Some Rituals now gated by Mythic power? For Real?

[PossibleCabbage]

Simulationism leads to "selective realism" which is bad for game design. People will say stuff like "there's no way a human being could load, aim, and fire a crossbow that quickly" but nobody will ever say "magical chain lightning can't do that."

So Simulationist game design has a problem in a fantasy setting where it serves to limit all mundane ways of doing a thing, but no supernatural ways of doing literally anything; after all- it's magic.

Like PF1 only had "monsters use the same rules as PCs" in name only, since all of the monster math had several fudge factors applied behind the scenes in order to make the math work right. In the interest of transparency, PF2 has moved away from that and "why does that monster roll that number in this case" is something that's can be easily inferred from the monster rules. So what we have here is that in the less "simulationist" game I can easily design an entirely new kind of dragon from whole cloth with just the monster rules inside of an hour, whereas in the more "simulationist" game I would have to look at other dragons to figure out what the appropriate correction coefficients are.

[Witch of Miracles]

I wouldn't say "selective realism" is bad for game design, because selective realism is baked into game design. You make things link up when it gives good feedback or is intuitive, and you sever it when it doesn't. And of course, you choose how detailed/crunchy/etc. you want your game to be as part of that, and what you personally think feels good. It's subjective how much realism you want, but any game that intends its mechanics to have any click or intuitivity needs some amount of simulation (or at least metaphor) to make that happen.

===

I wouldn't ever argue monsters used exactly the same rules as PCs in 1E, and I feel like I've never seen anyone argue as much, either. You'd have to not be paying attention to give your PCs access to monster feats and so on; no PC should have multiattack, etc. Monsters have plenty of bespoke interactions and abilities. And PF1E literally has its own monster construction guidelines that make it clear you're on an entirely different track from PCs.

I always feel like this "but monsters were never simulationist!" argument kind of misses the point a bit, anyways. It's less that monsters are perfect models in line with PCs and everything else, and more that the player-facing aspects of monsters tend to line up more with how players already expect things to work.

===

There's no requirement simulationism not apply to fantasy settings. There are plenty of magic-has-its-own-physics types of settings you could use as guidelines, or even make use of directly. Many readers prefer such settings, even. Thinking simulationism requires simulating the actual world is a pretty narrow way of looking at.

[moosher12]

Mild weird thing about simulationism being used as an argument though.

Isn't requiring a complicated process to do something instead of just granting it without asking too much questions as a default a form of simulationism?

Someone used an example earlier that you'd need to gather 10,000 victory points at a library to do it. Instead of just granting the ritual on an "it does/does not bug me" basis to people who meet the prerequisites.

I'd exert that requiring the construction of a legendary artifact that takes years of study and millions of gp is adding simulation to the game, not subtracting it.

If anything, just leaving it as is was is more gamist than anything.

[RPG-Geek]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Simulationism leads to "selective realism" which is bad for game design. People will say stuff like "there's no way a human being could load, aim, and fire a crossbow that quickly" but nobody will ever say "magical chain lightning can't do that."

So Simulationist game design has a problem in a fantasy setting where it serves to limit all mundane ways of doing a thing, but no supernatural ways of doing literally anything; after all- it's magic.

You can have a detailed game that sets out to simulate its own reality without falling into the trap of making magic unbound while strictly binding mundane effects. Simulations want detailed games that are internally consistent not games that simulate reality but with an added dash of fantasy.

Quote:

Like PF1 only had "monsters use the same rules as PCs" in name only, since all of the monster math had several fudge factors applied behind the scenes in order to make the math work right. In the interest of transparency, PF2 has moved away from that and "why does that monster roll that number in this case" is something that's can be easily inferred from the monster rules. So what we have here is that in the less "simulationist" game I can easily design an entirely new kind of dragon from whole cloth with just the monster rules inside of an hour, whereas in the more "simulationist" game I would have to look at other dragons to figure out what the appropriate correction coefficients are.

