| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given the example provided by JJ, I would have no problem with a PC creating a demiplane in the exact same way that Karzoug did.
It's just that no PC will ever put all these efforts and time and ressources in it. But if they do, then the GM can just say Yes.
Maybe you wouldn't have any problem, but the written rules would. If your PC somehow got their hand on a runewell they can use as they want, by RAW they still wouldn't be able to create a demiplane. The party could amass every single artifact and magic item in the world, if they're not mythic, they can't make a demiplane.
That's the issue here, the fact that the new rules completely gated it off. The fact that Karzoug needed tons of ressources is inconsequential, because even if the PC retrace his exact steps, they wouldn't be able to do it. The only way for your nonmythic PC to create a demiplane or cast freedom or emprisonment is for you as a GM to decide to completely disregard the mythic ritual rules.
And sure, ignoring the mythic ritual rules is the simplest thing to do as a GM... but I don't think Paizo is printing rule expecting us to ignore them, they're printing them because hey expect the players to follow them. So indicating when a rule just feel like a net negative is necessary.
That is definitely not how I read it.
If your PC fulfills all the requirements of the Mythic ritual, then they get their demiplane as described in the ritual, no questions asked.
It does not prevent me as a GM to homebrew other (non-Mythic) ways to get the same result, or maybe a different result more in line with my game.
I feel we are really in the spot where the narrative impact overrides the mechanics. Except for Mythic PCs who take part in stories where this kind of power is mostly par for the course.
That is literally how it works RAW now. If your PC is Mythic, you can do it. If your PC is not Mythic, you cannot do it. Full stop.
The only way a PC can do it now is if the GM ignores the Mythic requirement, uses the old version (aka: ignores the Mythic requirement), or homebrews a MacGuffin into the game that enables the PCs to bypass the rules and do it.
No rule prevents the GM from homebrewing in a way to do it... but that didn't used to be necessary because there was a way to do it in the rules the GM could give access to if they wanted to. The fact that Paizo put this change out and then immediately has to explain why a bunch of NPCs have special things that let them still do it illustrates the whole problem here: this rule change isn't helping narratively or mechanically.
Rituals are already an underutilized and overly difficult to pull off part of the game. They're a cool idea that don't show up often (and if you ask my SoT players, are too difficult when they do)... and this change is simply reinforcing that by making it even harder to pull it off.
If the solution for the same narrative is "ignore the rules", "invent an item to bypass the rules", or "make up an equivalent effect that the players can do", then doesn't that kind of demonstrate that this change hasn't made anything better? None of this work has a reason to exist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe there was a problem with the non-Mythic versions then.
There wasn't. They're basically the same as the old versions except with the Mythic tag. Nothing significant was changed.
And having RAW has never been supposed to kill creativity but rather enhance it by providing a frame of reference.
It absolutely is in this case. The took a bunch of narrative options (which is all they were since they were already uncommon/rare) and removed them as narrative options unless you homebrew around the rules.
I feel this is no different than any errata we had in the past.
It's pretty rare that we get errata that says "you used to be able to do this thing, and now you simply can't without homebrew." The main example I can think of is how Oracles were forced to lose their mystery benefits in PFS by treating the new Mysteries as errata, as that kneecapped a bunch of things people used to be able to do.
But that isn't how normal errata behaves.
As far as the specific spells go, Create Demiplane being mythic seems reasonable to me... I mean it's building your own reality it should be a somewhat absurd option.
Imprison feels too fundamental to certain fantasy tropes though, which makes it being a mythic option feel awkward.
But at the same time, I think both these options would be regarded with a lot less suspicion if this is the first time we're seeing them. The fact that they were already printed in an older book makes the change feel kind of bad though, because now some percentage of the "new mythic rituals" are just old rituals that were moved into mythic, and some percentage of existing content has now gotten buried deeper into variant rules.
Whether or not it's a good idea for each individual spell to be part of Mythic is almost besides the point, because what feels bad is the sense that content was just shuffled around.
