Disappointment in direction game (and rpgs in general) are headed

[Gorbacz]

John Mechalas wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

News flash: D&D 3/3.5 and PF1 are some of the most rule-heavy systems out there, and the vast majority of the ruleset is a tactical wargame. The focus of D&D has been on "roll-play" since 2000, and since 1990s there have been dozen of RPG systems with light rulesets that encourage, reward and integrate role-playing far more than D&D ever did.

But the bounded accuracy of the Playtest system combined with the DC scale means that you have to build your character close to an optimal set of stats and abilities...all just to get a 50% chance of success at what you do.

D&D and PF have never been like this. Except maybe 4E?

Sure, D&D 3.5 and PF were "either you're good at system mastery and you roll over level-appropriate challenges or you're bad at system mastery and you are a crippling liability for your party". They rewarded gaming the system and knowing it inside out so much that it was obscene.

The cherished "freedom to build whatever character you wanted" of 3.5/PF was actually the freedom to blow up the game by turbo optimizing OR to shoot yourself in the foot by playing a Rogue/Monk/Druid. Even being in the middle ground between these two extremes required advanced system mastery.

That was ROLL playing. You've spent so much time and energy on ensuring that your PC doesn't suck donkey balls AND doesn't wreck the game that in the end most of your attention went into optimization.

[magnuskn]

Gorbacz wrote:

Sure, D&D 3.5 and PF were "either you're good at system mastery and you roll over level-appropriate challenges or you're bad at system mastery and you are a crippling liability for your party". They rewarded gaming the system and knowing it inside out so much that it was obscene.

The cherished "freedom to build whatever character you wanted" of 3.5/PF was actually the freedom to blow up the game by turbo optimizing OR to shoot yourself in the foot by playing a Rogue/Monk/Druid. Even being in the middle ground between these two extremes required advanced system mastery.

That was ROLL playing. You've spent so much time and energy on ensuring that your PC doesn't suck donkey balls AND doesn't wreck the game that in the end most of your attention went into optimization.

That's wrong. If you don't optimize (and the entire group doesn't build particulary bad, either), you will be perfectly fine against the vast majority of CR appropiate monsters the game throws at you (overbuild exceptions like the Seugathi excluded).

Taking Power Attack and Weapon Focus as a fighty-type isn't optimizing, it's just taking class appropiate feats. Taking a Spell Focus and Spell Penetration as a caster is not optimizing. It's just reading the feat section of the CRB and saying "that feat looks like it would help my class!". Which I think is something most players will want to do. And if not, your GM will probably glady help you out a bit.

If you actually optimize, your GM normally has to react to your character being more powerful than expected in one aspect of the game, so that the encounters will have to be adjusted upwards somewhat.

[thejeff]

Tiona Daughtry wrote:

I think I have figured out what the heart of the problem could be defined as. The focus of the game has shifted from 'role play' to 'roll play'. It is more about rules, mechanics, and absolute balance than it is about telling shared stories of outrageous exploits and wild dares. That is exemplified by the lack of distinction between characters of same race/class. I think, in the end, Paizo must make it clear whether they will be a 'role playing game' or a 'roll playing game'. And that, in fact, is what will decide people on whether they will play it or not. I don't play the latter, some people do. That's their choice, but I do have mine, and that is not to settle for just mechanics.

Just to be clear, you can't "role play" because the system doesn't give you enough mechanical distinction between characters?

Damn, I remember role-playing back in AD&D where you had almost no mechanical distinctions.

[Crayon]

PF2 feels weird to me too. The degree of mechanical complexity doesn't seem much different, but seems like it's been shuffled around in a way that I find uniquely unappealing - as if the aspects I wanted simplified were made more complex and the parts I wanted robust rules for have been made simpler.

Certainly none of this involves roleplay, however, which can be done very well without any game system at all

In any case, I have little interest in the new edition at this point, but will probably be back in a year or so to see how the finished game shapes up.

[Vic Ferrari]

Crayon wrote:

PF2 feels weird to me too. The degree of mechanical complexity doesn't seem much different, but seems like it's been shuffled around in a way that I find uniquely unappealing - as if the aspects I wanted simplified were made more complex and the parts I wanted robust rules for have been made simpler.

Well put, a bit how I feel, and for me there is a definite lack of Wow-factor, I really wanted that upon digging into the PDF. It also, to me, feels a tad like a sci-fi RPG converted to a fantasy one, for some reason.

