most.
Like if I'm playing PF2 in one of my homebrew settings I just... play PF2 in that homebrew setting. There's very little that requires some Golarian setting conceit to work, and most of what does can just be kind of handwaved (like the various setting specific options in 5e).
Yeah, sorry Squiggit but that's just not true. Sure, you can very easily plug and play a very basic and generic fantasy world in when playing PF2e. However, in the adventure setting I mentioned earlier the whole aim was to prevent the antagonist group from severing the connections between the mortal realm and the gods. If the antagonists succeeded they'd sever the magic that said deities granted to the mortal realm. That kind of adventure meant sorting spell lists quite easily into the domain of one of 5 deities. Now in other systems that was relatively easy (yes even D&D 5e). In PF2e it's simply not because of the overlap in traditions. You'll note that many spells draw from more than one tradition.
Even leaving aside my example here. Let's say you want to create a lower magic world. A casual reader of 1e or 2e Gamemastery Guide, or even GM Core would be forgiven for assuming that's pretty simple. It is after all summed up in a single short paragraph. However, the core maths upon which Pathfinder 2e is based assumes that your players are getting specific amounts of magic items as they level. I don't know if you've ever tried running PF2e in a game where your player characters didn't get magic items at the same rate - it's no fun for anyone because the maths starts to fall apart FAST!
That your suggestion is 'stop making more work for yourself' kinda tells me you've probably never really built your own settings from scratch. It's something I've done maybe three times over the decades - oddly enough the first was for PF1e when I didn't know any better. The idea in building one's own world really is that once introduced you've got a unique setting. It's easier to maintain any shape of continuity where players actually get to shape and alter the world of which they are a part. I actively want the effort for this, because I want to give my players an environment that draws on their interests the most. Reskinning stuff, isn't something that appeals to me. Which is why I asked for suggestions in the first place.