It doesn't help that rituals are already kind of s**!. Taking away the cool ones just makes it even worse.
I say this as someone playing a Thaumagure with Thaumagurgic Ritualist and Ritualist Dedication to get as many as I can. This change makes me reconsider the character. Definitely wouldn't have started playing them if we'd started after seeing this.
Seriously. My experience GMing SoT with its multiple rituals very quickly became one of "house rule the ritual rules so my players don't groan the next time it comes up". I was really exited for having a more ritual focused adventure but holy hell are they hard to do in practice if you have multiple secondary casters. (And that's before they get to the one where success is literally plot-mandatory, so I'm just going to have to change that one to a fail-forward mechanic because "you have to keep trying this until it works" is not fun.)
In the rest of the game they're barely used at all. It's an option with so much narrative potential but the mechanics really let it down, and this change is just another example of that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to know how many tables have actually used these rituals as RAW and the relevance they served for their games, because it feels more like people are mad that Paizo changed/removed toys that nobody used than it is that Paizo did a meaningful paradigm change that impacts numerous tables in a negative way.
Even with the argument of "It's not about the rule itself, it's about the principle," I'm not convinced that there is a serious amount of tables using these rules to warrant people being mad about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simulationist design makes players happy.Does it? More often than not it's my players who aren't interested in tracking ammo and rations or survival mechanics or realistic economics systems and so on.
I also think the whole assumption is somewhat off track because D&D has never been particularly simulationist (and the core question of whether a ritual is mythic or not has nothing to do with simulation anyways, though on the subject I've also seen more interest in rituals being made simpler and more accessible rather than the other way around).
Contextually, by this I mean less survival mechanics, economic systems, and things like that, and more "this is why they do X, and we can get that ability through doing X too". So, as previously noted, weapons dropping that are of a certain potency, accessibility to certain game mechanics, etc.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's less that players like simulationist design, and more that players like it when there's a consistent design language, or some kind of consistent internal logic that governs both PCs and the rest of world. That makes it so players feel like how their characters work will let them infer stuff about how the world works—and likewise, that what they learn about how the world works can teach them how their characters might work and interact with the world in turn. Simulationist design is one way to achieve that, but it's not the only way.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I figured Kingmaker was a good place to play with Rituals, and that making a demiplane library would be a cool thing to do near the end of the campaign. Now I get to extra beg because we gen play as close to RAW as we can. Fan-f!+~ing-tastic.
How is it extra-begging when the ritual was already Rare ?
And pointing to the GM that, as mentioned above, the new Mythic version results in a larger demiplane, just call the old (non-Mythic) one Lesser Create Demiplane and done.
If the GM was already on board with your PC using the previous version's result in their game, I do not see why they would refuse it now.
|
|
Not just any PC, no matter their level, will be able to use them willy nilly in the canon Golarion (and APs and adventures) and I am perfectly happy with this.Nobody is using rituals "willy nilly" anyway given their requirements.
Wanted to adress this specific point.
The cost for the Legacy level 8 Create Demiplane ritual is 800 gp.
It is absolutely pocket money for any PC able to cast it, as they are at least 15th level.
As long as they have time on their hands, they WILL succeed.
Willy nilly indeed.
|
|
How is it extra-begging when the ritual was already Rare ?It's one thing to ask for a Rare entry, and an entirely different thing to ask to ignore a rules element such as a prerequisite.
It is vanilla if I grant my player a rare ritual. It is not vanilla if I allow my player to ignore a mythic requirement.
You're not asking a GM to grant you access to something that is available to you, but with GM consent. You're asking your GM to change the rules of the game.
In a purely vanilla game, a GM is allowed to grant Rare entries. They are not allowed to ignore requirements. To do so is to homerule.
Which is not only allowed but even encouraged by the RAW FWIW.
|
|
Which is not only allowed but even encouraged by the RAW FWIW.No, a GM is not allowed to grant it like that without home ruling. You might be confusing rarity and requirement.
