Stangler's page

Cody's "Experienced" players, based on the example that he gave, and the anecdotes he provided (Druid and a Ranger's terrible example) came to the conclusion that; "All you do in this game, is repeating the same rotations with no variations, because other actions don't matter"

There is NOWHERE in the core rule-book where it is stated, that you should attack 3 times, and most of the time miss the third one, but YET, these "Experienced" players choose to do so...
You can be experienced and good in Dragon-age, and be terrible on the Witcher... It doesn't mean that the Witcher is a badly designed game, it has other expectations, in which you have to adapt your play-style, based on your knowledge of the game, that you gain by PLAYING the game

The Witcher is designed in a way so that the player learns the game as they play. It is a demonstration of show don't tell information sharing and is highly regarded for how well they handled this.

So now looks at PF2... what does the system need to communicate? How does it communicate it? How does it guide the GM to help players understand the mechanics of the game? How is the monster manual designed to facilitate this?

It should be a given that this is part of PF2's design and it should be easy to point to.

Stangler wrote:

Reminder, this thread is about a group of experienced TTRPG players playing the game for a year where the vast majority of people here have accused them of not understanding the nature of the game design and the choices they have in combat.

You can't even tell me what is being clearly communicated. Or what needs to be communicated. Or what the player needs to do to know besides read the rules. So just reading no math?

Yup. I've got over a dozen players I've run this exact game for over a year, and only two of them every bother mathing anything out. The other successfully play by playing their characters and making decisions. Crazy, right? These non-number crunching people have figured out there are many tools in their belt. They try new things. They expand their capabilities as their characters gain abilities. They are excited to try out the new thing they gain each level.

GMG has 54 pages of advice on how to GM. Read the sign.

Why would I give you an example of what's being clearly communicated? It's on the sign.

You keep walking around the sign and pulling on the doors.

Seems that is the game you enjoy playing, but it's winter and you're going to get cold.

Ohh it is written down clearly! Why have you been hiding this information. End the thread now and tell everyone the page number.

Stangler wrote:

So what is PF2 testing? What test did Cody's players fail? Why does that test exist in PF2? Are they testing knowledge of the system or are they testing your tactics? Both?

Cody's players (and Cody) "failed" or did "badwrongfun" because they played the game and stopped having fun when playing it. Why did this happen? Because they were making decisions based upon other games and not learning from their character's and their GM's mistakes, and decided that the system itself wasn't working rather than asking questions about what was happening and listening to others that could help them play the game the way they wanted to play it and still have fun.

Now that is not really that big a deal in and of itself. It happens all the time, some games just aren't for some people. But shouting that a game is badly designed because you don't enjoy playing it and that you don't want to try other ways of playing it than the way that you tried it and had no fun playing it, then you should expect people to be pretty vocal in explaining why the way you approached it led to you not having fun.

I am saying if a game is designed to play like the way many people here have said then how was that information communicated to the player? Was it clear? All of the evidence presented in this thread points to no.

If you think it is clearly communicated in the Rules then tell me the page number.

If there is a breakdown in communication between Paizo and Cody's group then if I am Paizo I am definitely wanting to know what went wrong.

Keep in mind that by simply claiming that their decisions are wrong is admitting the thesis that the choices are illusions correct.

(I know you're getting a bit swamped, but it also seems you're ignoring or misrepresenting a lot of points being made.)

A digital strategy game like XCOM can offer things such as success percentages, actions from a menu, and potentially even hints or other info for specific circumstances. A tabletop game like Pathfinder 2E can't do this because specific circumstances aren't built into the same fabric as the rules, and the computer is a human who might be naughty or nice about guiding the player. Even Adventure Paths only offer info for rules so specific the core book don't cover them, because Pathfinder 2E — for all of its (attempted) rigor in balancing — is still fairly narrative-based, as with most tabletop stuff. You are encouraged to play as the person on the map rather than the player making moves from above.

So when you say "Communicating information to a player is one of the most important aspects of game design.", you have to understand, Game Design™ is not a single cudgel you can bludgeon things with. As with most things, it's contextual. Good design in XCOM wouldn't necessarily work in Pathfinder 2E because the core assumptions and systems are different. In the case of Pathfinder, the unknowns and various ways to navigate it are part of the point, because stories are always full of surprises. It wouldn't even be in the same genre if you were always told what choices are the best, and barred from taking others.

And it's on all players, including the GM, to know the rules, which also tell you what your possible choices are and what they can do. If someone doesn't know, they might be helped out by knowledgeable fellow players. Same as any other RPG.

I'm inclined to agree with a few others that this discussion isn't going to go anywhere fruitful.

Actually understanding that limitation of the TTRPG genre is a really important first step in understanding my pov.

People are not computers.

Where you are wrong is that you ignore how the game design impacts the player's mastery of the rules and is a fundamentally important part of the game's design.

Stangler wrote:

Tactical decisions still need information. How much information a player has when making that decision is 100% a bi-product of the game's design. If the GM has a responsibility to communicate this information then it should be really clear in the GM guide.

I can't stress this enough, understanding the information available to a player is a massively important aspect of game design.

Ok, so for PF2, it is clearly communicated.

In depth.

In the Core Rulebook and in the GMG.

Glad I could clear that up for you so you can stop repeating yourself and don't need to read the rules you continue to insist be clear to you without reading or playing them.

Reminder, this thread is about a group of experienced TTRPG players playing the game for a year where the vast majority of people here have accused them of not understanding the nature of the game design and the choices they have in combat.

You can't even tell me what is being clearly communicated. Or what needs to be communicated. Or what the player needs to do to know besides read the rules. So just reading no math?

Stangler wrote:

Sporkedup wrote:

Are you saying that the opacity in terms of "best choices" in any given circumstance for the players is a bad thing? Not being sure what would be the best thing to do is exactly how choice can exist...

I am saying this will impact how players play the game and potentially enjoy or not enjoy the game. It is actually pretty clear that there is some enjoyment for some people to overcome that opacity while others don't care to even try.

Not all opacity is the same either.

Choosing to use a limited resource for example can be a hard decision because it is impossible to know what the future holds.

Most of the problems revolve around math. When one choice is simply mathematically superior to another. For example if the player has a choice between trying to kill something as quickly as possible or helping their team defend against the attack. The player may decide to try and kill the enemy as fast as possible but then have two more choices to make where they don't know what choice will kill the enemy more quickly. This is intentionally simplistic to demonstrate the point.

I dunno, man. Sounds like white-room supposition based around second-hand "math" and actually not really how the game plays at all.

