Pathfinder 2e’s Excessive Rules Make It Simple
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- No, I'm not crazy, hear me out!
The poor man's face I used for comical effect is the brilliant DM known as Matt Mercer. He may roll with Dungeons and Dragons rather than Pathfinder, but he is still awesome. Check him out on Critical Role: / @criticalrole
My website: gideonsgaming....
My Kofi page: ko-fi.com/gami...
Follow me on Twitter! / gideonsgaming
100% agree. I never have that moment of existential panic on how to make something happen. I know that a simple glance at the rules on Archives of Nethys will answer my question in about 5 seconds. But it does seem like a paradox and it's hard to explain to people who love 5e at first.
Soon to be demiplane ;) but yes very easy to find a ruling.
Yup.
This is exactly why I switched away from 5E to PF2E, too many vague or non-existing rules, especially on the backend (GM side). It made GMing 5E annoying and difficult in ways no modern crunchy well balanced TTRPG should ever be. 5E forces house rules and on the fly rulings and ultimately lacks consistency because of it, and that is why less rules is not easier.
I think the fact that paizo puts all of their rule books online for free while while u have to pay for everything dnd speaks volumes about how confident they are in their system and the completeness of it, they know that people will still buy it because homebrewing everything by yourself is way more effort considering how much is in every book
I also think saying "mechanics" instead of "rules" better outlines the differences, pathfinder 2e has more written out "mechanics" than dnd 5e
I like to think of "rules" when it comes to a game (be it chess, Pathfinder, a video game, etc.) kind of like a playground. I can swing on the swing set, climb on the monkey bars, slide down the slide, etc. If those structures are flimsy it's a lot harder to have the same fun.
Very well put. Particularly like the statement that the learning curve doesn't necessarily mean it's overly complex.
I think it's akin to having a more developed/advanced language. It's easier to simulate something, when you have a greater vocabulary to do what you want.
Two years later, and I finally noticed your username and who you are. I'm a big fan of your videos and receiving a compliment from The Rules Lawyer on a rules-related video is about the best thing I could have hoped for! Thanks!
Basically, why every group needs a rules guru (the LG counterpart to NE rules lawyers).
Excellent post, you deserve more subscribers. I really enjoy your videos.
That is seriously high praise since it's coming from Roll For Combat. You made my week, thanks so much!
I wouldn't say the rules make it 'simple' per say. There's still some convoluted rules interactions that don't make sense to newbies, and some systems like perception and counteracting are extremely finicky even to people who understand them. But what it makes more importantly, is that it's *consistent* and *means there is almost always a RAW answer* to any query you have about the system.
Let's be frank: most of the defence of 2e's crunchiness basically comes down to the fact 5e is the most popular TTRPG system in the world, and it has shifted the zeitgeist towards crunchy games being frowned upon. The problem is it's also - successfully, may I add - convinced a large swathe of people that it's this 'perfect middle ground' where you can have rules lite gameplay under the framework of a classic d20 system, with mechanical depth and meaningful character customisation, when really, it's a garbled mess of hard rulings mixed with 'the DM makes it up' when it's convenient.
I think the thing that's most insulting to me about people who think systems like 2e are too convoluted or bloated is they say 5e is easy to improv and make stuff up with, and then conflate it with rules lite systems that use improv as their backbone. But they're conflating NARRATIVE improv with MECHANICAL improv. The latter is what becomes taxing for DMs, as this video points out. Narrative improv is easy to do because so much of narrative is fluid and subjective and more of an artform than a science. Mechanical improv is less easy because there are hard numbers and game systems involved. You're not figuring out a story on the fly, you're figuring out the RULES on the fly. And comparing a system like 5e to a rules lite game is incredibly disingenuous, because in a rules-lite game, *you're never actually expected to improvise rulings*. You use dice to figure out the direction of the story, and then do narrative collaboration from there based on that. With 5e, you're essentially performing small acts of game design in the middle of the game. *That's not the same thing*.