As an example, There is your player asking you if he can purchase a pistol. And there is a player asking you if he can take the Backup Disguise feat despite only being trained in Deception instead of expert. You'd probably say yes to the first, but no to the second.
Back to this instance. Your player can ask you to learn a Wish ritual. And you can grant it. But you cannot allow your player to use Create Demiplane with only Legendary Proficiency without home ruling. Likewise, a GM can more reasonably say yes to the first, but is much less likely to say yes to the second.
I meant homeruling is not only allowed but encouraged by the RAW. I should have been clearer. My apologies.
Which is in line with one of PF2's fundamental design goals which was to make it a game where the GM cannot be bashed into submission by a player armed with the rulebooks.
It is the same design goal that gave birth to Rarity BTW.
FWIW I do know the difference between it and requirement ;-)
I think it's less that players like simulationist design, and more that players like it when there's a consistent design language, or some kind of consistent internal logic that governs both PCs and the rest of world. That makes it so players feel like how their characters work will let them infer stuff about how the world works—and likewise, that what they learn about how the world works can teach them how their characters might work and interact with the world in turn. Simulationist design is one way to achieve that, but it's not the only way.
And Im sure that isekais are popular right now precisely because people like their heroes to follow all the same rules as everyone else. ;P
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's less that players like simulationist design, and more that players like it when there's a consistent design language, or some kind of consistent internal logic that governs both PCs and the rest of world. That makes it so players feel like how their characters work will let them infer stuff about how the world works—and likewise, that what they learn about how the world works can teach them how their characters might work and interact with the world in turn. Simulationist design is one way to achieve that, but it's not the only way.And Im sure that isekais are popular right now precisely because people like their heroes to follow all the same rules as everyone else. ;P
That rule-following protag is literally the most presuppositional and foundational pillar to the power fantasy of that genre, yes.
The very premise of so many is that the protag has to follow all the same rules, but they have one unique ability/feature that they exploit. "... in another world, with my smartphone" type titles.
Most of these stories have "everyone has one unique quirk/skill/ability" norms just so they can have the "protag is an even better rule-follower" cake while also eating the "protag is a super special boy" cake at the same time. (which is a challenge to execute well, hence so many of this flavor being slop)
I think an abnormal number of those stories literally have the protag select their special ability, such as via god-wish. And being granted said quirk by that world and using it is 100% following that world's rules.
.
The other common "flavor" is that the protag in fact *does* have all the same rules placed upon them, but because of their outsider point of view, they take advantage of the existing mechanics in a unique way that is foreign to those raised in that world and take them for granted.
Even old and trope-predating isekai do that too, such as no game no life. Think about all the times where the protag ends up in a world that specifically fits their personal strengths/special interest.
They still explicitly obey that world's rules, but thrive because they are "even better at using the rules". That's again a huuuuge part of the wish-fulfillment, that the world's specific magic/rules/etc justify the protag being the specific person they were at story-start.
The "surprise, you were already goated, you were just in the wrong place" is a fundamental inversion of the normal "become a worthy hero via story's growth" narrative.
(though it's not mutually exclusive, and some mix both, like Log Horizon. Protag starts goated, but still has to grow/change)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's less that players like simulationist design, and more that players like it when there's a consistent design language, or some kind of consistent internal logic that governs both PCs and the rest of world. That makes it so players feel like how their characters work will let them infer stuff about how the world works—and likewise, that what they learn about how the world works can teach them how their characters might work and interact with the world in turn. Simulationist design is one way to achieve that, but it's not the only way.
I mean, PCs won't assume they will become gods one day, or become Mythic, or be able to go beyond 20th level like other creatures do, and a lot of the arguments stem from people assuming that PCs will eventually get some or all of these things. Adventures can get cut short (either from TPKs or IRL interfering), or not cover certain scopes of things, thereby not allowing players to reach these kinds of things.
