kichae

It definitely trips up people who usually just look at RPGBot to build their characters out from levels 1 - 20 before the first session. That's how I made my build choices, and it was a pretty significant stumbling block for me when I made the switch.

The blue options aren't always the best options, because the best options depend on what everyone else is doing.

Exactly this.

The game's rules are, mostly, simple, intuitive, consistent, and predictable. In fact, the rules very often seem to follow from the fiction presented at the table! Sometimes, they do it too well, even -- I've seen people complain about Trip being Athletics vs Reflex rather than Acrobatics or Fortitude, but as someone who's taken judo and karate lessons, Athletics vs Reflex is 100% right.

The rules follow the fiction at the table, and that means 9 times out of 10, if you know the fiction being presented, you can just ask for the roll that makes sense to you. No need to look anything up.

The game is also moderately systematized, and functional. That is, a lot of what 5e DMs would just treat as "roll skill against DC" is formalized into an "Action" with a concrete name. These actions act like mathematical or programming functions, in that they can take parameters. So, it's not "Trip", it's "Trip (Athletics)". If your character comes out of left field and does something acrobatic, or even magical, that I think would cause a creature to stumble and fall, then I will leverage "Trip (Acrobatics)" or "Trip (Arcana)", which now makes it an Acrobatics or Arcana roll vs Reflex. This means "Trip (x)" is actually "Roll x vs Reflex. On a success, the target falls prone, on a... etc."

Super flexible, and super intuitive. But formalized, and only presented with the default option, so it looks both complicated and rigid.

I started running the game for 8 year olds, though, and they picked it up very quickly. I do my best to run sessions totally in-fiction, but that honestly gets broken every other turn or so.

Yeah, I'm mostly just... warning people to be prepared. The Paizo forums and the subreddit both house a significant number of people that actively chase people away for treating the game as a general purpose fantasy RPG. And as someone who champions PF2 as a really solid roleplaying game, and not just a tactical combat game, I've been repeatedly and harshly told I'm doing it wrong.

Mortals & Portals is very good. They made the decision to use PF2e like 2 weeks before they started recording, and learned the game on the fly. Sometimes they trip over the rules, but they also illustrate how to fail forward in that regard.

They also run it as a Theatre of the Mind game, which a lot of people will try to convince you isn't really feasible. They fease it just fine, so I like it as an example.

Narrative Declaration also has several campaigns on YouTube. Rotgrind and Rotgoons are campaigns set in a gritty homebrew world. They had an aborted Abomination Vaults campaign that started off with the game's beginner box. They're currently running Rusthenge, which is a different beginner's adventure. They also have a series of "teaching Pathfinder 2e to VTubers" campaigns, which... They're good, but they're just the beginner's box over and over again, with different cartoon variety streamers. They use Foundry, and play gridded combat.

I don't know. My experience with the community has been a lot of people yelling "You're playing my fantasy XCOM board game wrong. You should probably play a rules-light game," and no one stepping up to challenge them.

The bestiary is also really good (and free!). There are thousands of enemies, most of which have solid gimmicks that tell you straight from the stat block how you can best run the creature. And the they're balanced to the same levels as players, so encounter power budgets are very intuitive.

The game gets a bit of a bad rap for having "nitpicky" rules, but people often seem to fail to recognize that the rules are spelling out how people already usually resolve things, rather than introducing something novel. It's written in a very systematized way, and people aren't used to reading about their intuitive experiences in systematized language.

The game's broader community's obsession with rules orthodoxy doesn't help...

The downside of PF2 is if you try to engage with the core of the online community with this "rules for if I want/need them" attitude, someone will come out of the shadows to shank you.

There's a rabid "by the rules, and all the rules" cohort within the community, and they are pretty effective at chasing new players away.

I will not make a Pathfinder joke.

I will not make a Pathfinder joke.

I will not make a Pathfinder joke.

* Kichae has a stroke.

People are very bad at explaining what they like about things, because usually they like things in contrast to things they don't like. And people who do identify what they like positively often just get told that their input isn't welcome, either.

The problem isn't whether someone is focusing on negative aspects of what you're playing or the positive aspects of what they are, it's that discussions about minority systems are often just puked up onto people who weren't asking. The conversation is often:

"Hey, how can I do [thing] in [game I'm playing]?"

"[Game you're playing] sucks at [thing]/isn't designed for [thing]. You should play [something else]."

"But I like [game I'm playing], and don't want to convert to a whole new system."

This means not only is the asker's question being totally ignored, but they're being hit with -- sometimes even bombarded by -- value judgements they weren't interested in.

FATAL fixes this.

Have you seen the discourse around 5.5? The toxic individuals are the ones bringing the culture war shit to the table. Shutting down mention of it ensures that there are only toxic tables.

They're talking the probability of failure, not the specific number on the die. If your skill bonus meets the DC, you have a 1/20 chance of failing, assuming a natural one equates to an auto-fail. If your bonus doesn't meet the DC, you have a higher chance of failing.