I've literally seen people say systems like 2e are for bad GMs who can't improvise. As a long-term GM, I can't stand this discourse that I'm a garbage host because I'm unwilling to make up rules for my players on the fly. Not only is that disingenuously conflating mechanical improv with player collaboration, but it's missing the point: I'm here to play a *game*. I want those rules to matter, I want those mechanics to matter. I don't want to pull numbers out of my ass to just make my players feel good for rolling a dice, or make decisions that don't take into account the builds and decisions they've made for their character. If I want a more narrative experience, I'll pick a rules lite game. And that's not an insult; I LOVE rules lite games, they're great for when you want that pure narrative improv experience. But when I'm playing a d20 system, I'm there for the mechanics and building characters with tangible abilities and skills that have an impact on the game. I don't want to pick up the slack because WotC decided not to give any tangible mechanics to the medicine and survival skill, or the fact they didn't give martial characters anything fun to do apart from be beatsticks. If I have a choice between a company that does that and one that gives me hard rules to work with for my players, I'm picking the latter, any day, because they're actually supporting me as a GM.
I've told my regular players that I'm going to be running 2e now instead of 5e, because I enjoy it more as a GM and find it supports the back-end better. And the reality is, most of my players hardly notice a difference once we're actually in the game, since I'm still running it mostly the same as I was before. I'm merely using the existing rules of the game rather than having to make up shit on the fly, and have tighter systems for things like item distribution and encounter building. Even those that have told me they prefer 5e are more than happy to stick around with me playing 2e because they respect how much effort the GM puts into their group, and would rather I run a smooth ship with a story and campaign they're enjoying.
Utterly perfect response. Couldn't say it better myself.
I feel the same way. I had a few players that didn't like it the first time around. But then we did a different adventure (homebrewed) starting at level 5 and suddenly they saw the player versatility that they complained didn't exist in the game because our first attempt was level 1. I have now almost finished the adventure and the same users express that Pathfinder is better at telling different stories but that it is still good and they want to continue playing it. Can't wait for demiplanes character creator though. ;)
As a long time 3.x DM and a 5e DM for seven years I can counterpoint the entire argument in this comment. 5e has freed me from the stifling, rules lawyering, stranglehold of 'rules for everything' 3.x created cognitive overload especially running games at higher levels.
@@AKA_Kira meh, i played once at level 1, and it didn't feel that bad. Imho a good system in terms of versatility is the one that gives you enough versatility whatever is your starting point. I think that the designers of PF2 were aware of the fact that more often than not, campaigns go on only for a few months after abruptly stopping because life gets in the way of playing, and so they made the characters quite interesting even at the lower levels.
Doesn't make it easier for a lot of people, that's why they make and play other games. But if this ruleset makes it easier to play/run for your group and others, and provides the experience you want, awesome.
I agree 100% but in addition to the consistency at your table, these rules create consistency across all tables. Disarm at table A will work the same at table B, C, and D. Players and GMs both know what to expect.
You know, as a forever GM, I never actually thought of that point but you're totally right. While GMs have varying styles in how they run games, there should be a lot of mechanical carry-over between tables that make those transitions less of a shell shock.
"The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom" -John Locke
Casting Raise Dead…
TL;DR: I think you are incorrect.
Thanks for making this video, it helped crystallize an idea for me I have been thinking about lately. Also I like a lot of what Paizo has been putting out lately even if i’m not into PF2 and I’ll be adopting it for my own purposes i.e. neither a PF2 hater nor a 5E apologist.
I don’t think the rules in PF2 are hard, there are just too many.
Your assertion is that rules provide consistency and that makes the game easier to understand. There are two kinds of consistency: actual and perceived. I will assert that only perceived matters to the PCs. Yes, there are exceptions, but I’m not going to hang a whole game on them.