In short, there are numerous setting devices that merely work because the plot requires them to work, and can do so without any rules behind them, like gods, demiplanes, etc. Mechanics are there for the players and (some) NPC interactions. That is it. The rest can be handled with GM handwaving and setting requirements establishing them for us, mechanics be damned.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
In short, there are numerous setting devices that merely work because the plot requires them to work, and can do so without any rules behind them, like gods, demiplanes, etc. Mechanics are there for the players and (some) NPC interactions. That is it. The rest can be handled with GM handwaving and setting requirements establishing them for us, mechanics be damned.
I really don't get why "the GM can handwave the requirement away / make up new rules" bring to this conversation. This can be said for every single rule of the game, yes, if the GM want, the GM can change it, everybody knows that, but threads like this are talking about the unmodified rules of the game.
Mythic rituals works on specific rules that prevent anyone nonmythic from casting them, and as long as other nonmythic option to achieve these effect aren't printed, the rule completely forbid nonmythic characters to ever create a demiplane or do anything like the other mythic rituals. Yes, GMs can handwave that rule away, or homebrew some exception or some other way to reach the same effects, but all of these options are outside the current rules of the game. So it's normal that people complain about that rule if they find that it negatively impact the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In short, there are numerous setting devices that merely work because the plot requires them to work, and can do so without any rules behind them, like gods, demiplanes, etc. Mechanics are there for the players and (some) NPC interactions. That is it. The rest can be handled with GM handwaving and setting requirements establishing them for us, mechanics be damned.I really don't get why "the GM can handwave the requirement away / make up new rules" bring to this conversation. This can be said for every single rule of the game, yes, if the GM want, the GM can change it, everybody knows that, but threads like this are talking about the unmodified rules of the game.
Mythic rituals works on specific rules that prevent anyone nonmythic from casting them, and as long as other nonmythic option to achieve these effect aren't printed, the rule completely forbid nonmythic characters to ever create a demiplane or do anything like the other mythic rituals. Yes, GMs can handwave that rule away, or homebrew some exception or some other way to reach the same effects, but all of these options are outside the current rules of the game. So it's normal that people complain about that rule if they find that it negatively impact the game.
It's brought up because it's really the only solution to "unmodified rules that nobody uses because they are garbage." And it's also used as the justification for why the setting has what elements it has; if X NPC in-lore has a demiplane, the GM doesn't need to care that he is Mythic or anything like that if it's not relevant to the story. At best it would be a neat Easter egg or a nice indication as to the gravity of NPC they are to the PCs, but the setting does not give two craps about it. All the setting cares about is X NPC has established a demiplane. The details behind it are irrelevant to the mechanics or the story/GM.
And again, why complain about a rule change that most all tables never used, and even if they were used, it was most definitely affected by GM handwavium? You might as well complain about an old dusty toy you bought years ago going missing even though you never played with it and it rotted away up in the attic somewhere. (Probably eaten by rats, birds, and other insects.) It didn't matter to you when you got it and in the time you had it laying around in your attic, so why does it all of a sudden matter now? If anything, it did you a favor by saving you storage space for other, more important things.
I'm still waiting for people to share me their tables that used rituals by RAW on a regular basis. So far nobody has mentioned this happening whatsoever, which means that either the rule has never been used (meaning complaints regarding unused rules are invalid), or it has been handwaved far too differently from the RAW in an effort to make it work/more fun (meaning the relevance of the GM is more mandatory than usual).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While it's not specifically called out on the rituals section, the book mentions and encourages removing mythic point requirements for mythic destiny archetypes you want to use in non-mythic games. So I believe it's entirely fair to bring up that the GMs can hand wave requirements, though it would be nice to have included guidance like reducing mythic proficiency requirement to legendary, remove mythic point requirement etc.
And to be clear on my stance I think the change is entirely unnecessary but largely inconsequential in the long run due to how infrequently rituals seem to be used as far as I've seen.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a GM and I don't like the trend of the PF2 devs trying to save me from myself. I can run a game without all these guardrails, rarities, sidebars, etc.
I'm honestly not sure what you mean by "all these guardrails ... sidebars" but as a GM I absolutely LOVE the rarity system.
