• UNY0N@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    I assume you are playing 2e.

    I definitely get that. Pathfinder (like D&D and other rules-heavy TTRPGs) has a learning curve, and things can get confusing for newer players.

    Imho any game is either rules-heavy, and as such closer to reality with more defined rules for various situations, or it is rules-light, where GM-Interpretation is other needed to determine what to role. (Or somewhere in between)

    Any rules-heavy game is going to take time to learn, and sometimes it will be unclear what is correct. But I find that the PF2e rules are actually very clear, you just have to pay close attention to the wording.

    For example, if you get an attack of opportunity(AoO), can you grapple instead of attacking? Can you trip?

    The answer is in the descriptions of those actions. An attack of opportunity allows for a strike action. A grapple is a standard action. A trip is a strike action. So a trip is allowed, a grapple isn’t.

    The entire game is built like this. Can a barbarian use this action while raging? Well, does it have the rage trait? If not, then no. Spells no longer have levels, they have ranks, so that no one confuses them with character level. It’s all in the wording.

    But again, I’m approaching this as a TTRPG veteran who has GMed systems like shadowrun and world of darkness, that are basically the poster-children for needlessly complicated and/or conflicting rules. I totally understand that any rules-heavy game can be confusing.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Imho any game is either rules-heavy, and as such closer to reality with more defined rules for various situations, or it is rules-light, where GM-Interpretation is other needed to determine what to role. (Or somewhere in between)

      I don’t think more rules necessarily mean more like reality. You can have a bunch of rules for grappling, and create a system that anyone who actually does hand-to-hand stuff would say is nonsense.

      That said, I think a lot of people would enjoy lighter systems than d20. Maybe not the people who get a kick out of the “lonely fun” of reading about builds online, but the people who just show up to play and the people who are there for a story? They’d probably be happier in Fate.

      • UNY0N@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I do agree. The most fun I’ve ever had with a TTRPG is as a player in a Monster of the Week game, which is super rules-light. And we do get a very good representation of real life using these mechanics, but that’s because thw GM is really good at making decisions about how mechanics work for a particular PC abilities, and then sticking to it.

    • glimse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      (My inexperience is showing - I thought Pathfinder and 2e were synonymous like…pathfinder is based on the d&d version 2e ruleset. But yes, we are playing 2e!)

      I appreciate the response, you do make some good points. After I posted that I was trying to think of examples and I think my biggest complaints might all be related to confusion using roll20 itself… Like where I’m supposed to add numbers. It wasn’t until I replaced my bow that I learned I had my first one entered totally wrong (GM noticed it when helping me input the new one) and I was doing less damage than I should have been. Obviously I can’t expect the site to have every spell and item in the game ready to add with 1 click…but it WOULD be nice if feats that modify a stat did so automationally or something. Do you know of any good guides on using roll20 specifically for 2e?

      I think the thing I wish was “better” about pathfinder is the streamlining for new players. I love dense video games so I’m not scared of that, I just wish I didn’t have to consult the rules lawyer every time something new happened. It definitely feels like a game you need to study in your off time to grasp the complexities. I think that’s my only “complaint” about the game itself.

      • AEsheron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Pathfinder 1st Edition was a branch of DnD 3.5, it is occasionally called 3.5.5 or 3.75. It is pretty much a 3rd party patch for 3.5 but uses the same core systems. That, 3.5 and PF1e, is kind of a mess.

        I’m not surprised you find PF2e confusing, but from a design standpoint I would call it clean, considering everything that is going on. It is deep, but well organized. As opposed to DnD 5e, which is relatively shallow, which can make it easier to jump into, but not as well organized. The messiest part of 5e is the “natural language” philosophy they went with, which can leave a lot of rules ambiguous. It was supposed to make it easier to intuitively pick up and play, but it also makes it much easier to have misconceptions and anything that is slightly unintuitive can easily be accidentally used the wrong way for ages. PF2e might have a lot of interconnected rules depth, but it also has a less ambiguous guide for dealing with it, which is what enfranchised players will generally mean by “clean.”

      • UNY0N@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        My PF2e GM has been using roll20 for years, I’ll talk to him and DM you some tips if he has anything. (I’ve only played in person so far)

    • 𝕸𝔞𝔩𝔦𝔫@dice.camp
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      @UNY0N @glimse

      This is Liebnitzian thinking.

      If improving the simulation always means more difficulty, then that means the rulesets are all perfectly efficient.

      However, if the rulesets are not perfectly efficient, then some of them could be made easier to learn, while still being as good or better at simulation and distinctions.

      • UNY0N@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Thanks for the knowledge dump.

        I was just describing a general relationship between complexity and realism that I have experienced, it’s certainly not a perfect correlation.