I think why most 5E players bounce off of systems that have more rules is because 5E has a single, simple system in place that provides perceived consistency. A system that can be applied to anything. Here is the formula:
World acting on player: [saving throw] (type modifier e.g. dex +2)+ (proficiency bonus, if any) + (d20) +(advantage|disadvantage|none) >= DC
Player acting on world: [stat/skill check] (stat|skill proficiency bonus e.g. dex +2) + (d20) +(advantage|disadvantage|none) >= DC
That’s it. I can use those for any ruling I need. They provide flexibility, speed and perceived consistency.
The difference, in programming terms, is one is a function that takes a few params, and the other is a look-up table with a whole lot of conditional expressions.
I’m not saying that one is better, that is preference, but trying to assert that more rules is easier is disingenuous. More rules simply provides a higher resolution of construct for those that feel the need or preference for it.
I bought a LOT of DnD content. Over the course of ~less than a year I've replaced all of it with Pathfinder 2e. Not only are the rules more complete, but so are the adventures.
Running Icewind Dale for 5e was an exercise in rewriting and filling the gaps. Running Fall of Plaguestone was simple, straight-forward, and I didn't need to change much at all. The story was complete. Gonna be running Abomination Vaults next, and I am incredibly happy to report that I can focus on making the experience great instead of trying to fix the story or fill in blanks.
(I know not everyone wants to run adventure paths, but I like them because I am very strapped for time. It allows me to run weekly games without feeling stressed out of my mind - and 2e's adventures are just SO much cleaner/better.)
I liked your video, and I like PF2. But as a devil's advocate, here's a bit of a counterpoint.
You can design a TTRPG system that has simplified rules that apply to many things.
As an example; trip, grapple, shove, etc could all be covered by a single rule that deals with interactions with enemies.
At the very simplest exyreme, 'TTRPGs' can be a theater of the mind environment where everything is determined by the flip of coin.
And it's definitely possible to make one ruleset more complicated than another, and have more rules, even though those rules can all be used to address the same in game actions in both systems.
-
Thanks for the video! I enjoyed your points.
I think the difference for me here is how those rules can tangibly effect the game, and how the lack of them can create holes in the experience.
Take DnD 3.5/PF1e for example. Think of the grapple rules in those games. How convoluted were they? Not only were they convoluted, but they were extremely situational and really not that effective a strategy in the overall meta of the game. They were technically supported, but no-one really enjoyed them, let alone ruling them.
Compare that to 5e where you have skills like medicine and survival that have *no* mechanical impetus surrounding them. There, you have NO support for those skills, and any use is entirely dependent on the DM's ruliings. Compare that to athletics, perception, stealth, etc that have very real and tangible gameplay effects.
The issue that d20 systems have faced traditionally is this reconciliation between crunchy rules and accessibility. If you make it too convoluted, it turns wider audiences off. If you make it too simple, it makes the game experience dull for people who want something meaningful in those mechanics. Like take your example of those athletics checks; what is the meaningful difference between them? What advantage is there to shoving vs grappling or tripping? How do they interact with build choices your character can make? How do you design it in a way that makes them all useful, without one being objectively superior to the other, or just making them all useless?
I think it's reductive to suggest they reach the same ends, with complexity itself being a subjective preference. If there's one thing I've learnt in years of playing games, it's that the method has far more impact on the end result than people like to admit. If there was a simple solution to issues of game design and balance, people would just choose the most expedient option, because no-one wants to be complicated if they can avoid it. But the reality is, many of these design choices and the problems associated with them *don't* have easy solutions. If I could play a system as simple as DnD 5e but have the balance and design tightness of PF2e, I absolutely would. But until such a system exists, you can't compromise. You either have the streamlined gameplay of 5e, or the mechanical depth and tightness of 2e. Speculation of a reconciled system is just postulation until it becomes a reality.
THANK YOU! The first two minutes are the ENTIRE reason I switched to PF2e and NEVER looked back. Subbed! If you are looking for any lore content or want to do a collab, hit me up!
Lore is definitely one of the weaker gaps in my GMs tool kit, so I'm glad you commented, I'm going to find your videos very helpful! I'm happy you enjoyed the video, I'm definitely going to enjoy yours!