It lets me very clearly communicate with my players. My usual position is
"Everything that is common is allowed. Things that are uncommon will very likely be allowed if the character back story warrants it but ask me. Things that are rare may or may not be allowed either as is or somewhat changed"
Then the players know how to build their characters AND they know what to ask me about. It makes my life easier (I only have to think about those things the players actually care about) and it acts magnificently to facilitate communication
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno, dude. Seems like this is just a game and not that serious.
|
|
While it's not specifically called out on the rituals section, the book mentions and encourages removing mythic point requirements for mythic destiny archetypes you want to use in non-mythic games.
My perspective on this (as a GM) is
1) I'm not going to use Mythic. Don't like the concept. Don't like the bits of the implementation I've read.2) I haven't even read the vast majority of the mythic rules (see 1 above).
3) So I have never seen the above encouragement.
I use AoN a lot in GM preparation. I use it (amongst other things) to sometimes just inspire creativity. Sometimes I'll just glance at a monster list, or a spell list, or a ritual list to see if something sparks my "Thats cool. Lets use it" instinct.
Before this change there was a reasonable chance that the Create Demiplane ritual would have been one such spark. In the past other rituals have acted in that way (Ward Domain and Mind Swap springing to mind).
Now it won't (well, more honestly, it wouldn't have if I hadn't seen this thread). I'd see the ritual, click through, see it was Mythic, decide that meant it wasn't a thing the bad guy would have access to, and move on.
Now I fully admit that this is a minor thing in the great scheme of things. I might never have been inspired by that ritual and maybe whatever I come up with now will be as good or better.
But its a small loss to me. Its a potential loss to the players. As a GM/player who has no interest whatsoever in Mythic the sheer existance of Mythic has made my game slightly worse. I'm not enraged by this, I'm not going to rage quit PF2. But I AM very slightly irked that a book dealing with something that I mostly have 0 interest in has made my game worse
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have very little need for a system to hold my hand through balancing the systems I run
Well, some of us lesser mortals without your incredibly great abilities do find value in a system that helps us to balance the systems we run. We're just not all as magnificently brilliant as you are.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, no, I vastly prefer all the aid given to GMs and almost every new GM I've ever had the pleasure to interact with has also said they prefer when the system provides them tools to help build their confidence and not just throwing them to the wind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, PCs won't assume they will become gods one day, or become Mythic, or be able to go beyond 20th level like other creatures do, and a lot of the arguments stem from people assuming that PCs will eventually get some or all of these things. Adventures can get cut short (either from TPKs or IRL interfering), or not cover certain scopes of things, thereby not allowing players to reach these kinds of things.Speak for yourself; every single one of my wizards has the ambition of becoming the next Nethys.
But jokes aside, you don’t need to acquire something for it to affect your gameplay. The mere presence of these elements is enough to make me appreciate the class, even if I won’t get to use them 99% of the time. This potential represents the class's capabilities within the universe, and losing that means that even if you accomplish those feats, they won’t truly be your accomplishments—they will just be things the GM handed over to you. That completely destroys the experience.
For instance, I didn’t earn demiplane by surviving as a wizard to a high level or by being legendary in arcane; I got it because the roulette of fate, known as the GM, decided I was randomly blessed with mythic power. If I wanted to play someone who gains power by luck, not merit, I would play a sorcerer.
The funny thing is that rarity is also, at its core, something the "GM handed over to you." Otherwise you just wouldn't have it. And demiplanes are locked behind rarity as well. So it's a double whammy, which really isn't much different from a single whammy if the intent is "I did this all on my own, the GM didn't have to allow it to happen." Doesn't really track when the GM still has to give you a bone. It's just a different bone the GM has to give you now. Still need the GM's approval either way.
And again, the idea that the GM had anything to do with it doesn't track if the adventure/setting wrote it that way for a given NPC. At best it tells the players that the NPC might have Mythic capabilities, but Mythic is an abstraction, like proficiencies and HP and such, that the adventure could be written that they actually aren't Mythic, mechanically speaking.