Most people are fine with monsters using different rules, while still fitting into the same overall system as the PCs use, and 3.x even went further by allowing PCs to play monsters which entirely removed that barrier. The issue is when humanoid NPCs break rules that bind the PCs or when NPCs do things that a PC with the same resources simply cannot do.

[RPG-Geek]

moosher12 wrote:

Mild weird thing about simulationism being used as an argument though.

Isn't requiring a complicated process to do something instead of just granting it as a default a form of simulationism?

Someone used an example earlier that you'd need to gather 10,000 victory points at a library to do it. Instead of just granting the ritual on an "it does/does not bug me" basis to people who meet the prerequisites.

I'd exert that requiring the construction of a legendary artifact that takes years of study and millions of gp is adding simulation to the game, not subtracting it.

If anything, just leaving it as is was is more gamist than anything.

That was a house-rule band-aid fix to the actual change that brought on this conversation. What actually happened is that rituals that were formerly available to PCs were gated behind those PCs being mythic with a dev explanation that handwaved how an already established NPC did that same thing without being mythic boiling down to "Eh, NPCs just get to do things when the story needs them to." If he'd said something like, "Sometimes NPCs have greater time and resources than PCs and this allows them to do things your characters generally can't. That said, if you do have the time your GM should be willing to work with you to do things outside of normal PC limits." I think we'd be less upset with the explanation and what it means for the direction PF2 is moving in.

[moosher12]

RPG-Geek wrote:

That was a house-rule band-aid fix to the actual change that brought on this conversation. What actually happened is that rituals that were formerly available to PCs were gated behind those PCs being mythic with a dev explanation that handwaved how an already established NPC did that same thing without being mythic boiling down to "Eh, NPCs just get to do things when the story needs them to." If he'd said something like, "Sometimes NPCs have greater time and resources than PCs and this allows them to do things your characters generally can't. That said, if you do have the time your GM should be willing to work with you to do things outside of normal PC limits." I think we'd be less upset with the explanation and what it means for the direction PF2 is moving in.

I'm aware it was a house rule. More the point is that adding limiters in general is adding simulationism to the game, not making the game more gamist, and that "we're not trying to be a simulation" feels incorrect here. That it's more simulationist to require you to do more things to get an option than less.

[Ravingdork]

I still remember the 3e days of D&D where monsters used similar leveling systems to that of PCs (in that they had "monster hd" that functioned sorta like "class levels"). However, to get the numbers needed to BE MONSTERS, they had all sorts of cheats built in, like tons of arbitrary natural armor to AC.

TTRPGs have never been simulationist even when the fans claim otherwise.

[RPG-Geek]

moosher12 wrote:

RPG-Geek wrote:

That was a house-rule band-aid fix to the actual change that brought on this conversation. What actually happened is that rituals that were formerly available to PCs were gated behind those PCs being mythic with a dev explanation that handwaved how an already established NPC did that same thing without being mythic boiling down to "Eh, NPCs just get to do things when the story needs them to." If he'd said something like, "Sometimes NPCs have greater time and resources than PCs and this allows them to do things your characters generally can't. That said, if you do have the time your GM should be willing to work with you to do things outside of normal PC limits." I think we'd be less upset with the explanation and what it means for the direction PF2 is moving in.

I'm aware it was a house rule. More the point is that adding limiters in general is adding simulationism to the game, not making the game more gamist, and that "we're not trying to be a simulation" feels incorrect here. That it's more simulationist to require you to do more things to get an option than less.

Limitations aren't inherently more simulationist though. Invisible walls are an example of limits that break immersion. Retcons which add limits to things that used to work differently are another example of limits that harm verisimilitude.

Limitations alone are not the only thing that defines well-simulated a system is. Added detail and explanation can add a sense of reality to a system. Ars Magica is vastly more detailed than PF2 and simulates magic in a way that feels more real than every spell being a set rank with set effects and it does so in a way that adds freedom rather than restricting it.