@@GideonsGaming glad I can be of assistance!
the constraints of rules are the scaffolding to build a collaborative story
Great way to put it!
Standing Ovation. You explained why having rules is good. This would shut up all the haters, but none of them are coming from a rational perspective and are just repeating D&D 5e rule light propaganda.
I spent most of my first year dming 5e constantly checking the book for ruling confirmation. In the 5 years since then I've become an encyclopedia of 5e rules and can run the game without any reference if I really wanted to. (The core rules and most spells, although I still look at spells/stat blocks/abilities on occasion for ease of ruling).
Now with WotC burning my hobby to the ground I am in the process of jumping ship and trying new systems. PF 2E seems nice, and with this video and others I look forward to sticking my head in a book for the next year until once again I have the same encyclopedic proficiency with the system as I had with 5e.
Maybe it'll go faster this time. We shall see.
The Critical Role game started as a PF1e game, but they shifted to DnD5e for the stream ^^
I still have hope that they might change over to PF2e, but I doubt it ^^
Not for 7 player group. PF2 is great, but I think 3-4 players is the target size of the group for that system.
@@hekilightbringer298 it's actually quite easy to balance encounters for more in PF2e. The group I run for is a party of 6.
@@WhiteSpyder170 Does combat for 6 in PF2E feel too slow or not? How do you handle it (pacing)?
@@hekilightbringer298 pacing-wise, we're a little slower than I'd like, but I think that's more due to 6 players and a GM learning a new system and learning Foundry VTT. Once we get a few more under our belts, I expect it to pick up a little.
Pacing aside, I find the combats so far to be more engaging. The 3 action system is super clear with what you can do, and there's a lot less move + stand in one place and trade punches kinda stuff.
Totally agree. I find 5e much more mentally tiring to run than Pathfinder, and less fun as a result. I realised I prefer my games already fully designed (and tested and balanced), rather than having to fill in many holes myself.
I wouldn't consider those additional rules as an overcomplication, but i don't think that they make the game more consistent. A lot of different scenarios can simply fall into the several categories, not fall into any of categories or look like it is clearly connected to some piece of knowledge or feat, so by not giving the dm more power to come up with one-time rules on the fly the session and game at large can start feel artificial and oversimplified. Dice rolls and rulebook aren't laws of the universe that bring consistency. More like an oversimplified model for better interactions. Math is much more complicated than 2+2=4, for there are different models for different situations.
100%. Pf2e is a brilliant system. As a die-hard D&D player, playing the PF2e beginner box with my children really opened my eyes. The balance [especially at later levels] & scalability FREES a GM to homebrew. There is a symmetry to the system which rewards trust & enhances [GREATLY] flavor.
I've always hated traditional "tanky" fighters, yet Chosen One & the incredible PF2e architecture & passion for EVERY class made my [recent build] fighter character a JOY to play. PF2e is the only system which enhances flavor in every class.
Granted, I love D&D, but the strategic depth & consistency of "math" in PF2e truly simplify the experience.
To me, this is the perfect gaming system. Great video & analysis. The trouble is too many view PF2e from the PF1 experience [as if PF2e is D&D... which PF2e is definitively NOT]. PF2e FIXES nearly every issues I've had with PF1 & D&D.
Paizo simply "gets it". I've not regretted a single purchase from Paizo. Every expansion seems to read my mind on what I hope to see. Paizo retains a true PASSION for TTRPG gaming.
Please support Paizo [if inclined]. Value & options are vital, in my view.
What's more, in P2e when there is something that there isn't a rule for, you have all of these other rules as examples to guide you.
When you do something in the real world, you generally have an idea if it's something you can do reliably, if it's a little iffy, or you're just hoping for some good luck. The player of a game knowing the rules covers this instinct.
Exactly, that's a great way to put it.
I have (currently) been working on adding content from Secrets of Magic to TOS 2nd PRO edition (I am a 3rd party developer, and that is my tool for Pathfinder 2e) and I just completed adding the MAGUS for the next release of the PRO edition. Working through the MAGUS, I was thinking that it seemed quite complex to play!! Seems RUclips read my mind, and showed me this video of yours to alleviate my fears... Well done!!