Rarity does negatively affect the feeling of earning something, but the difference between a rare tag and a mythic tag is significant. A rare tag indicates that you have found or rediscovered ancient or lost secrets, while a mythic tag suggests that you gained divine power out of nowhere. I don't think I need to explain why the latter is much worse for the feeling of accomplishment.The funny thing is that rarity is also, at its core, something the "GM handed over to you." Otherwise you just wouldn't have it. And demiplanes are locked behind rarity as well. So it's a double whammy, which really isn't much different from a single whammy if the intent is "I did this all on my own, the GM didn't have to allow it to happen." Doesn't really track when the GM still has to give you a bone. It's just a different bone the GM has to give you now. Still need the GM's approval either way.
And again, the idea that the GM had anything to do with it doesn't track if the adventure/setting wrote it that way for a given NPC. At best it tells the...
The only real difference is that one is part of the base game and the other is tied to an optional rule that may or may not be used. Both are still essentially a "GM may I," and both can feel pretty bad for the players if they aren't given that expectation upfront(ish); the flavor is mostly irrelevant to these clear factors.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what's not a difficult-to-balance, difficult-to-remember house rule? Deciding not to use content from a specific book, or a specific section of a book. That's how multi-book RPGs work. There are going to be people who don't own a copy of this rulebook who continue to play in this specific way for years, and it's not a houserule. It's just playing with the rules they have.
It's a very specific kind of gamer who doesn't play with a ruleset, but allows that ruleset to overwrite content from their existing game that they then have to throw out. That kind of gamer doesn't make for a great GM, however vigorously you white knight for them. You still own the official books that have the previous version in them. You can still play with those rules. Paizo publishing additional rules didn't take that right away from you by force. Just play with the rules you prefer, like you decided to do when you agreed not to use Mythic in your game.
Once again, I have to point that "this rule is fine because you can ignore it" isn't an argument in favor of the rule. If the only quality of a rule is that it's easy to ignore, then it's not a good rule. Everybody know they can ignore any rule they want in their game, that's not the point here. The point is wether including this rule, tied to these rituals, in the first place was a good idea, from both a gameplay and a lore standpoint.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they had simply named the ritual Create Mythic Demiplane and published it like it was, it would not have had the negative impact the current implementation has due to the convention of overwriting elements with the same rules in the remaster, since this would simply have become the only 'remastered' ritual 'published' for creating a Demiplane, but anyone open to legacy content would easily find the old non-mythic one available for use if they are open, and it would be RAW available to anyone as long as the GM approves.
Yes by RAW the GM can decide to homebrew, but the homebrew is not considered RAW, it is just something that can happen if the GM wants to change the rules to allow it. Just like the GM can decide players can have 1000 HP if they want, or get rid of the increased price to buy higher attribute bonuses. It can exist, but it doesn't officially exist.
Someone can let a player add their spellcasting modifier to Cantrip damages when they cast cantrips, but doing so, they aren't playing by Remastered rules. The developers tried to balance their changes to the cantrips to account for this change. But in this case something was specifically taken away from normal Epic adventurers such as any mages planning on having a actual Planar Library to retreat from and reserved for only Mythic heroes.
Honestly at this point, I'd hope they consider errata it by renaming it Create Mythic Demiplane even if they don't ever reprint Create Demiplane in any post-remaster book. It would acknowledge some people out there may have planned to have their non-mythic character have a planar domicile in the distant future, and make it a official legacy option.
Honestly, Freedom and Imprisonment are harder to know how to address, as I see wanting to block non-mythic characters from targeting Mythic one with the rituals perhaps, which means legacy copies of the ritual would need errata to make Mythic creatures not be valid targets for the ritual. In such a case they sort of have to be reprinted, which is extra space. It would be easier to simply update the ritual to by default not target Mythic creatures, and leverage Mythic Heightening which affects rolls, and enables targeting of mythic creatures or imprisonments. I have to admit I'm less concerned about those two rituals as they don't really impact character development like the Create Demiplane one. Given unlike quite a few character ideas I've had in my life whom planned to one day have a demiplane of their own, or friends with similar plans, I'm not coming up with specific character ideas whose life plans included a Imprison or Freedom ritual.