[RazarTuk]

magnuskn wrote:

Taking Power Attack and Weapon Focus as a fighty-type isn't optimizing, it's just taking class appropiate feats. Taking a Spell Focus and Spell Penetration as a caster is not optimizing. It's just reading the feat section of the CRB and saying "that feat looks like it would help my class!". Which I think is something most players will want to do. And if not, your GM will probably glady help you out a bit.

Spell Focus is complicated. I would call it optimization, but it's also required. A fighter's attack rolls will outpace enemy AC, even without feats, but a wizard actually needs those feats for DCs to stay competitive.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Gorbacz wrote:

So if a *player* with an arguably low IQ rolls an Int 18 Wizard, do you tell them that they need to quit playing the character because they can't realistically roleplay the rules? Will your group constantly pressure them to drop the "smart" aspect of the character?

For what it's worth, the approach that has worked for me with mental stats as a DM is "if you want to play a character with mental stats above what you can plausibly roleplay, you'll be doing everything with dice rather than roleplaying it." Which takes a certain degree of self-awareness and maturity for players, but I'd kind of rather not play with people who don't have those traits anyway as it seems less enjoyable.

DMing a character with Int significantly beyond one's own is easier, IME, because the really high Int types tend to be climactic Big Bads and the combination of having much more time to plan their strategies in advance and simulating them being better at figuring out the PCs' behaviour in the moment by informing it with your knowledge of the characters from the rest of the campaign works reasonably well. Which leads me to think that in theory it might work to simulate higher Int characters by giving players more real time to work out what they want to do, but I am at a loss for any practical way to implement that.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Irontruth wrote:

A main source of this problem is the incentive structure of the game. Pathfinder (and most all D&D variations) are primarily combat games. Just look at how much of each chapter has rules that deal primarily with combat, and how rare a page that has nothing about combat is. In combat, it's kill or be killed. There is no formal method of alternative options. Sure, opponents can sometimes run away, or maybe you can, but running away isn't a victory, it's just a reduced defeat. At it's core, the game doesn't tell you to set lower stakes.

How well do you think it would work to massively increase the recommended XP for story awards compared to combat, as an approach here?

[Scythia]

Gorbacz wrote:

John Mechalas wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

News flash: D&D 3/3.5 and PF1 are some of the most rule-heavy systems out there, and the vast majority of the ruleset is a tactical wargame. The focus of D&D has been on "roll-play" since 2000, and since 1990s there have been dozen of RPG systems with light rulesets that encourage, reward and integrate role-playing far more than D&D ever did.

But the bounded accuracy of the Playtest system combined with the DC scale means that you have to build your character close to an optimal set of stats and abilities...all just to get a 50% chance of success at what you do.

D&D and PF have never been like this. Except maybe 4E?

Sure, D&D 3.5 and PF were "either you're good at system mastery and you roll over level-appropriate challenges or you're bad at system mastery and you are a crippling liability for your party". They rewarded gaming the system and knowing it inside out so much that it was obscene.

The cherished "freedom to build whatever character you wanted" of 3.5/PF was actually the freedom to blow up the game by turbo optimizing OR to shoot yourself in the foot by playing a Rogue/Monk/Druid. Even being in the middle ground between these two extremes required advanced system mastery.

That was ROLL playing. You've spent so much time and energy on ensuring that your PC doesn't suck donkey balls AND doesn't wreck the game that in the end most of your attention went into optimization.

Not really. In published PF1 materials, even minimal optimization would serve through most encounters. High optimization just made it into a cake walk.

(Anecdote time) The single AP I ran for my players, the Slayer discovered by accident in one session that he liked using bull-rush to push enemies into hazards. He put the barest minimum of effort into improving his bull-rush (taking the first feat only), and successfully used the tactic through the rest of the AP when he wanted an alternative to Ginsuing his way through enemies with two weapon full BAB sneak attacks.

[Lord Mhoram]

Gorbacz wrote:

The cherished "freedom to build whatever character you wanted" of 3.5/PF was actually the freedom to blow up the game by turbo optimizing OR to shoot yourself in the foot by playing a Rogue/Monk/Druid. Even being in the middle ground between these two extremes required advanced system mastery.

Agreed.