+1 like, +1 subscriber
Well done!!! Enjoyed your take on the rules.
~Fritz
Pathfinder 2: the game for people who like looking things up. Seriously, it's impossible to play this game without having Nethys open constantly. Even worse, the rules are scattered throughout the book, so you need to keep flipping back and forth in order to adjudicate nearly every simple action. For example, you get poisoned by a monster. The Monster Description has the base effects of the poison, although it's likely the poison gives you one or more conditions, so you need to look all those up as well. Also a poison effect is an affliction, so you need to flip over and reference the rules for the afflictions as well. And suppose someone tries to cure you, then you need to reference the appropriate spell or skill to determine how to adjudicate that, and those spells or skills have traits or tag, so you need to make sure you flip over to reference those... it just keeps going. A computer could automate a lot of this page-flipping, but for a TTRPG, it gets in the way.
This video appeals to my Lawful Neutral side. Great job!
I prefer not being confined by an extremely specific rules system. As long as the DM has the end-goal of delivering a great collaborative story along with the players, coming up with DC checks isn't difficult to do on the spot. You have 18 Str? You break the door down on 2-6 on a d6. Is it iffy they can do something? They do it on a 4-6. I prefer that to trying to make it a CRPG, though admittedly it requires the DM to be fair and consistent. I just think it's more fun and spontaneous to not have to flip through books and character sheets and feats etc. etc. ad nauseam to do stuff
Very well put!
This is why I never switched from 3.5 to 5e.
The problem with having to make lots of homebrew rules, is that you have to relearn the homebrew rules everytime you play with a different group.
I both agree and disagree with this specifically with how it relates to the specific actions of Pathfinder 2e. Having a set rule for how those things should be handled is great but I also feel it creates a problem where suddenly both players and the GM think that those are the ONLY viable actions and anything not specifically listed as an action is not something they can do. I've always been the type to allow and encourage the use of skills in combat. For example say the rouge wants to use their acrobatic skill to move through a threatened square and avoid an attack of opportunity according to rules as written that isn't allowed how ever because I like that sort of thing I am just going to call for an acrobatic check. With the DC being the creature's to hit plus 10 if they succeed they get don't trigger an attack of opportunity, if they fail they do trigger one, if the succeed by 10 or more the enemy is flat footed to their next attack, if they fail by 10 or more they trigger the attack and they are flat footed to that attack of opportunity. I'd allow the some sort of thing with a faint using the deception skill. But again I have always liked that sort of thinking and encouraged my players to do stuff like that. To me you shouldn't need a rule in the book telling you something is explicitly allowed as long as it is a reasonable option. In my mind having a strict way that things must be done because a player has now taken feats and built their character around that mechanic doesn't really add anything to how I run other systems but it does now mean that those options are strictly better or at least need to be handled slightly differently than how I would handle certain actions that do not have an explicit action associated with them because those are are going to be inherently less powerful because of the lack of ability to build into them.
Actually that is allowed by the general rules for acrobatics in 2e, with the tumble through action. There are feats that make it better, same with a feint or creating a diversion to hide, but any character can take an action to do those RAW.
Literally the most excessive amount of rules of any Table Top Game in my entire 33 years of life. It's to the point of really needlessly so, especially in combat...
It's not fun at all, people may bitch that 5e is too "simple" but the simplicity of it *Works* and works consistently. And it's a Table Top Game, rules can be changed an altered as needed to make it more complex for D&D. But trying to simplify PF 2e is just a nightmare. .. And some things just don't seem properly balanced like Ranged combat is insanely weak with it's extra steps and extra rules, etc etc.