Making decisions without enough of the picture to know what is best is a design feature of RPGs. You're not really going anywhere with this. Especially since the only time I have seen such certitude in probably over 100 sessions GMed in this system at this point is when it is time for the players to run the hell away because this thing will kill them.

You want it to be clean and simple, and you want this simplicity to also imply that any complexity is actually a waste of time or resources. It's just not that way, no matter how much you want it to be. Any given action, there are a bundle of choices to pick from, and some will be good and others bad. Sometimes it's clear in the context of the fight what might or might not work, and...

Hi welcome to the thread where there has been a long line of people telling everyone that Cody's players made the wrong decisions.

Where everyone admits that there is a cost benefit calculation that players have to make each round but there's is zero expectation that the game communicate the nature of this calculation. Nor can anyone really describe it all that well btw.

In Dark Souls I know when to move based on visuals. In Tetris I look at a block and can see how it could fit into the field.

So what is PF2 testing? What test did Cody's players fail? Why does that test exist in PF2? Are they testing knowledge of the system or are they testing your tactics? Both?

Stangler wrote:

Unicore wrote:

It is not paizo's responsibility nor is it even their ability to tell the players what is a good choice in any given situation.

Communicating information to a player is one of the most important aspects of game design. I really don't think this is a point worth arguing about because it is so obvious and well accepted in any discussion of game design.

The game tells you what options you could take and does a very good job of presenting options that will be valuable in different situations.

But it can't do the tactical analysis of the battlefield situation for you. It is definitely something the GM should talk to their players about if they see their players consistently making choices that lead to player frustration and character death. In fact, the rules do emphasize the importance of communication with players about their expectations and not forcing them to make endless checks for things that don't matter, just because there are rules for how to do so.

Paizo doesn't just count on every player having access to a 600 page rulebook either. They let their rule set be shared online and housed in several databases that allow for much more convenient usage than most other games.

We are not arguing about whether paizo is effective at communicating with players because the company has gone out of its way to make that information accessible. You seem to be under the impression that the game rules are suppose to make it clear when attacking is more valuable than tripping or shoving inherently. The game does that through the intermediary of the GM. A GM that says "you walk into a room, you see 2 goblins 30ft away from you, what do you do?" is not communicating nearly enough information to their players for that combat to work out as anything more than a white room simulation. APs and modules do add lots of extra details, but they don't necessarily go into depth about how you can flip x table to use for cover or how much damage every...

The vast majority of the responses to Cody can be summed up as the players and possibly the GM making bad decisions with the most common explanation being a lack of understanding of the choices the game presented to them.

Tactical decisions still need information. How much information a player has when making that decision is 100% a bi-product of the game's design. If the GM has a responsibility to communicate this information then it should be really clear in the GM guide.

I can't stress this enough, understanding the information available to a player is a massively important aspect of game design.

Stangler wrote:

How does a player know when it is the "good" choice?

I am not saying it is bad to have players weigh the costs and benefits. I am saying that the information they have when making that decision matters. The nature of that decision matters. The types of things they are weighing against one another matters. The hurdles the player needs to overcome to make an educated decision matter.

These are all decisions made by Paizo with regards to how this works. Paizo designed the math involved. They designed the cost and benefit analysis.

Cody's video is ultimately about a group of experienced players getting run down by this system Paizo designed and quitting.

Let me give an example.

My swashbuckler is designed heavily around making one big attack as his primary thing, his Confident Finisher. The cost to this is once he makes this attack, he cannot do any more attacks for the rest of the turn. He can choose to do this with his rapier, which does more damage, or his whip, which does less damage but has a better range, and will knock an enemy prone on a crit.
So I've filled those actions instead with a multitude of different possibilities. He can use Bon Mot/Tumble Behind to help set up his panache while also weakening an enemy, One for All to help allies, or Twin Parry to give himself a little more defense (which may include swapping to his main-gauche instead of one of his other weapons for even more defense).

But what if he's facing a large number of weak enemies? He might be able to do severe damage to a single enemy with one hit, but the fact that there are a lot of enemies will eventually take its toll. This is a point at which he might want to forgo that one big hit and instead just keep attacking (since even when he goes down to his third attack's MAP, he has a good chance of hitting because they're weaker than him).
Alternately, if I chose to raise Athletics as a skill and take Assurance, that third attack is very useful because Assurance cuts out both...

Actually the choice of single target damage vs AOE is one of the most obvious combat choices a game can offer to players. It is an example of a decision where the player should have solid information to make the decision(many weak enemies, understanding of your abilities). There is no reason this choice shouldn't be clear and transparent to the player.

It is not paizo's responsibility nor is it even their ability to tell the players what is a good choice in any given situation.

Communicating information to a player is one of the most important aspects of game design. I really don't think this is a point worth arguing about because it is so obvious and well accepted in any discussion of game design.

Are you saying that the opacity in terms of "best choices" in any given circumstance for the players is a bad thing? Not being sure what would be the best thing to do is exactly how choice can exist...

I am saying this will impact how players play the game and potentially enjoy or not enjoy the game. It is actually pretty clear that there is some enjoyment for some people to overcome that opacity while others don't care to even try.

Not all opacity is the same either.

Choosing to use a limited resource for example can be a hard decision because it is impossible to know what the future holds.

Most of the problems revolve around math. When one choice is simply mathematically superior to another. For example if the player has a choice between trying to kill something as quickly as possible or helping their team defend against the attack. The player may decide to try and kill the enemy as fast as possible but then have two more choices to make where they don't know what choice will kill the enemy more quickly. This is intentionally simplistic to demonstrate the point.

Stangler wrote:

The third attack choice still requires some work on the player to determine if it is or isn't a good choice. The game may even offer scenarios where it is a good choice

First of all, people have repeatedly shown examples of times when a third attack is a good choice, and proved it with math in some cases, so it's not an "if." Second, are you legitimately saying that its a "flaw" that pathfinder 2nd edition requires players to weigh the benifits of different actions againts thier costs in order to make a decision? Cause that's not an illusion of choice, that is the litteral definition of making a choice.

How does a player know when it is the "good" choice?

I am not saying it is bad to have players weigh the costs and benefits. I am saying that the information they have when making that decision matters. The nature of that decision matters. The types of things they are weighing against one another matters. The hurdles the player needs to overcome to make an educated decision matter.

These are all decisions made by Paizo with regards to how this works. Paizo designed the math involved. They designed the cost and benefit analysis.

Cody's video is ultimately about a group of experienced players getting run down by this system Paizo designed and quitting.