[RPG-Geek]

Ravingdork wrote:

I still remember the 3e days of D&D where monsters used similar leveling systems to that of PCs (in that they had "monster hd" that functioned sorta like "class levels"). However, to get the numbers needed to BE MONSTERS, they had all sorts of cheats built in, like tons of arbitrary natural armor to AC.

TTRPGs have never been simulationist even when the fans claim otherwise.

Yet for anything that wasn't a monster, they used the same rules as the PCs and Savage Species was released which gave PCs access to monsters allowing PCs to use those same "cheats" providing full parity.

[Scarablob]

I won't argue and say that strict simulationist design is better than what we have in PF2, but there is a certain elegance that arise when the rules flawlessly mesh into the world, especially in immersive tabletop game such as this one, and that PF2 strict adherence to "balance before all" do often lack this element, making it more difficult to get immersed into it's world. And whenever a NPC visibly demonstrate that they work on different "physics" than the PC, it further harm this immersion.

To me, a game like this one should ideally find a good balance that allow for the gameplay to be easy to grasp and run smoothly while still showing a world that feel "real" and alive beyond what the player experience. Despite it's failing, and despite the fact that player and NPC ar build on entirely different rules, PF2 mostly manage to protect that "realness" by having the the NPC act in gameplay in ways that feel consistent with the players own possible action, but because they are built on different rule, it's all an illusionist act that must be performed carefully. If it's not, you have things like human soldier NPC that hit like a fully geared up level 12 PC but carry entirely mundane equipment.

Personally, I think that PF2 fail often enought to maintain the act that I can't consider it "strictly better" than the first edition (which is why I play both). Ease of building and more balanced combat is nice, but the world feel more vivid to me when I'm playing with 1e rules. Altho maybe GMing 2e will make me change my mind, I've run (almost) an entire 1e AP as GM but still only ever played 2e as a player.

[R3st8]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Simulationism leads to "selective realism" which is bad for game design. People will say stuff like "there's no way a human being could load, aim, and fire a crossbow that quickly" but nobody will ever say "magical chain lightning can't do that."

Anime and manga often grant warriors abilities such as chi, tao, or cultivation for good reasons. First, if warriors are merely regular fighters, it limits the potential strength of their enemies and Second: martial characters will feel overshadowed by mages if the latter become too powerful in comparison, which also lowers the ceiling for other classes. Therefore, it makes sense to give supernatural powers upon warriors as well.

[Ravingdork]

RPG-Geek wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

I still remember the 3e days of D&D where monsters used similar leveling systems to that of PCs (in that they had "monster hd" that functioned sorta like "class levels"). However, to get the numbers needed to BE MONSTERS, they had all sorts of cheats built in, like tons of arbitrary natural armor to AC.

TTRPGs have never been simulationist even when the fans claim otherwise.

Yet for anything that wasn't a monster, they used the same rules as the PCs and Savage Species was released which gave PCs access to monsters allowing PCs to use those same "cheats" providing full parity.

*Laughs at "full parity"*

If you think Savage Species provided parity to anything, then your perception of the facts is so skewed that there is no point in even debating the matter with you.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think the "monsters should/shouldn't use different rules from PCs" is also kind of missing the point.

Since "Create Demiplane" being a mythic ritual means Karzoug couldn't cast it, since he's non-mythic. But nothing about "Create Demiplane" being mythic indicates "this is the only way to create a demiplane." There are potentially other spells, rituals, and items (including artifacts) that are capable of creating demiplanes with their own costs and limitations different from the Mythic ritual.

And "creating bespoke spells, abilities, items, etc. for antagonists to enable them to do what they need to be able to do" is in no way a new thing in this hobby. After all, in PF1e Karzoug literally had a unique spell the PCs could learn after taking his spellbook (making it no longer unique.) It wouldn't be in any way a stretch to say "Karzoug used a different ritual with significantly higher materials cost." Mythic Create Demiplane is a bargain at 800GP, after all.

