| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With how many interactions there are in a game this big, ambiguity and edge cases are going to happen. As has been shown, even M:tG has it and has to have rulings in the giant PDF for those cases, despite the effort they put in to avoid it and how the game is more limited in scope of what interactions are actually allowed (there is no exploration mode in it, for example).
MtG has vastly more interactions than PF2 and, unlike PF2, is Turing-complete, so you could technically have a deck of MtG cards simulate a game of MtG Arena. That is as close as we can reasonably get to infinite complexity within a game without some metatextual game where the point of the game is to continually add rules to the game. As PF2 isn't this sort of game, and MtG shows that you can make rules to cover a Turing-complete game, there isn't an issue here.
To avoid rules bloat, a TTRPG going with an MtG style system would naturally seek to avoid the edge cases that create said bloat. This isn't hard, as PF2 rarely has chains of actions longer than two or three, and doesn't have things like Morph, which are special actions that don't use the stack. It also lacks any zone that isn't the battlefield, doesn't need rules for upkeep, hand size, shuffling your deck, drawing cards, exiled objects, etc. Removing these things and knowing that you're designing for a TTRPG and not a TCG means you can cut a lot and thus reduce the interactions that would inflate a 20 to 100-page rules document into a 300-page tome.
Things like exploration can have the actions themselves codified, and then the rules can say something like, "Any strictly narrative action that doesn't involve a dice roll, another action as defined by the game's rules, or a bonus or penalty to a future action, is freeform and not subject to the rules in this document." You don't need rules to cover things that already don't interact with the rules.
This isn't some impossible challenge. It doesn't remove your ability to RP. It doesn't remove the need for a GM. There's a lot of fearmongering that seems very defensive and conservative. Many objections here seem to be along the lines of, "I like the game as it is and fear any change may harm my enjoyment of the system". This forum loves to tell people we can always just play PF1 of 3.x or some other system, but doesn't seem ready to accept that they may dislike PF3 and be forced to keep playing PF2 long after it's no longer supported by Paizo and has an ageing and dwindling player base.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
M:tG has to have rulings in the giant PDF for those cases
Coming back to this, they also have the Gatherer with specific rulings for each card, so you can often just look at those for the cards in question and see if anything might resolve differently than normal based on that.
Magic has tighter rules, better FAQ style rulings, and better developer transparency than PF2/Paizo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That clears up a lot Guntermench. Thank you for posting those sections.
And I can see now there is no such parallel for the phrase You’ve become senseless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That clears up a lot Guntermench. Thank you for posting those sections.
And I can see now there is no such parallel for the phrase You’ve become senseless.The thing is...this has always been the wording. This has been the case since release, it didn't change with the remaster.
People just ignore it.
Well thank you. I'm caught up at least.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That clears up a lot Guntermench. Thank you for posting those sections.
And I can see now there is no such parallel for the phrase You’ve become senseless.The thing is...this has always been the wording. This has been the case since release, it didn't change with the remaster.
People just ignore it.
I don't think it's as much ignore it as never connecting the dots between multiple places in the rules: it's not like people are ignoring part of a singular whole and completely written out in one place rule. If you do a search for 'can't act' on Nethys, the sections you mention don't show up in the first hundred entries.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright I will clarify: they've wilfully ignored it in every discussion brought up about it on this forum and Reddit.
Because it's been brought up in all of them, and people just point at the gaining and losing actions and ignore you can't act and the supporting links entirely calling it flavour text.
It looked like flavor text at first, but after time I accepted it was rules text because otherwise stunned is a worthless condition no different from slow. The can't act is what makes it better and worth the incapacitation trait. Would have been nice if it had been made more clear, but it is what it is.