Completely agree
But when every simple and intuitive action needs a didicated rule, that's why you end up with a 600+ pages core book that detracts and bogs down game play, and is just another source of interpretation. I will throw a curve ball here: use PF2 Dispel Magic and try to convince me this rule "is easy an not ambiguous" by just looking at the rules in the book... lol
Also, this video is aimed more toward people playing 5th, which I never played. But I played DnD since BECMI and stopped with 4th because was horrible, and started back last year with PF2 (thinking it was a refresh of PF1 who was itself a better 3.5... damn we were fooled) and frankly, that 600+ page core rule book is not cutting it at all and is instead quite limiting the freedom we were accutomed to have (compared to 3.5). You are no longer player a hero, you're just a "toon" in a table-top MMO.
This doesn't take into account the breaking up of the moment of the game when taking the time to find the rule, especially when you don't find it immediately, where as an experienced gm never can easily avoid that by coming up with stuff on the spot. Granted a rules argument could happen over the improvisation, but that can also happen with set rules, it honestly happens more in my experience, and this can also be avoided with setting of game running expectations during a session 0
As someone who's played a decent amount of both PF2 and 5e over the last few months I can confidently say that the rules aren't that hard to look up and don't really slow the game down too much compared to coming up with a ruling. Sure, a skilled GM can BS things in a matter of seconds, but Paizo's done an amazing job of making looking things up as painless as possible with online, searchable, and most importantly FREE rules references via AoN. If you give me a rules question about PF2 that has a definitive answer (because if it doesn't, then the answer is to make something up, same as 5e), then I can get you an answer and understand how to rule it inside and out in a minute or so... maybe 2 if it's a complicated rule. And from then on I should have a better understanding of the rule and may not need to look it up next time.
It's also worth noting that just because rules for something exist doesn't mean that the GM isn't allowed to make up rules for it on the spot to keep the game moving the first time it comes up. And even in those cases it can still be helpful to have rules somewhere out there in case the GM wants to look it up after the session and rule it the official way going forward instead of stressing over whether the rule they made up on the spot was balanced / makes sense or not.
I too have played a lot of both. From my experience, a minute (which is best case) can break momentum, a second usually doesn't, and because there are so many rules, its easy to go on a chase for a rule that doesn't exist or is obscure because your approach for these cases is to look for a rule, and there might not be one. It can take a bit to determine that there isn't a clear rule if you want to find the official rule instead of improvise.
I think the big thing is that, usually, having a consistant way in dealing with something that may not come up more than a handful of times in an entire campaign has no real impact on player experience, but the breaking of momentum that doesn't happen with improvisation (like just asking for a skill check for example). Even though a particular rule may also only break up the momentum a handful of times as well, the approach will apply to several different rules and so will end up adversely it impacting player experience often by breaking momentum, especially during combat when we want things to be exciting and fast paced; basically whenever a player is creative.
That said, if you are after a robust combat with well difined constraints and strategy (you value the wargame aspect of RPGs highly), rules are likely important to you. If you're after rp and story telling, they likely aren't. Having a consistant rule for an action usually has no real impact to rp and story, just serves as an opportunity to spend 5 minutes looking for a rule while players disengage.
@@t-moneymayhem7386 I feel like you completely skipped over what I consider to be one of my main points (the entirety of the second paragraph). Just because a rule exists doesn't mean you have to dig around to look it up the first time it comes up. You can still always make something up if you feel like you need to in the moment. And quite frankly, if you're the kind of GM who's capable of coming up with rules faster than looking them up then you're probably familiar enough with coming up with rules that you have a general idea when it is and is not a good idea to attempt to do so. The existence of the rules merely gives the GM the option of looking it up instead of forcing them to come up with it themselves.
Also, let's not forget that the video was about PF2's rules making the game simpler, not making it smoother. I would argue that it makes it smoother as well, but it *definitely* makes it simpler if you ask me. It's got a bit of a learning curve (especially for the GM), but I've had more success introducing people new to TTRPGs to pf2 than I have to 5e.
@@Aw3som3-117 ya, I didn't really address that because ignoring the rules would be opposite to using them and so taking that approach is to me saying that the rules are more harmful than useful, which is my point. Rules are definitely good, they just need to add more than they remove and I think pf2e exceeds that sometimes.