[Witch of Miracles]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the "monsters should/shouldn't use different rules from PCs" is also kind of missing the point.

Since "Create Demiplane" being a mythic ritual means Karzoug couldn't cast it, since he's non-mythic. But nothing about "Create Demiplane" being mythic indicates "this is the only way to create a demiplane." There are potentially other spells, rituals, and items (including artifacts) that are capable of creating demiplanes with their own costs and limitations different from the Mythic ritual.

And "creating bespoke spells, abilities, items, etc. for antagonists to enable them to do what they need to be able to do" is in no way a new thing in this hobby. After all, in PF1e Karzoug literally had a unique spell the PCs could learn after taking his spellbook (making it no longer unique.)

Yeah, but the important thing there (as we've said repeatedly) is if those same options are also available to PCs if they put themselves in a similar position. The most important part of what you just said isn't that the spell is unique to Karzoug before beating him; it's that the PCs can learn it afterwards. Complaining about Karzoug having a spell the PCs don't have access to before beating him is, frankly, more of a game balance or game design complaint ("it's not fair I couldn't get it beforehand!") than a simulationism complaint. It's not weird that the old wizard man from an ancient civilization has some funny magic; a wide, unfiltered availability of spells is more gamist than simulationist if anything. What would be weird—from a simulationist perspective—would be if it was a spell like every other spell you use, and you got his spellbook and you couldn't learn it.

[PossibleCabbage]

I feel like the thing is "the spells, items, and rituals used by ancient Thassilonian Wizards thousands are years ago aren't available to modern people because of the whole Earthfall thing" is actually fairly Simulationist. There's lots of things Ancient people did that we don't know how they did it, and Golarion has Ancient people who were significantly more advanced than Modern people are.

Paizo could put out a supplement for Ancient Thassilonian and Azlanti Magic, but they just haven't bothered to.

[Witch of Miracles]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like the thing is "the spells, items, and rituals used by ancient Thassilonian Wizards thousands are years ago aren't available to modern people because of the whole Earthfall thing" is actually fairly Simulationist. There's lots of things Ancient people did that we don't know how they did it, and Golarion has Ancient people who were significantly more advanced than Modern people are.

Paizo could put out a supplement for Ancient Thassilonian and Azlanti Magic, but they just haven't bothered to.

It would really depend on why they aren't available, honestly. So yeah, it could be simulationist or not simulationist for you to be able to learn Karzoug's magic, depending on the diegetics of the situation.

I would just assume magic works the same for both players and Karzoug based on the context.

[moosher12]

Another funny case is Vordakai in Kingmaker who used Imprison on *Censored*.

The game explicitly states that when you get his spellbook, you get the Imprisonment ritual. In the latest edition, you'd get a ritual you would not be able to cast.

There is no lesser non-mythical version of the ritual to gain. So if you get this ritual, it's just as good as the mythic version.

[Ravingdork]

Vordakai is mythic now!?

Oh man. Our Kingmaker party is screwed.

[PossibleCabbage]

What if-

One of the side effects of the Godsrain involves "certain old Magics stopped working" so Vordakai (and anybody else) could cast Imprisonment pre-Godsrain, but now that same ritual just doesn't work anymore because the universe is broken in weird metaphysical ways what with all the divine viscera all over.

[RPG-Geek]

Ravingdork wrote:

*Laughs at "full parity"*

If you think Savage Species provided parity to anything, then your perception of the facts is so skewed that there is no point in even debating the matter with you.

The monsters as classes design of Savage Species did tend to run weak, but the actual guidelines could be used to give players access to any monster in the game. Given that a player could theoretically play any monster, I don't see how you can dispute the idea of full parity in that system.

[RPG-Geek]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

What if-

One of the side effects of the Godsrain involves "certain old Magics stopped working" so Vordakai (and anybody else) could cast Imprisonment pre-Godsrain, but now that same ritual just doesn't work anymore because the universe is broken in weird metaphysical ways what with all the divine viscera all over.