I felt (and said) for year that balance and freedom are opposites, when relying on the rules themselves for both. Games like Pathfinder and D&D rely on system for balance, and over the years we have seen so many threads about player/GM entitlement when things are banned.

I also play HERO system, a point based, effects based game. Pretty much any concept you can come up with, you can create(sometimes it's too powerful for the campaign, so you don't get to play exactly that version). However, the HERO GM is expected to say no to characters, ability score levels, particular combinations of powers - the balance, by and large, lies in the GM, not the system.

To me it seems like PF2 is trying to balance things, and as we only see a portion of character options they seem straightjacketed. I'm sure that is part of the playtest point - with these basic options how well can they balance it. Once the systems are analyzed, modified and completed, the basic balance they want will fall into place - and when the actual core book comes out next year, it will have lots of options.

[John Mechalas]

One area that left me very disappointed is the backgrounds, which were advertised as an integral part of your character creation. Instead, what we got was generic mechanical bonuses that are uninspiring. They literally all follow the same basic structure:

* An ability boost in one of two stats
* A free ability boost
* A Lore skill
* A skill feat

Backgrounds are cookie cutters.

Now look at Traits in PF1. You have some that grant conditional saving throw bonuses, some that grant skill bonuses, some that add class features, some that change how class features work, etc. There's no cookie-cutter approach there. The only "rule of thumb" that applies is that a trait is worth, more or less, half a feat based on the bonuses they give.

The PF1 traits are also more malleable, and more easily adapted into your character's background story. They are, literally, traits: Resilient, Caretaker, Dangerously Curious, Reactionary, etc. The descriptions that go with these talk about events in your life, or a bit about your upbringing.

Now go back to the playtest. The "Backgrounds" are basically fully fleshed-out mini-stories. Look at Gladiator. First, that more or less describes my character's life over the last several years, and the description of it is such that I should already be walking around with two or three levels of Barbarian or Fighter. Or look at Farmhand, which tells me what I was doing for several years before the game started: I ran a farm! If I'm human, then I guess my starting age must be in my late 20's or something.

The real problem here is that I want to write my own backstory, not have Paizo write it for me. Especially when the backstory they are feeding me is giving me generic ability boosts, a useless skill (Lore? Really? Is there any use actual for Lore (Circus) in this game?), and one skill feat.

There's nothing in PF2's backgrounds that helps me build a unique character unless I just ignore the text entirely and take the mechanical bonuses.

[Tiona Daughtry]

Having characters that are mechanically different on several levels, does, in fact, allow and encourage parties to alter their approach to obstacles to favor a specific combination of skills/talents/etc. With everything being so mechanically equal, it really doesn't seem that this ruleset even considers that your paladin is much more concerned with converting the enemy than killing them. Or that your fighter might have an interest in engineering, and see how he could cause a rock fall that would eliminate the threat the enemy poses. It is, in fact, largely based on what you focus on and how you attune it. Also, no one being really good at anything is completely unenjoyable. And the rules as written seem to enforce this standpoint. It is hard to make the story 'about the characters' if they don't really have any choices in how they handle the situations. If they have to approach just about every encounter the same way, well, a lot of us will simply give up and find something else to do. It's not engaging, and not allowing us to feel ourselves as doing anything worthwhile. And that last is, in fact, important.

[Tiona Daughtry]

perhaps, to me, one of the most integral parts of role playing is that the rules allow, and possibly encourage, solving any given situation 'off-script'. By strictly limiting the range of possible actions and the viability of any option, you make it difficult to impossible to solve challenges in a way that is 'unexpected'. Forcing us to follow a script to succeed at encounters is not 'role play'. It is in a way forbidding us to even consider alternate viewpoints or solutions. There was something I saw in either 3.0/3.5 or Pathfinder 1 that is important. Experience is generally awarded for overcoming a difficulty, rather than merely killing monsters or disarming a trap. By focusing on 'anything that neutralizes the problem' as acceptable, you have all sorts of options available, and it doesn't seem that this edition really considers that a lot of us do, in fact, want to be able to solve things all sorts of different ways.

[glass]

Lyricanna wrote:

Balance for Balance's Sake is NEVER a good idea. Ever.

OTOH, balance for the sake of making sure one player's fun is not diminished because he ends up playing a sidekick, or another player's fun is not diminished because she is constantly having to pull her punches to avoid overshaddowing others, is always a good idea.