Is it the games job to tell you when using a skill or aiding another or doing a maneuver is better than doing an attack? I suppose there could be better documentation on it sure (haven’t seen the beginners box yet) but the rules are pretty straight forward. It’s not an illusion of choice on what to do there is a real choice and opportunity costs. It’s up to the player over time to see what works and doesn’t work for them. That is due to a number of factors. How the DM runs things, what campaign they’re playing, what their group is like, if they play cooperatively, and so on. If some feat choice isn’t working for them there is always the option to retrain which is easier in this edition.

But one thing PF2 does not really support is a character who does one thing all the time to the exclusion of all else. If you play that way (and yes...

Actually opportunity costs are often the reason how choices become illusions. The cost of every action can be measured in the benefit of the other options available. If the opportunity cost is always greater than the benefit then it is not really a choice.

Another lesson is that all decisions are based on perception of value as opposed to actual value. Some games are better or worse at communicating this value to players. Some players like the challenge, others hate it.

One of the problems with the PF2 system IMO is that it isn't committing to what it is in text or the ruleset. It wants to present itself as a very free form system with a host of options but the reality of the math is still supporting a certain playstyle. This is not a new issue with RPGs by the way. It has existed in games since forever.

Skill systems are often the most guilty of this problem. I would consider PF2 a hybrid skill/class system where the skill system is built within a class system. 5e is a class system within a class system with a couple of overpowered skills sprinkled in just to mess with the benefits of their class system.

The irony of many of the rebuttals to Cody's examples is that people are arguing that the choice being made is actually an illusory trap choice that his players shouldn't be making thus proving his thesis about illusion and my thesis concerning poor communication.

One of the most obvious illusory choices is that third attack. The system clearly doesn't want you to attack 3 times but it presents it as an option even giving you ways to try and make it work. This is different from a system that just doesn't allow it. In one case the math is steering towards a choice while in another the game just makes it for you. The third attack choice still requires some work on the player to determine if it is or isn't a good choice. The game may even offer scenarios where it is a good choice.

So at the end of the day when looking at a game's design you can consider what hurdles the game has made or not made. The choices real or imaginary. The choices provided and the information your many players have when making the choice. Each choice combining with others potentially hiding the nature of the choice further.

Interesting choices in combat are actually a relatively universal positive for players. Hiding those decisions behind a skill system or a opportunity cost valuation that isn't clear undermines and hides that system. Especially compared to a system that more clearly knows what it wants to be and tells the player.

Stangler wrote:

fanatic66 wrote:

Yep, you're on the right track. Imagine the Battlemaster maneuvers being given to every character and not being limited to a handful of times per short rest. Now a Barbarian can trip an enemy or frighten them. A player that wants to play a surgeon that heals allies and attacks with medical precision can play a rogue that uses Medicine to heal allies during combat. A ranger that's studied all sorts of monster lore (aka the Witcher) can use knowledge checks to discover weaknesses of a creature to help the ranger and her friends target the discovered vulnerability. A sly fighter can use cunning trick (deception) to fool opponents into exposing themselves to the fighter's attacks. All of the above is possible starting as early as 1st level depending on your skill choices.

Because of these varied options, just attacking 3 times is not great except for very specific builds (Flurry Ranger). Instead its better to mix tactical options with attacking. For example, let's say you are a raging Barbarian fighting a goblin boss. Its your turn and like in 5E, rage gives you bonus damage. You could just move and attack a goblin boss twice, but you've already seen your other friends miss several times against this heavily armored goblin. So instead, you move up to the goblin boss, trip him as a 2nd action, knocking the goblin prone. Now that the goblin is flat-footed (-2 to AC), you attack with your last action. More importantly, now any allies that go after you can take advantage of the goblin's prone position to hit more accurately. Also, when the goblin finally goes, it has to use an action to stand up, which only leaves it with 2 actions left. That's really nice, as some monsters (and characters!) have some nasty 3 action abilities.

OK so how did Paizo communicate this game design to players in character creation? Are there instances where they offer abilities that can undermine this system? For example a 3 action combo that weaponizes that third action.

Is

...

Who said I don't know anything about PF2? I am certainly not claiming to be an expert and want to hear people's perspective as that is very important.

I am also trying to get people to understand how to analyze a system to see its limitations and better understand how Cody's experience happens due to design decisions made by Paizo.

Stangler wrote:

This is wrong on many levels.

Excellent rebuttal. You stating I'm wrong without pointing to anything specific I said in my multiparagraph response is always super helpful in discussion.

Quote:

The evidence is user experience.

You and I have different definitions of "evidence". This is not a court of law, "witness testimony" does not apply here. His experience, as I've pointed out many times, is completely subjective.

A Subjective experience is not evidence, that is why the fallacy "anecdotal evidence" is not considered valid for supporting a bold statement.

Quote:

Optimal gameplay based on a deep dive of the math involved isn't an expectation of game system should be built around.

It isn't and Cody is the one dictating that it is, and he did not prove that.

That's his whole argument, that the game always expects you to be doing the "most optimal thing" and that the "most optimal thing" is always whatever rotation the person selected with their Class Feats.

What everyone here has pointed out, and there's another great video breaking down his example posted yesterday, is that where he makes the decree "I can't do anything else in this situation because my ranger has to use Hunted Shot in this scenario or my party will suffer because I'm being 'suboptimal'" incorrect.

Quote:

Secondly, a mathematical outcome that is slightly different but not materially different to the point of the argument doesn't make the rest of his argument or experience invalid.

You define Tripping and going into melee, which has drastically different outcomes not only to the enemy attacked but to the enemies response to his attack is "slightly different but not materially different"?

Why do you get to make that assumption? I see others saying you haven't tried PF2, so I think it's pretty bold of you to assume that outcomes that ultimately have, well, entirely different outcomes are the same.

You saying that...

I am not going to address everything because you clearly just don't understand the discussion and don't seem inclined to have a discussion in good faith.

How people play the game is relevant in a discussion about game design. The information they have when making decisions is 100% relevant and the assumption of perfect information ignores key aspects of the game experience to players and is unrealistic to boot. One of the more important aspects of game design how information is communicated. Literally design 101 and not worth arguing more.

I will jump ahead to your discussion about actions and the order. Obviously changing the order is an option.

I will also point out that I was already assuming that there are some scenarios where the second or third action could be non attacks based on different scenarios. This is a fairly standard trade in action economy.

These are exceptions to the rule though. The core design is still built the way I said.

Yep, you're on the right track. Imagine the Battlemaster maneuvers being given to every character and not being limited to a handful of times per short rest. Now a Barbarian can trip an enemy or frighten them. A player that wants to play a surgeon that heals allies and attacks with medical precision can play a rogue that uses Medicine to heal allies during combat. A ranger that's studied all sorts of monster lore (aka the Witcher) can use knowledge checks to discover weaknesses of a creature to help the ranger and her friends target the discovered vulnerability. A sly fighter can use cunning trick (deception) to fool opponents into exposing themselves to the fighter's attacks. All of the above is possible starting as early as 1st level depending on your skill choices.