Paizo could have made that change if they wanted to, but they didn't. I also don't like the idea that we should encourage removing player-facing options and excusing them with freshly written lore.

[PossibleCabbage]

RPG-Geek wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

What if-

One of the side effects of the Godsrain involves "certain old Magics stopped working" so Vordakai (and anybody else) could cast Imprisonment pre-Godsrain, but now that same ritual just doesn't work anymore because the universe is broken in weird metaphysical ways what with all the divine viscera all over.

Paizo could have made that change if they wanted to, but they didn't. I also don't like the idea that we should encourage removing player-facing options and excusing them with freshly written lore.

I don't think they either did or didn't make that choice. There's a lot of fallout from the Godsrain that we just don't know about yet. If they were going to comment on "magic works different now" they would do it in the book that we start playtesting the classes from on Monday.

[RPG-Geek]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

RPG-Geek wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

What if-

One of the side effects of the Godsrain involves "certain old Magics stopped working" so Vordakai (and anybody else) could cast Imprisonment pre-Godsrain, but now that same ritual just doesn't work anymore because the universe is broken in weird metaphysical ways what with all the divine viscera all over.

Paizo could have made that change if they wanted to, but they didn't. I also don't like the idea that we should encourage removing player-facing options and excusing them with freshly written lore.

I don't think they either did or didn't make that choice. There's a lot of fallout from the Godsrain that we just don't know about yet. If they were going to comment on "magic works different now" they would do it in the book that we start playtesting the classes from on Monday.

I'd think it would be noted in the source that gave the rituals themselves that the underlying magic they use has been changed. Even then, if those are the only rituals changed the lore would have to be very well written to make it seem like anything by a CYA move in response to community feedback.

[exequiel759]

I mean, the Godsrain can only get you so far. Yeah, a god was killed but Gorum didn't have anything to do with magic and (AFAIK) there's no deity that has such a grasp on magic whose death could cause such an effect. Nethys is the only deity I can't think of and we know they aren't going to kill another of the core 20, not to mention I would prefer the Godsrain didn't became an excuse for whatever thing the devs want to retcon personally.

Everyone has been supportive about the changes Paizo had to made due to the OGL because we also don't want them to get a lawsuit from WoTC, but I want to make it clear that we (or I at least) don't want meaningless retcons that don't really make it better for GMs or players.

[Ravingdork]

RPG-Geek wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

*Delivers scathing riposte*

*Responds with passionate rebuttal*

It's off-topic for this thread.

[Perpdepog]

RPG-Geek wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

*Laughs at "full parity"*

If you think Savage Species provided parity to anything, then your perception of the facts is so skewed that there is no point in even debating the matter with you.

The monsters as classes design of Savage Species did tend to run weak, but the actual guidelines could be used to give players access to any monster in the game. Given that a player could theoretically play any monster, I don't see how you can dispute the idea of full parity in that system.

Because "running weak" and "full parity" are mutually exclusive. Either options function exactly the same for PCs as they do for monsters, or they don't. If one ends up weaker than the other, then they aren't at parity with each other.

[RPG-Geek]

Perpdepog wrote:

Because "running weak" and "full parity" are mutually exclusive. Either options function exactly the same for PCs as they do for monsters, or they don't. If one ends up weaker than the other, then they aren't at parity with each other.

The monsters run exactly as they should, it's just that 3.x monster design struggled to keep up with a normal PC so the monsters as players ended up behind the curve. My players loved using them, so I have a lot of experience with what the system implemented did well and did less well. I found that the prebuilt monsters as a class content was, outside of a few decent options, way undertuned but using the guidelines to convert new monsters actually worked pretty well.