-
glass.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

glass wrote:

Lyricanna wrote:

Balance for Balance's Sake is NEVER a good idea. Ever.

OTOH, balance for the sake of making sure one player's fun is not diminished because he ends up playing a sidekick, or another player's fun is not diminished because she is constantly having to pull her punches to avoid overshaddowing others, is always a good idea.

-
glass.

Which Lyricanna also said over the next three sentences.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

glass wrote:

OTOH, balance for the sake of making sure one player's fun is not diminished because he ends up playing a sidekick, or another player's fun is not diminished because she is constantly having to pull her punches to avoid overshaddowing others, is always a good idea.

Can we please stop default assuming that playing a sidekick, or characters with widely differing amounts of agency generally, must always be less fun? Rather than a playstyle it would be good if the game supported along with more balanced parties?

[thejeff]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

glass wrote:

OTOH, balance for the sake of making sure one player's fun is not diminished because he ends up playing a sidekick, or another player's fun is not diminished because she is constantly having to pull her punches to avoid overshaddowing others, is always a good idea.

Can we please stop default assuming that playing a sidekick, or characters with widely differing amounts of agency generally, must always be less fun? Rather than a playstyle it would be good if the game supported along with more balanced parties?

That's fair, but it should be design, not "I picked the wrong class or made the wrong build choices, so I wound up playing second fiddle when I wanted to shine myself."

If there's a Sidekick class, that's a different story. :)

[Vic Ferrari]

thejeff wrote:

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

glass wrote:

OTOH, balance for the sake of making sure one player's fun is not diminished because he ends up playing a sidekick, or another player's fun is not diminished because she is constantly having to pull her punches to avoid overshaddowing others, is always a good idea.

Can we please stop default assuming that playing a sidekick, or characters with widely differing amounts of agency generally, must always be less fun? Rather than a playstyle it would be good if the game supported along with more balanced parties?

That's fair, but it should be design, not "I picked the wrong class or made the wrong build choices, so I wound up playing second fiddle when I wanted to shine myself."

If there's a Sidekick class, that's a different story. :)

According to some, that is all non-caster classes!

[Zorae]

So the OP originally complained about lack of variation on starting abilities and that it meant party's were being too balanced and didn't leave room for people to be bad at things. And then shot down rolling for stats with no explanation for why as creating imbalanced characters is exactly what that does.

Now, they're complaining that apparently you can't circumvent combat with diplomacy or use the environment to your advantage when fighting people??? Where on Earth do the rules state that diplomacy is no longer a thing. Pretty sure it's a skill that exists. I'll give you that the rules don't really allow for attacking a chandelier to drop it on enemies, but everyone agrees that them leaving out rules for attacking an object seems to be an oversight as they do give plenty of support for the damaging of objects.

And with the upcoming removal of signature skills, any character will be able to be good at diplomacy or healing or whatever.

Just because the rules have a lot of support for combat, doesn't mean role-playing isn't allowed as an option for circumventing it.

[Ed Reppert]

At least one game I know makes combat very deadly, and even if you survive you're likely to end up (explicitly) with scars and other bad results (lost fingers, hands, or other appendages, for example). One consequence of that is that people tend to avoid combat if at all possible. But I think most "high fantasy" RPG players would say "where's the fun in that?"

[Vic Ferrari]

Ed Reppert wrote:

At least one game I know makes combat very deadly, and even if you survive you're likely to end up (explicitly) with scars and other bad results (lost fingers, hands, or other appendages, for example). One consequence of that is that people tend to avoid combat if at all possible. But I think most "high fantasy" RPG players would say "where's the fun in that?"

Yeah, Arduin Grimoire has some outrageous critical hit results: "Buttocks torn off, fall. Shock."

[thejeff]

Ed Reppert wrote:

At least one game I know makes combat very deadly, and even if you survive you're likely to end up (explicitly) with scars and other bad results (lost fingers, hands, or other appendages, for example). One consequence of that is that people tend to avoid combat if at all possible. But I think most "high fantasy" RPG players would say "where's the fun in that?"

The other problem with making combat deadly so that players will try other solutions is that sometimes those other solutions fail and you wind up in a fight anyway. And then you're looking at a TPK if you haven't optimized your characters for combat.

You wind up with overpowered death machines trying desperately to avoid having to use those abilities they put so much effort into.