Because of these varied options, just attacking 3 times is not great except for very specific builds (Flurry Ranger). Instead its better to mix tactical options with attacking. For example, let's say you are a raging Barbarian fighting a goblin boss. Its your turn and like in 5E, rage gives you bonus damage. You could just move and attack a goblin boss twice, but you've already seen your other friends miss several times against this heavily armored goblin. So instead, you move up to the goblin boss, trip him as a 2nd action, knocking the goblin prone. Now that the goblin is flat-footed (-2 to AC), you attack with your last action. More importantly, now any allies that go after you can take advantage of the goblin's prone position to hit more accurately. Also, when the goblin finally goes, it has to use an action to stand up, which only leaves it with 2 actions left. That's really nice, as some monsters (and characters!) have some nasty 3 action abilities.

OK so how did Paizo communicate this game design to players in character creation? Are there instances where they offer abilities that can undermine this system? For example a 3 action combo that weaponizes that third action.

Is that option to attack a third time really a choice or is it just an illusion of a choice?

Can we apply this game design to a Ranger?

How does this impact enemy characters? Is everyone just trying to trip each other every round?

Once again the character building decisions would likely need a clear understanding from the player that this is the "game" so to speak.

Conversely one of the biggest problems in 5e is the options to weaponize the bonus action (XBow expert feat and Polearm Expert) totally imbalance the game.

Strangler, I would highly suggest trying one game of this edition because then things will be much clearer. I’m assuming your background is 5e since you are coming from Cody’s video and he mostly posts about 5e. I’ve been playing 5e for 4 years both as a player and DM. I’ve homebrewed a lot of content in 5e so I feel like I have a decent grasp of the system.

With all that said, where PF2e excels at is giving you more options both at character creation and in social/exploration/combat. Since the discussion here seems focused on combat, I’ll focus on that as well. One of the biggest draws for me to Pathfinder 2E is that martials are fun. Everyone keeps taking about a bow ranger, but why not a melee fighter?

In 5e, a melee fighter just hits things every turn. Maybe some grapple but grappling is rather niche as its main benefit is restricting enemy movement and keeping them prone (giving advantage on attacks against them). The thing is that restricting enemy movement isn’t hard to do via other means (mostly magic) and granting advantage isn’t a huge boon when they are so many ways to grant advantage in the game, and advantage doesn’t stack. In my 4 years of experience, I only ever saw one dedicated grappler and most melee fighters just hit with their weapon. This can create for some repetitive turns that can be boring after many levels of play. You can see this all the time in the 5e subreddit where the occasional post pops up of someone asking for more combat options or others advocating “flavor your attacks” as a possible solution.

Now in PF2E, the fighter class is completely different. You can still attack with your weapon and you’re better at attacking than other martials. However, the multiple attack penalty (each additional attack after your first attack gets an increasing penalty to hit) really encourages all classes to do things besides standing still and attacking, even for highly accurate fighters. What else can a fighter do besides attacking?

• Movement is one but that’s

...

I appreciate the post because I feel like you are actually trying to provide effective context of the issue.

Can I try and simplify this a bit?

PF2 is built around a 3 action system where the players are presented with a hard choice with regards to their third action, while the first 2 are likely dedicated to attacks but are not limited to attacks. Their primary options are movement, skill check, a third attack at a major penalty, or some additional class/race feature.

Skill checks can produce benefits to the player or the party depending on the skill set chosen.

From a 5e perspective it is like giving players a lot of options for their bonus action.

Stangler wrote:

The very clear premise of Cody's argument is that choices are limited in PF2 with regards to combat while simultaneously being overly complicated when navigating the rules. That any advantage PF2 may have in developing a more complicated decision matrix for players, that complexity isn't really present IN COMBAT and the complexity of the rules acts as a detriment with no real payoff.

My take is that even if it is present then it is so buried in the rules it wasn't apparent to a group of experienced TTRPG players who played the game for a good year and that is probably a bigger problem than it not existing in the first place. That means Paizo bothered to build in a level of choice that was so poorly communicated that people are not seeing it.

So here's a weird thing that I've noticed in several of my own tables and from anecdotes here on the boards. Pathfinder 2e runs into an interesting problem of "piggybacking" (Lesson #4 from Mark Rosewater of MtG fame), in that on its surface it looks and plays like any other fantasy roleplaying game. So if anyone has that prior knowledge, they'll go in with certain expectations. The big one being, "I can solve combat the same as I always have." Whether this is hitting things with your weapon or blasting them apart with your spells, it feels like that shouldn't change. And while you can, you're likely to end up frustrated.

So to bring that around, in my groups of players new to TTRPGs, they within the first combat or two asked questions like, "What else can I do other than attack?" or "I still have an action left, so I'll move away." Conversely, PF2 has been an unlearning experience for my groups coming from PF1 (not so much 5e, surprisingly, in my experience). When I suggest, "Hey, you can Intimidate or set up an Aid reaction," it's usually met with, "Yeah, but that's not really... good." So with one group easily understanding the system (and trust me, in...

Pretty much any system will allow players to move around and hide if they have a hide feature in the game. Costs and effectiveness changing based on specialization.

You can also use assisting shot... what is the cost?

I am commenting mostly from a pov of not knowing anything about PF2 but that doesn't mean I don't know anything about PF2. My point in doing this is to try and make people take their head out of their own headspace and put it into the basics. How does the system actually look to a new player?

Stangler wrote:

Albatoonoe wrote:

Strangler, I don't know what you're asking for. We are providing examples of meaningful combat and character creation choices, yet it doesn't seem to be what you're looking for. I'm with RD there. Please be clear and succinct.

The primary issue is combat, not character creation.

I have seen one person mention the use of shove.

I have not seen anyone explain with any clarity the decisions a player has in combat. I have seen people explain that understanding the implications of any decision, including the really simple choice of melee vs range is... complicated but I have not seen anyone tell me the clear choices a Ranger is making in combat.

If one choice is to do less damage then there has to be a clear benefit because the lost damage is the opportunity cost.

What is the elevator pitch on Ranger combat choices at level 5 in PF2?

The issue us, its very divergent based on what that ranger did and didnt pick up-- the game is modular enough that theres a lot of possibilities.

If they invested in it they could easily attempt to recall what kinds of spells the creature has the most trouble resisting. Depending on thrir feats this could mean handing out direct buffs to other characters in addition to the actual knowledge they attempt to recall.