[Errenor]

Scarablob wrote:

Despite it's failing, and despite the fact that player and NPC ar build on entirely different rules, PF2 mostly manage to protect that "realness" by having the the NPC act in gameplay in ways that feel consistent with the players own possible action, but because they are built on different rule, it's all an illusionist act that must be performed carefully. If it's not, you have things like human soldier NPC that hit like a fully geared up level 12 PC but carry entirely mundane equipment.

That's a completely nonsensical complaint. 12 lvl doesn't hit like that because of equipment. Yes, equipment helps. But they actually hit like that because they are 12th level. If levels are real for PCs and give them so much power, complaining that same levels give comparable power to NPCs makes no sense. It makes PCs and NPCs closer, not more different.

[Scarablob]

Errenor wrote:

That's a completely nonsensical complaint. 12 lvl doesn't hit like that because of equipment. Yes, equipment helps. But they actually hit like that because they are 12th level. If levels are real for PCs and give them so much power, complaining that same levels give comparable power to NPCs makes no sense. It makes PCs and NPCs closer, not more different.

Do note that I precised "a fully geared up level 12 PC", not just "a level 12 PC". Anyone playing this game understand very quickly the importance of runes in the math, especially damage wise, so when a humanoid NPC quite visibly hit with an attack power equivalent to a greater striking rune (something PC immediately experience when they get hit), but end up carrying entirely mundane equipment, it does indeed "break the illusion".

Also I didn't think that out of my whole comment that specific portion would be the one people take issue with, given that in this very thread devs already chimmed in on this topic to state that they indeed try to give NPC gears that make sense with their stats (which is why this specific issue was mostly one for early 2e AP, and not so much for the more recent ones). I specifically used that exemple because it was one that was baked up by dev comment in this very thread.

[Errenor]

Scarablob wrote:

Errenor wrote:

That's a completely nonsensical complaint. 12 lvl doesn't hit like that because of equipment. Yes, equipment helps. But they actually hit like that because they are 12th level. If levels are real for PCs and give them so much power, complaining that same levels give comparable power to NPCs makes no sense. It makes PCs and NPCs closer, not more different.

Do note that I precised "a fully geared up level 12 PC", not just "a level 12 PC". Anyone playing this game understand very quickly the importance of runes in the math, especially damage wise, so when a humanoid NPC quite visibly hit with an attack power equivalent to a greater striking rune (something PC immediately experience when they get hit), but end up carrying entirely mundane equipment, it does indeed "break the illusion"

Do note that I wrote "equipment helps". And that's it. (So maaaybe I know something about runes and such) I maintain that being high level is enough in most cases. I do agree that 12th level humanoid NPC probably shouldn't have only mundane equipment though. But nowhere close to greater striking: talking about devs, I can show you this guidance from them: Safe Items. So about +1 striking and +1 resilient is enough at 12. [Good I've reminded this to myself too, now not to forget about this while making enemies...]

[Omega Metroid]

James Jacobs wrote:

Errenor wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

In particular for imprisonment... making it mythic really helps to create narratives about ancient evils being locked away that not just anyone can let out.

This is a reasonable aim. But for this a paragraph (or a line) in the sense that rituals can have mythic versions and to implement or reverse those you must have mythic means (mythic group, help or items) should be enough, I think. So for every ancient evil you don't want to allow be freed by just any powerful entity you say it has been entrapped by a mythic version of some normal ritual.

Or we (or you, if you're the one creating the adventure) can just create something new.

In 2nd edition, only the PCs are bound by the rules for PCs. The GM gets to build things differently, using the guidelines for creating items and hazards and monsters and all that in the GM Core as a starting place.

I'm a bit late, and it's probably been said already, but this sort of view just ends up creating an "every adventurer in the entire world is able to do this with no restriction, except you specifically" sort of situation. It's not just that they're mythic rituals, it's that they're mythic rituals for PCs only, while literally every other caster can use them with or without mythic rules. That makes it come across less as the rituals suddenly being too powerful (which they kinda aren't), and more like you're taking away the players' scissors and replacing them with rounded kiddy scissors because you don't trust them not to hurt themselves.