[Irontruth]

Zorae wrote:

Just because the rules have a lot of support for combat, doesn't mean role-playing isn't allowed as an option for circumventing it.

Did someone claim that the game didn't allow role-playing?

[nogoodscallywag]

Game balance is vital. Good players will find ways to have fun and create "unbalanced" characters. Every player has the option of removing one of their character's benefits in the interest of roleplaying: no GM should disallow this, anyway.

[TriOmegaZero]

RazarTuk wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

Taking Power Attack and Weapon Focus as a fighty-type isn't optimizing, it's just taking class appropiate feats. Taking a Spell Focus and Spell Penetration as a caster is not optimizing. It's just reading the feat section of the CRB and saying "that feat looks like it would help my class!". Which I think is something most players will want to do. And if not, your GM will probably glady help you out a bit.

Spell Focus is complicated. I would call it optimization, but it's also required. A fighter's attack rolls will outpace enemy AC, even without feats, but a wizard actually needs those feats for DCs to stay competitive.

Not a single one of my casters has taken Spell Focus for anything, as far as I recall.

[Zorae]

Irontruth wrote:

Zorae wrote:

Just because the rules have a lot of support for combat, doesn't mean role-playing isn't allowed as an option for circumventing it.

Did someone claim that the game didn't allow role-playing?

Tiona Daughtry's last three posts have made such claims. Alas, I am on mobile and doing quotes of multiple posts is more work than I'm willing to do. You'll have to scroll up some to read them.

[Ryan Freire]

Gorbacz wrote:

So if a *player* with an arguably low IQ rolls an Int 18 Wizard, do you tell them that they need to quit playing the character because they can't realistically roleplay the rules? Will your group constantly pressure them to drop the "smart" aspect of the character?

No what happens there is that the GM steps in with things an 18 int char may not overlook but the player might.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

master_marshmallow wrote:

Gamism superseded Simulationism for this edition.

It takes me out of the game knowing that it's a game first and a story/world second always.

In my opinion, having it be a game first is a good thing. Generally, having it be primarily a dissociation from reality wasn't conveyed properly with it not being a game first, and there are several historical precedents supporting this, and any of you gamers of old most likely know what I'm referring to.

I'm not saying having simulationism is badwrongfun or anything like that (the game still certainly has some of that aspect to it if done right), more that, from an objective standpoint, gamism makes for a more socially-progressive environment for players to feel comfortable playing in. That's something which makes players more inclined to join a table and have fun, and that's always a welcome sign in my eyes.

[Ed Reppert]

thejeff wrote:

You wind up with overpowered death machines trying desperately to avoid having to use those abilities they put so much effort into.

Not in my experience with the game I mentioned.

[Laegrim]

It seems like the central debate in this thread can be summed up as "Should mechanics effect roleplay, and, if so, to what degree?" I'm glad it got brought up, because this is a question that really gets at the heart of one of my major concerns with 2E.

I've always viewed TTRPGs primarily as collaborative storytelling exercises, where the rules of the game form a contract between the DM and the players defining how the story will be told. Within this view the mechanics of how my character is built and how it works within the ruleset really do matter - they help guide and limit my characters roleplay, and shape my part of the story. A big reason I enjoy Pathfinder 1E, especially at this point in it's lifecycle, is that I can use the rules to build characters with the sort of mechanics that make for interesting roleplay. If I wanted to play a game where the mechanics didn't bind my roleplay so heavily I'd be playing something fundamentally different. Or writing round-robin short stories with my friends.

My concern with 2E is that characters lack that mechanical nuance and depth from 1E that allowed and encouraged nuanced and deep roleplay. To be fair, this is a playtest and not a system that's had years to accrete a broad set of supplemental rules. Even given this, it seems like in the drive to balance 2E the designers have taken away much of the opportunity for that depth and nuance. Proficiency is the biggest culprit, but the way stats are allocated, resonance, rarity, and the lack of multiclassing all play into that deficiency. These rules either take texture away from the game, as characters tend to be pretty much equally as good or bad at things as any other character, or feel like egregious limits.

TLDR: I agree some of the other posters in this thread that rules shape roleplay, and think that bland rules often mean bland roleplay. The attempts to balance 2E have made the rules kind of bland, in my opinion, by limiting opportunities to be extra good or bad at specific things, or generally limiting character opportunities.