They may have both Hunter's aim and Hunted Shot, and need to decide contextually which they think might be a better way to use their bow that turn, they might reposition for all sorts of reasons (including flanking or soaking damage), or they may take every shot they can. If they have the charisma for it, they could try and inflict frightened, to soften up targets for a big follow up from their friends.

They might also consider raising a shield (in this case a buckler, because free hand for archery) if they suspect they might need the AC. They might have a spell from their ancestry or heritage they might consider employing (im partial to the shield cantrip myself.)

So the options...

For the most part these are presented as character creation options, not combat options. Seemingly to increase the appearance of combat options but just talking about character creation options.

Pick a build and talk options. What is the cost benefit analysis of the decision? Was anything given up to increase combat options in the build?

Being able to move tactically isn't really a feature bothering to point out.

Stangler wrote:

Albatoonoe wrote:

Strangler, I don't know what you're asking for. We are providing examples of meaningful combat and character creation choices, yet it doesn't seem to be what you're looking for. I'm with RD there. Please be clear and succinct.

The primary issue is combat, not character creation.

I have seen one person mention the use of shove.

I have not seen anyone explain with any clarity the decisions a player has in combat. I have seen people explain that understanding the implications of any decision, including the really simple choice of melee vs range is... complicated but I have not seen anyone tell me the clear choices a Ranger is making in combat.

If one choice is to do less damage then there has to be a clear benefit because the lost damage is the opportunity cost.

What is the elevator pitch on Ranger combat choices at level 5 in PF2?

How much clearer does it have to be to demonstrate what good a shovel or a trip is? Trip knocks them to the ground (prone), making them more vulnerable and slowing them down. Shove is more situational, but you can push them off things or into a narrow passage. Disarm has some pretty self-evident benefits or removing an enemies weapon.

Take a look at bon Mot. It tells your right there that it imposes a penalty on them. Every choice pretty clearly laid out and simple to figure out. Sure, they won't be used for every situation and that is the point.

I am sold on the trip having some value but you have not told me a clear value or cost of that trip. This seems like something that people should be able to do.

In comparison a Battle Master Fighter in 5e can spend a superiority dice (limited resource) to attempt to trip a target on a hit(DC set based on Dex).

Relatively clear cost, benefit of the trip is nebulous and situational but the opportunity cost is also nebulous and situational. The trip is part of an attack so they are not spending an action to get the trip benefit.

Easy to explain and understand.

Stangler wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Stangler wrote:

PF2 has to clearly demonstrate a capacity for something.

It's more streamlined than previous editions/versions of the game while also allowing for more customization than 5e. The pacing also gives an allowance to be faster and more tactics and techniques can be applied in combat.

That's a "something" I find fun.

You didn't demonstrate anything but I will try and help.

OK what are the clear combat choices of a PF2 Ranger focused on bow use at level 5?

How do the choices evolve as they level?

How clear is any of this to players?

As I mentioned above, there are several choice you will make in character creation that cannot focus on the bow. You can have identification skills, for instance. Make witty quips. Be a medic. These options will continue to expand because you literally can't spend all of your feats on being good at a bow.

I suppose, however, that I have to give you this on combat choices. If this specific ranger builds his character in a way to only use one thin.g really, I suppose he might limit his choices

Now demonstrate that for other classes. We keep hearing about this now sniper ranger. What about monks, fighters, and sorcerers? You need multiple data points to be worth anything.

I would say that this issue is likely concentrated in martial classes but spell casters tend to create different problems.

I didn't come here to demonstrate anything. I came here to see if Cody was wrong and hoping he was but have found little evidence that he was.

Strangler, I don't know what you're asking for. We are providing examples of meaningful combat and character creation choices, yet it doesn't seem to be what you're looking for. I'm with RD there. Please be clear and succinct.

The primary issue is combat, not character creation.

I have seen one person mention the use of shove.

I have not seen anyone explain with any clarity the decisions a player has in combat. I have seen people explain that understanding the implications of any decision, including the really simple choice of melee vs range is... complicated but I have not seen anyone tell me the clear choices a Ranger is making in combat.

If one choice is to do less damage then there has to be a clear benefit because the lost damage is the opportunity cost.

What is the elevator pitch on Ranger combat choices at level 5 in PF2?

Stangler wrote:

PF2 has to clearly demonstrate a capacity for something.

It's more streamlined than previous editions/versions of the game while also allowing for more customization than 5e. The pacing also gives an allowance to be faster and more tactics and techniques can be applied in combat.

That's a "something" I find fun.

You didn't demonstrate anything but I will try and help.

OK what are the clear combat choices of a PF2 Ranger focused on bow use at level 5?

How do the choices evolve as they level?

How clear is any of this to players?

Can you more clearly and succinctly state what your goal (or Cody's goal) is here? I'm seeing you say a lot, but I still have no idea what your aim is or what you are getting at.

The very clear premise of Cody's argument is that choices are limited in PF2 with regards to combat while simultaneously being overly complicated when navigating the rules. That any advantage PF2 may have in developing a more complicated decision matrix for players, that complexity isn't really present IN COMBAT and the complexity of the rules acts as a detriment with no real payoff.

My take is that even if it is present then it is so buried in the rules it wasn't apparent to a group of experienced TTRPG players who played the game for a good year and that is probably a bigger problem than it not existing in the first place. That means Paizo bothered to build in a level of choice that was so poorly communicated that people are not seeing it.

I have asked multiple times for people to communicate it to me with no success.

The fact is that you can play all sorts of TTRPGs and have fun even if the rules kinda suck. That doesn't mean there are not some fundamental principles of game design that are worth knowing and paying attention to. One of those principles is transparency of choice. Another is real options whenever a choice is being made that have clear benefits and tradeoffs.

Obvious principles that are so obvious they shouldn't be mentioned but seem necessary anyway. More damage vs less damage is a bad choice. Players should feel comfortable enough in any choice that they don't feel the need to open excel, or if they do it is a calculated choice of risk (averages be damned).

Even in a bad system fun can be had and sometimes the quirks of a system that are in every way flawed can create some fun sessions and become beloved. I don't want to act like people should continue loving PF2 if they love it. I am asking people who are listening to Cody's videos to actually listen and take a step back and look at PF2 more objectively.

Stangler wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Stangler wrote:

I will also add that steps are not choices. More steps presented as choices to the same outcome are not choices. They are steps. If the choice is that the player wants to be good at shooting a bow then that is one choice even if it takes 5 choices to get them there.