The only real difference is that one is part of the base game and the other is tied to an optional rule that may or may not be used. Both are still essentially a "GM may I," and both can feel pretty bad for the players if they aren't given that expectation upfront(ish); the flavor is mostly irrelevant to these clear factors.Do you really think that "mythic" is the same as offering someone a rare option? I'm also having a hard time understanding the point you’re trying to make, especially since I’m against both of those concepts, what’s the need for making it mythic?
I don't think I can make it any clearer. Rarity is part of the base game. Mythic is an optional rule in another book, not part of the base game. Both are things that the GM 'enables' or has control over. He can deny players being able to make demiplanes even though the NPC in the AP or the setting already has one. He can deny it by rarity (in the Premaster), or by Mythic (in the Remaster). But the point remains that he still denies it on whatever whim he wants.
Now, that's not to say that they aren't different forms of GM gatekeeping; some GMs are more permissive of rarity over other GMs, but the important thing is that they are both forms of GM gatekeeping. One's just baked in to the game, the other is not. In either case, it's a "GM may I," and it's not something that is default-assumed to be possible in-game.
As for why Paizo felt the need to make demiplanes a Mythic-only option, that's a question that nobody except Paizo can truly answer. At best, we can speculate, and if I were to hazard a guess, it's because Paizo feels that being able to make demiplanes is beyond the scope of 'standard' adventurers. Which, in the setting, makes a lot of sense to me. As I said in a previous post, you don't see the book advertising Joe the Average NPC having a demiplane, as they are usually done by beyond-PC-capacity NPCs, or by special macguffins which have little to do with PCs being able to replicate said effects.
It was also possible that they simply reprinted Mythic versions of the old rituals, which would have been helpful with a sidebar detailing as such, but given that we don't have existing versions of them in either of the Player Cores, and said sidebar does not exist, that concept is invalid.
Once again, I have to point that "this rule is fine because you can ignore it" isn't an argument in favor of the rule. If the only quality of a rule is that it's easy to ignore, then it's not a good rule. Everybody know they can ignore any rule they want in their game, that's not the point here. The point is wether including this rule, tied to these rituals, in the first place was a good idea, from both a gameplay and a lore standpoint.You know what's not a difficult-to-balance, difficult-to-remember house rule? Deciding not to use content from a specific book, or a specific section of a book. That's how multi-book RPGs work. There are going to be people who don't own a copy of this rulebook who continue to play in this specific way for years, and it's not a houserule. It's just playing with the rules they have.
It's a very specific kind of gamer who doesn't play with a ruleset, but allows that ruleset to overwrite content from their existing game that they then have to throw out. That kind of gamer doesn't make for a great GM, however vigorously you white knight for them. You still own the official books that have the previous version in them. You can still play with those rules. Paizo publishing additional rules didn't take that right away from you by force. Just play with the rules you prefer, like you decided to do when you agreed not to use Mythic in your game.
And to which I state again, what games are going to be impacted from this rules change? How many tables actually come across interactions with these kinds of rules? How many APs genuinely use these rules and don't include ways for the players to handwave it being done (either by having NPCs do it for you or getting macguffins that fulfill the same effect entirely)?
As far as I'm concerned, we're complaining about something that nobody even uses, or doesn't already ignore to some degree (either by simply not using the rules for it, or handwaving some/all of the mechanics into something else entirely), that it's more telling of how bad/unimportant the rule is, more than it is telling of how awful/annoying the change to said rule is.
Really, unless the complaint is framed as "These rules should have been budgeted better/used for some other rules instead of what we have now," I'm not seeing the point here. It's complaining just for complaining's sake, which, if that's what you want to do with your time, have at it. Just don't expect something meaningful to come of it, IMO.