Side Note: I don't think that rolling for stats is a good option here; if the idea is to be deliberately good or bad at things in the pursuit of crafting a specific kind of character the luck of the dice is not sufficient. Plus, I've seen rolling for stats cause way to many feel-bad moments.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Vic Ferrari wrote:

thejeff wrote:

If there's a Sidekick class, that's a different story. :)

According to some, that is all non-caster classes!

Personally, I love playing sidekick healbots; I DM much more than I play, and that role is relaxing.

One of my lifelong goals is to take a character like that from 1st to 20th level without ever hitting an opponent with a weapon.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Laegrim wrote:

It seems like the central debate in this thread can be summed up as "Should mechanics effect roleplay, and, if so, to what degree?"

It occurs to me, somewhat belatedly, that the Sin and Virtue Points from Rise of the Runelords and how they interacted with Runeforge are an example of precisely the sort of mechanics interacting directly with roleplay that I like and would like to see more of.

[Ed Reppert]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

thejeff wrote:

If there's a Sidekick class, that's a different story. :)

According to some, that is all non-caster classes!

Personally, I love playing sidekick healbots; I DM much more than I play, and that role is relaxing.

One of my lifelong goals is to take a character like that from 1st to 20th level without ever hitting an opponent with a weapon.

Reminds me of a healer in Clan Lord, one of the first MMORPGs, and it's still going. Anyway the healer's name was Nohurt. He refused to even carry a weapon. :-)

[Vic Ferrari]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

Vic Ferrari wrote:

thejeff wrote:

If there's a Sidekick class, that's a different story. :)

According to some, that is all non-caster classes!

Personally, I love playing sidekick healbots; I DM much more than I play, and that role is relaxing.

One of my lifelong goals is to take a character like that from 1st to 20th level without ever hitting an opponent with a weapon.

Yeah, and take the Vow of Peace feat, and mean it!

As I also DM much more than I play, I can commiserate. When I do play, I generally like a simpler character, it's a break from DMing (running complicated NPCs/monsters, the multiverse).

[Scythia]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

Laegrim wrote:

It seems like the central debate in this thread can be summed up as "Should mechanics effect roleplay, and, if so, to what degree?"

It occurs to me, somewhat belatedly, that the Sin and Virtue Points from Rise of the Runelords and how they interacted with Runeforge are an example of precisely the sort of mechanics interacting directly with roleplay that I like and would like to see more of.

That was probably my favourite part of running Anniversary RotRL for my group, keeping a tally card. I ended up adding new events and encounters based on the players' actions that would allow more chances for gaining points.

[Arrow17]

Tiona Daughtry wrote:

Now let me say, I've played lots of variations off of D&d, and really got into the older pathfinder. However, I've noticed a strong bias in recent years, across the board, and definitely affecting this playtest version, toward 'absolute balance', and I'm going to illustrate why that's a problem. Perhaps as background, I should point out that I personally have been dealing with a host of mental and physical difficulties all my life, and one of the things I have always loved about rpgs is that you can take a character with pretty significant drawbacks, and really make them shine, with a little work. The problem I see right now is that this game and others are trying to basically demand that all player characters be on essentially the same level playing field. It does not really allow for what I consider 'exceptional' characters, because no one is really 'unbalanced' enough to show that even characters with significant drawbacks are valuable in the right situation. I resent the ableist viewpoint that you shouldn't go to 'extremes' with a character. It's a personal shot against people like me who have limitations but find ways to adapt to them. It is, therefore, a significant disappointment that the game industry in general is making it very difficult, if not impossible, to play characters that could be very fun to play, but require more delicate 'work' to put in. What I've seen of this makes it really, really hard to get into the game, because it's all a participation medal situation, rather than a challenge to be overcome with strategy and teamwork. It's too easy, too fair. And that's largely where it's going to lose players like my group. Because it simply isn't enough of a challenge to be fun. Sorry. I simply can't enjoy or support limiting players from expressing their uniqueness with characters that have such extremes.

I agree with this post by the OP. If you look at the PF2 mechanics. They roughly boil down to a 50% chance if hitting an opponent of equal level based upon character optimization. The math is too tight and the stat generation system means you will be average at the vast majority of skills you try. PF2 does not seem to be an epic level fantasy game. It seems to be a grind