In terms of simpler vs smoother, I'd first argue that a smoother experience is what matters, that is as long as the players are engaged, feel like they have agency, etc.
As for simpler, less moving pieces nessessarily means simpler, ergo less rules is simpler. I get the point in the video that the rules you'll end up needing are predifined instead of improvised, and because they are set, there is less variability in those rules in pf2 making it simpler, but in my experience, the improvised rules used typically fit one framework, so really, when a rule is improvised, on loose template is usually applied instead of the numerous rules that exist when rules are predifined like in pf2.
I kind of left that alone though because the qualitative aspect of smooth player experience was what I thought the video just flat out didn't consider (versus me disagreeing on the conclusion, which is the "simple" thing)
I think you're overlooking the fact that the DM decides whether and how much time to spend looking for a rule and when to abort searching text and move on with an improvised rule. This sounds like a time management problem not a system problem... and Honestly If a DM is having a problem finding all of the rules they should assign one of the players as their team's rules lawyer. CLARIFY: I do Not mean the derogatory stereotype we use Rules Lawyer to mean today, I mean how Original D&D used the term, a player whose job it is to when asked by the DM to look up a rule for them. When the DM doesn't know a rule, or if there is a rule they ask the table if they remember, if no one does the DM improvises a ruling this once but first asks the Rules Lawyer to search for the rule in between turns or scenes, they then proceed with the game and the Rules Lawyer tells everyone how the rule works once they find it, if they find it, and they record a note on the page number and rule book the rule was in so the table has a reference for it later. Back in the day when some systems had literally hundreds of books this was almost necessary.
3.x had excessive rules. It did NOT make running the game simple. Lesson learnt. Which is why I avoid PF1e and 2e like the plague.
The arguments around feats are also flawed. Having feats is great - unless you don't have the feat but want to try what the feat allows. What happens then, the DM has to make up the rule. So feats gatekeep what a PC can do. Lesson learnt from 3.x.
The DM experiences cognitive overload, especially once you start to reach level 8 plus due to excessive rules.
Excessive rules lead to rule lawyering and drags out combat - again based on actual experience not white room theorising.
The bias against gm-fiat is staggering. Ive gm'd for over 20 years and ive never had issues improvising complex and nuanced situations with simple judhement calls. If they change a little here or there ive never taken malicious action towards my pcs and have never had an issue. This school of thought is not 'wrong' just ignorant. Rules are fine, but a good gm is better, and a good pc is best. Too much 'definition' by rules can make events so dull and homogenized. I like a firm foundation with room to improvise.
You will always have to improvise and that's half the fun. When hired thugs were burning the tavern my players were staying at and the orc fighter had the idea to grab his bed and dive out the window on top of the bad guy below, I had to improvise and it was great and I love that stuff. But I don't have to improvise common, repeatable concepts because the rules have me covered. Furthermore, knowing how so many actions already function in P2 instantly gave me the tools I needed to improvise my player's diving bed attack within seconds of him asking if he could do it.
In the case of P2, rules aren't the enemy of GM fiat or improvisation, they are an ally. They are the foundation for the stage that your improv sits.
This video was never about Rules versus Improv. It was about addressing the idea that Pathfinder 2e is super complicated because of the rules when I find the opposite to be true, along with several other advantages such as consistency. In my eyes, TTRPGs are a mating of rules and improv. Without the rules you aren't playing a game, you're collaborative writing without the writing. Without the improv, you're playing a board game, not an RPG.
@@GideonsGaming its just your video displays a chad vs beta sort of tone in the comparison. I think i get where youre coming from after this clarification.
personally, I like a good set of mechanics to basically simulate things that are minor for me
Like if they want to fight and try wild stuff which I think the long list of defined actions in PF2 helps encourage, but it doesn't have a rule on what a bad guy who is just working for money would be doing if the heroes stopped his plot, but he got away. The human aspects are what I can think about, and how the actions affect the narrative, the neety gritty can be ignored some.