This isn't really true. There are multiple different routes to using a bow, and as those diverge there are choices. Even within the same class there a multiple ways you can go to pursue that end and thus be involved in choice.

I mean lets go to the Ranger. I'm assuming the worst case for my point in the Crossbows aren't allowed to count as a divergence choice for a "bow user." That still leaves at level 1, the pretty solid choice between Flurry and Precision, the choice between Gravity Weapon, Hunted Shot, Monster Hunter or even an Animal Companion; all of which can augment or supplement that weapon choice. So thats 8 different Bow builds for 1 class at level 1 before we even take into account the numerous Ancestry choices that could be used to further differentiate it AND with banning crossbows from the consideration.

What is the impact of those choices? Is the impact clear? Is one choice simply better than the others in terms of DPR? If one is inferior why? Is it clear?

If the primary choice of the player is that they want to be good with a bow then how are those choices navigated?

Imagine it like algebra. A good system will reduce the equation to the essence of each choice to reduce the number of variables.

The advantages or each is not always clear no. And while in a white room some options are "superior" in DPS terms, those build options lend themselves to different styles of play and different risk reward weightings. This is depth and choice. Boiling things down to the simplest either or doesn't increase choice, it reduces it.

Precision + Gravity is about getting one very good shot each round, and then getting to use your other...

A solid difference between choice A and choice B is great. A solid difference between choice A and choice B in character creation doesn't mean combat itself has that same choice.

What choices should be made in combat and which ones should be made in character creation? What information is needed to make the choice is a good place to start.

If you are designing a game and want to offer players a choice in character creation where one choice benefits non attack choices and one that benefits attack choices how would you do that? Is it best to bury the min/max potential of various options in feats or do you just make the choice crystal clear for the player where their choices have clear meaning?

Just to repeat the premise, the discussion is about choice in combat. That means in any given round what is the choice? Are those choices clear?

Clear mechanics of how tactical choices are as valuable as build choices? I feel like this thread is full of specific examples, but there are even times where a bard might be better moving into flanking with a powerful melee ally in a critical round of combat rather than inspire courage again and not move into flanking, because the +2 to attack might be more important than a +1, especially in later rounds of combat when both the ally and the monster might be one hit away from dying.

Even shove is an impossible action to value in a white room because it does no damage, but pushing a well armed or shield wielding enemy off of even a 10 or 15ft cliff can mean forcing the creature to think about dropping their weapon or falling into a position where they waste multiple actions getting up and then getting back into position. I see these exact kind of situations come up in play often because my party looks for them and asks about how they can interact with the environment. As a GM, I probably encouraged this from the beginning by introducing dynamic map elements of tables and other objects I could move and manipulate on the battle map and had enemies interact with them as well.

Over and over again though, I see parties forget to recall knowledge on creatures they are observing from stealth before moving in (myself included), for example, and that is a big mistake because it means forcing those actions into competition with other actions and often result them in choosing not to recall knowledge even though there is almost always something that can be learned that could be leveraged effectively in combat. Even a fighter might benefit from learning that an enemies Fort save is 3 points lower than their AC and has a action that could be disrupted by being grappled.

What is the clear mechanic here? Seriously.

Is it shove providing a +2 to hit for your allies? Is that really the "clear" choice that PF2 is providing to players? Try to hit target or provide a +2 to hit for allies? That really sounds like a mathematical equation to boredom to me.

But your point isn't clear so I honestly don't know what it is.

Doing things to help your team isn't unique to PF2. It is basic. What isn't clear to me in the posts in this thread is how these decisions are made clear to players and incorporated effectively into the game system that is PF2.

That is the hurdle PF2 is being asked to overcome in Cody's arguments and ZERO evidence has been provided to suggest otherwise from what I can tell.

PF2 has to clearly demonstrate a capacity for something. The onus isn't on Cody to justify or not justify PF2. It is on the game system itself to communicate the value of it. Cody is just another talking head on the internet.

Stangler wrote:

PF2 relies on specialization

Wait.

Hold up.

This. This right here.

This is the problem.

It does no such thing.

As soon as you realize that, you'll see why so many people are not agreeing with you.

Don't say, show. How many choices are made in character creation are built around being good at a bow? How many are about other options?

How many are about layers to the equation during combat?

The discussion at hand is about the number of choices that don't actually mean anything to the game in practice and how at the end of the day less "choices" is better than more "choices" when the result is fundamentally the same.

Squiggit wrote:

Stangler wrote:

It isn't clear to the player what their choice means as it relates to the primary choice they are making which is to be good at the bow.

How is it not clear? One ability makes your subsequent attacks more accurate, the other makes your first attack deal additional damage. That's pretty obvious on its face. That's what the abilities do.

The only thing that's not clear is which one is the superior mathematical choice... but if one of them was obviously and clearly superior (rather than just contextually superior), then it wouldn't be a choice at all.

So that's exactly backwards.

And the whole point of the design ethos of PF2 was to make context more important. To prioritize in game tactical choices over character build choices. The build choices still matter, but they're no longer as overwhelming as in 3.x/PF1.

The very premise behind Stangler's argument here is missing the point, since it's focusing on the build game.

So the choice that Paizo designed about specific encounters is based in character creation? Or is it part of the combat decision matrix?

Stangler wrote:

His argument wasn't that he found the perfect optimization of the Ranger at a certain level. You are just arguing the exact outcome of the math as opposed to the general conclusion of the math.

More complicated math doesn't create choice, it just requires more math to see it.

Like I said, I think people quibbling the math don't really understand the conversation.

So your argument is that when his evidence that he uses to prove his point is fallacious in nature, we still have to accept that he has a point and therefore aren’t entitled to discontinuing the argument even though we just established his “points” are built on falsehood?

He’s the one that made the claim you’re pidgeon holed into actions. The fact is there are 100s of different total combinations any character can likely do in a given turn. He needs to prove that it is most optimal to always do one rotation. He cannot do that. He did not do it in his example and has yet to provide any proof of the premise that he “has” to do the actions claimed.

Sorry evidence for arguments doesn’t work that way. He has nothing to back up his claims, he didn’t the first time and his example only demonstrates that he doesn’t even have the knowledge of the system he claims to have mastery over to prove his point.

You seem to think he’s made an argument based on evidence and we are in the position to listen and understand his evidence. I assure you, he has done nothing of the sort. He has provided his personal opinion and perspective based on purely subjective information.

This is wrong on many levels.

The evidence is user experience. Optimal gameplay based on a deep dive of the math involved isn't an expectation of game system should be built around.

Secondly, a mathematical outcome that is slightly different but not materially different to the point of the argument doesn't make the rest of his argument or experience invalid.