If they were mythic for everyone, PC and NPC alike, then the "gating pre-existing content behind new rules" issue would still be there, but it probably wouldn't sit anywhere near as poorly with the community. But responding to questions by clarifying that it's mythic for PCs, but NPCs don't actually have to follow the rules because the GM can do whatever they want, makes it clear that this change is meant specifically to nerf PCs, which really isn't the sort of impression you want to give.

--------------------

Personally, what I would suggest is making a set of "lesser" rituals, as part of mythic rules specifically. When mythic rules are in use, the lesser versions can be accessed by anyone (in the same way that the originals used to be), while the original versions (now "greater" versions) explicitly require an expenditure of mythic power to use. When mythic rules aren't in use, then the rituals work as normal (in their original, pre-mythic form, with no "lesser" or "greater" versions), and aren't locked behind mythic rules. This feels like the ideal compromise between your vision and player/GM feedback, really.

[Teridax]

I think at this point it's safe to say that the new rules around these rituals being made mythic can just be ignored at a home table. This is unlikely to disrupt anything, because these rituals are only going to be made available when the GM wants them to be, and the one caveat is that if you're running a game with mythic creatures, you should have to spend a Mythic Point to target one or more mythic creatures with any ritual, not just these ones. If you're throwing a bacchanalia to entertain literal gods, for instance, that too is going to be a narrative event of mythic proportions, and so would be trying to make a pact with a mythic devil or imposing a geas on a mythic creature.

[Gobhaggo]

Witch of Miracles wrote:

I wouldn't say "selective realism" is bad for game design, because selective realism is baked into game design. You make things link up when it gives good feedback or is intuitive, and you sever it when it doesn't. And of course, you choose how detailed/crunchy/etc. you want your game to be as part of that, and what you personally think feels good. It's subjective how much realism you want, but any game that intends its mechanics to have any click or intuitivity needs some amount of simulation (or at least metaphor) to make that happen.

===

I wouldn't ever argue monsters used exactly the same rules as PCs in 1E, and I feel like I've never seen anyone argue as much, either. You'd have to not be paying attention to give your PCs access to monster feats and so on; no PC should have multiattack, etc. Monsters have plenty of bespoke interactions and abilities. And PF1E literally has its own monster construction guidelines that make it clear you're on an entirely different track from PCs.

I always feel like this "but monsters were never simulationist!" argument kind of misses the point a bit, anyways. It's less that monsters are perfect models in line with PCs and everything else, and more that the player-facing aspects of monsters tend to line up more with how players already expect things to work.

===

There's no requirement simulationism not apply to fantasy settings. There are plenty of magic-has-its-own-physics types of settings you could use as guidelines, or even make use of directly. Many readers prefer such settings, even. Thinking simulationism requires simulating the actual world is a pretty narrow way of looking at.

Okay, but I don't want simulationism to matter much. If have to get a penalty to my greatsword because I"m inside a narrow tunnel I'd gladly turn my character into nothing but a bundle of stats and power with neither family nor friends nor hated enemies.

So, in this case, I don't want wizards(or anyone) to be able to make demiplanes at all. I agree that rituals are badly designed as a baseline but the creation of a demiplane should be strictly NPC or GM fiat, hell, I take 'island creation ritual' over 'make an alternate dimension' ritual to even exist.

I think it's great that Demiplane is Mythic, after all Mythic is when non-casters get to do so too.

[LandSwordBear]

There is a problem where previously available options (regardless of how borked they already were, nor how seldom they were used, possibly but not only due to aforementioned borkiness) are now repackaged as slightly different or the same, but now available a certain other, differently achievable way, in a supplement that is specifically *not* the Core experience.

Folks are justifiably concerned that this is not good design policy, and would like not to see the like happen ever again.

At least that is what Barney the Dinosaur told me to say. Except “borkiness”. That was Gumby.