Thirdly, you have not addressed his point. You seem to think you are actually more knowledgeable of the issue but you have not really addressed the heart of the matter which is choice in combat. Why not?

The algebra does exists. But the variables are very GM and scenario dependant and make a lot of assumptions about play style. Which means it just descends into an argument about how often each scenario occurs. People are just going to disagree.

For example Flurry versus Precision. If you are just standing next to your enemy and going attack attack attack. Flurry is mathematically a better choice the numbers have been crunched for typical ACs. Go look it up on this board. But if you aren't getting all those extra attacks all that often, or if you are getting an occasional reaction based attack (no MAP) then Precision looks better. There are various level break points as well. So which is better? Its not clear, but there is no shortage of opinions out there.

Then there are several more layers of complexity on top of that. Add an animal companion in? Ranged or melee? Only few feats are compulsory for each style.

You have asked a very big question to want a specific answer for. It doesn't seem reasonable given the quality of the original question.

So that type of answer is just ok IMO. It isn't clear to the player what their choice means as it relates to the primary choice they are making which is to be good at the bow.

There are two ways this choice is low information. It is likely low information in the sense that people won't automatically know the math involved. It is also low information because they don't know what scenarios they will be in.

Low value "choice"

Stangler wrote:

I think the people who are trying to nitpick the examples he gave are kind of missing the point he was making

Points require evidence.

The evidence presented is a rigid example that he believed favored his position when in reality it only demonstrates how he doesn't understand the optimization of the system is not dependent on using Class Feats all the time.

The most optimal thing to do in the circumstances isn't even what he did (and he blatantly misses certain portions of the rules like not applying Precision damage to melee strikes with the Precision Edge).

He has to prove his point of view, and he can't do it without trying to cherry pick a super specific build (bow using ranger) and he still fails to prove it with his own example.

This is literally the inverse of schroedinger's wizard argument of previous editions in that if he can frame a perfect scenario where there is "nothing to do" it therefore proves that is a commonality and that doing anything outside that is "sub-optimal" and therefor not doing it is being "punished".

But he fails to prove that even in his given circumstances.

Everyone else has covered the other portions that deserve rebutting, but we do not have to uphold his "point" when he didn't provide a shred of evidence to corroborate the premise.

And when you fail to prove your point when you're the one creating the scenario itself (and improperly using the rules in the scenario that was made up literally just to prove their point), you get to be rebuked and told you're wrong.

Quote:

I will add my opinion here. A system that hides choices behind many pages of rules isn't as good as a system that is very upfront about the choices the player has.

What is the definition of "hides"? Cody clearly knows he can trip. He clearly knows he can go against Reflex DC.

What Cody didn't know is that his Class Feat wasn't the most optimal use of the turn.

Why wasn't that known? Because they didn't take into account all...

His argument wasn't that he found the perfect optimization of the Ranger at a certain level. You are just arguing the exact outcome of the math as opposed to the general conclusion of the math.

More complicated math doesn't create choice, it just requires more math to see it.

Like I said, I think people quibbling the math don't really understand the conversation.

Stangler wrote:

When objectively looking at a game system specialization can be a good choice in character creation but when it comes to combat the primary choice has already been made and an additional layer of choices need to be included.

Does that exist in Pathfinder?

This is exactly why the video is so confusing to so many of us who have been playing the game from the beginning. Specialization in actions from character build almost never exceed the advantages that can be found in tactical play in PF2. There is no ultimate set of actions for any one character to take every encounter of every AP and trying to do so is very likely to get you and your party killed. Especially when trying to do your combat routine comes at the cost of actions to figure out what you are fighting and taking advantage of the environment you are fighting in.

Especially in AoA, sometimes, your party gets it wrong, or acts on bad information, because the encounters and dungeon design is very robust and full of little ecologies that typical "kill and loot" parties are going to miss, and you will get punished for it, but that is part of the game.

It is confusing to hear that combat in PF2 is repetitive and boring but also too difficult, because that seems to imply a contradiction in experience. In attempting to explain why he felt that was possible, he exposed a serious problem in the way many players approach encounters in PF2, which is in trying to assume that the party knows how to handle the situation before actually making recall knowledge checks and seeking out hidden features and enemies that might make things easier. It happens to my party all the time too, but we acknowledge the fault is on us making assumptions about encounters, not the system for having dynamic enough encounters that you can't just rush them all the same way.

You just tried to explain something that you claim exists in PF2 but you didn't really point to anything concrete and certainly not a clear mechanic.

It is not clear the real nature of the problem but there is definitely a problem. There either exists a layer of complexity that players are missing and those who see it have a hard time pointing to, or it doesn't' really exist at all.

In PF2? Definitely. For example, the many skills (and skill feats) that have a combat use.

Also, where in your analysis appears the importance of tactics which is one of PF2's strengths ?

So can you demonstrate how these skill feats provide this layer?

What is the cost benefit analysis of the player?

How can there be this entire layer that is not in Cody's analysis? IS it hidden? Is there a cost to using the skills that makes it less worth it?

Stangler wrote:

I will also add that steps are not choices. More steps presented as choices to the same outcome are not choices. They are steps. If the choice is that the player wants to be good at shooting a bow then that is one choice even if it takes 5 choices to get them there.

This isn't really true. There are multiple different routes to using a bow, and as those diverge there are choices. Even within the same class there a multiple ways you can go to pursue that end and thus be involved in choice.

I mean lets go to the Ranger. I'm assuming the worst case for my point in the Crossbows aren't allowed to count as a divergence choice for a "bow user." That still leaves at level 1, the pretty solid choice between Flurry and Precision, the choice between Gravity Weapon, Hunted Shot, Monster Hunter or even an Animal Companion; all of which can augment or supplement that weapon choice. So thats 8 different Bow builds for 1 class at level 1 before we even take into account the numerous Ancestry choices that could be used to further differentiate it AND with banning crossbows from the consideration.

What is the impact of those choices? Is the impact clear? Is one choice simply better than the others in terms of DPR? If one is inferior why? Is it clear?

If the primary choice of the player is that they want to be good with a bow then how are those choices navigated?

Imagine it like algebra. A good system will reduce the equation to the essence of each choice to reduce the number of variables.

Stangler wrote:

I think the people who are trying to nitpick the examples he gave are kind of missing the point he was making and there doesn't seem to be any demonstration that the problem he stated doesn't exist. i.e. specialization in one action makes that action (or set of actions) the default action in a majority of scenarios. PF2 relies on specialization and this creates limited choices.

Slight variations in the examples don't change the underlying problem in that the choice the player has before them are consistently limited by a specialized character who is simply best at option A or some variation there of.
...

I will also add that steps are not choices. More steps presented as choices to the same outcome are not choices. They are steps. If the choice is that the player wants to be good at shooting a bow then that is one choice even if it takes 5 choices to get them there.

I disagree. We are demonstrating that the level of specialization is much closer to non-spec than in other editions.

Additionally, the game forces you to expand horizontally by limiting stacking of bonuses and selections in specific categories. You get skills, ancestry feats, general feats, etc that force horizontal growth.

And, lastly, isn't that the point of specialization?. Like, that is the same for anything. If I specialize in martial arts in Shadowrun, I'm gonna punch a lot of guys. It seems like a nonsense argument, especially in comparison to 5e, which gives you so few options and little horizontal growth.

Like I already said, slight variations in the math doesn't change the problem of specialization.

5 steps to get to being good at a bow vs 1 step is simplification of one choice. 10 steps to get to being equally good at everything is 10 steps to get a single watered down choice.

When objectively looking at a game system specialization can be a good choice in character creation but when it comes to combat the primary choice has already been made and an additional layer of choices need to be included.

Does that exist in Pathfinder?

I think the people who are trying to nitpick the examples he gave are kind of missing the point he was making and there doesn't seem to be any demonstration that the problem he stated doesn't exist. i.e. specialization in one action makes that action (or set of actions) the default action in a majority of scenarios. PF2 relies on specialization and this creates limited choices.

Slight variations in the examples don't change the underlying problem in that the choice the player has before them are consistently limited by a specialized character who is simply best at option A or some variation there of.

Illusion of choice can happen for a bunch of reasons but one of them is that specialization in a specific action(bow attack) will lead to that action being used more often because of the math of the game.

The other problem he brings up is the system being too complicated and a complicated system combined with significant specialization in action isn't fun for him or his players as it creates a burden while limiting options.

I will add my opinion here. A system that hides choices behind many pages of rules isn't as good as a system that is very upfront about the choices the player has. If a system wants to have serious specialization (bow user) then there needs to be clear choices to make in combat on top of that primary choice. A game should be built around building these choices for players and then communicating their importance to them. If PF2 has some secret set of choices that Cody and his group of experienced players simply don't see that is also a problem.

From a GM point of view this really matters as they have to build encounters around the decision matrix of the players.

I will also add that steps are not choices. More steps presented as choices to the same outcome are not choices. They are steps. If the choice is that the player wants to be good at shooting a bow then that is one choice even if it takes 5 choices to get them there. The real flavor of a game is what is built on top of that initial choice.

Like if I have my hobgoblins tripping, grappling, demoralizing the players, they almost always try to respond accordingly. It's tough to argue with results, and when you're doing things the PCs know they can also do, it leads to a "monkey see, monkey do" kinda thing. In the case of my groups Barbarian, it comes off as almost challenging them to an "arm wrestle" type of competition ("Oh you think you can Grapple me, I'll show you!")

I think this monkey see, monkey do approach to DMing is great advice and really should be built into the system from the start. It is like the show, don't tell approach to story telling that works so well.

Different tiers of play can offer new things for the players to learn through the actions of their enemies. BBEG can also use some abilities normally reserved in the next tier of play to wet their appetite.

Strategies, counter strategies, teamwork and more. You can still have monsters with their own set of strategies and strengths and weaknesses.

If I was really cynical I might think someone might make a "here's why x is bad" video with a bunch of weak arguments in it, in order to set up the "some really cool people reached out to me, so now I know why x is good actually" video.

Then why is the core rulebook so long? Why even give players those choices?

If you are correct that there are basically no optimization choices in the game then that fully supports his assertion that the book is nothing but a bunch of illusions of choice.

The min-max trap being more or less the subject of the video is why it's weird the complaint is being aimed at PF2, a game which basically puts most player power in mid-battle choices, and why people are focusing on how to get players to notice (and recognize the importance of) the mid-battle choices the game offers.

The min/max trap and mid combat choices are not mutually exclusive ideas. The mid combat choices can certainly help but the player is still suffering from the hangover of feeling their character building is done. The more they enjoyed that the more they will feel the loss of it, ergo the trap.

I think this issue is likely being aimed at PF2 because the core rulebook is 600 pages long. Are some players not able to fully really appreciate and focused on that mid battle complexity of PF2 or are they already worn down by the 600 pages they just shifted through? Does the DM know that this is the heart of the game and designing encounters around it? Why or why not?

One of the themes of the video is the clear feeling that the choices presented were simple illusions. From a game design pov it is actually very hard to create choices that are not illusions and there is a tendency to design things one piece at a time which leads to excessive and counterproductive complexity.

I think one of the ways TTRPGs really can evolve is establishing a better understanding of what the game is. D&D 5e is really designed so that people can jump in and play but the higher levels are often ignored because the game loses momentum.

There is also a domino effect with decisions so this tends to upfront that joy of min/max learning because players feel they need to plan out their character for 20 levels.

I will also add that I went back and watched this guys other videos on PF2 and he was clearly a fan early on. I would imagine that he is experiencing a bit of a rollercoaster effect with the highs of learning the game and then the lows of hitting a wall and will likely bounce back in a little bit with his appreciation of the game.

I think it is important to understand that he has a point even if you don't totally agree with it. Personally I don't think he even really understands the problem. It is not an experience that is unique to pathfinder and is generally tied to the process of learning and figuring out a system with min/max gameplay in mind. In essence I think the problem at his table is an example of the min/max trap. So what is the min/max trap?

The min/max trap is the player who gets pleasure in min/maxing their character but once that process is over they lose interest.

What happens for a min/max player is that they spend a lot of time learning the rules and trying to find out how they work. This is actually a fun experience for them as they learn and figure things out and discover synergies or optimal paths. They finally get to a point where their major min/max decisions have been made and their character is built the way they intended. At this point there is a bit of a let down. There are no more hurdles for them to really overcome so they get bored.

The act of playing the game in these scenarios can be fun to an extent but not necessarily. Especially after awhile. There is nothing left to learn or look forward to.

So in retrospect you have a game with a mountain of complexity (choices) to wade through which provides entertainment but once that happens that experience is over. The primary value of the complexity is no longer present but the cost of that complexity still is and that cost is mostly felt by pushing out the attention placed on the other aspects of the experience.

In the end the bigger the rush the player gets from figuring out their character the harder the fall once it is over.

This is a major reason why other aspects of the game are really important outside of the act of optimization.

Personally I find optimization a lot of fun but I have gone through this process dozens of times over the years across various games. I have had a lot of fun with games only to find myself losing interest and hitting a wall.